Systematic review of spontaneous reports of myocarditis and pericarditis in transplant recipients and immunocompromised patients following COVID-19 mRNA vaccination.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether spontaneous reporting rates of myocarditis and pericarditis differed in immunocompromised patients compared with the whole population overall, and in terms of demographics, vaccine dose and time-to-onset. DESIGN: Systematic review of spontaneously reported data from the European Union/European Economic Area (EU/EEA), the USA and the UK. DATA SOURCES: EudraVigilance (EU/EEA), Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS; USA) and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (UK) spontaneous reporting databases were searched from date of vaccine launch to 1 December 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Publicly available spontaneous reporting data for 'myocarditis' and 'pericarditis' from EU/EEA and USA following COVID-19 messenger RNA vaccines. Reports with comorbidities or concurrent medication indicative of transplantation, HIV infection or cancer ('immunocompromised' population) were compared with each overall database population. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two researchers extracted data. Spontaneously reported events of myocarditis and pericarditis were presented for immunocompromised populations for each data source, stratified by age, sex, dose and time-to-onset (where available). Seriousness of each event was determined according to the International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) Guideline E2A definition. Proportional reporting ratio (PRR) was calculated. RESULTS: There were 178 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis among immunocompromised individuals overall. Seriousness was comparable between the immunocompromised and overall populations in both databases. No trends in age or sex were observed among immunocompromised individuals. Most reports followed a second vaccine dose and occurred within 14 days. The frequency of reporting was similar to the wider population (PRR=1.36 (95% CI=0.89 to 1.82) for VAERS population). CONCLUSIONS: Myocarditis and pericarditis following COVID-19 vaccination are very rare, and benefits of COVID-19 vaccination continue to outweigh any perceived risks. Reporting rates of myocarditis and pericarditis were similar in immunocompromised individuals, however defining characteristics differed compared with the whole population; therefore, continued monitoring of adverse events following vaccination remains vital to understand differences between population subgroups.

Remdesivir in Treatment of COVID-19: A Systematic Benefit-Risk Assessment.

INTRODUCTION: There is a need to identify effective, safe treatments for COVID-19 (coronavirus disease) rapidly, given the current, ongoing pandemic. A systematic benefit-risk assessment was designed and conducted to examine the benefit-risk profile of remdesivir in COVID-19 patients compared with standard of care, placebo or other treatments. A key objective of this study was to provide a platform for a dynamic systematic benefit-risk evaluation, which starts with inevitably limited information (to meet the urgent unmet public health need worldwide), then update the benefit-risk evaluation as more data become available. METHODS: The Benefit-Risk Action Team (BRAT) framework was used to assess the overall benefit-risk of the use of remdesivir as a treatment for COVID-19 compared with standard of care, placebo or other treatments. We searched PubMed, Google Scholar and government agency websites to identify literature reporting clinical outcomes in patients taking remdesivir for COVID-19. A value tree was constructed and key benefits and risks were ranked by two clinicians in order of considered importance. RESULTS: Using the BRAT method, several key benefits and risks for use of remdesivir in COVID-19 compared with placebo have been identified. In one trial, the benefit of time to clinical improvement was not statistically significant (21 vs 23 days, HR 1.23, 95% CI 0.87-1.75), although the study was underpowered. In another trial, a shorter time to recovery in patients treated with remdesivir was observed (11 vs 15 days), with non-significant reduced mortality risk (8% vs 12%). Risk data were only available from one trial. This trial reported fewer serious adverse events in patients taking remdesivir (18%) compared with the placebo group (26%); however, more patients in the remdesivir group discontinued treatment as a result of an adverse event compared with those patients receiving placebo (12% vs 5%). CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary clinical trial results suggest that there may be a favourable benefit-risk profile for remdesivir compared with placebo in severe COVID-19 infection and further data on benefits would strengthen this evaluation. There is limited safety data for remdesivir, which should be obtained in further studies. The current framework summarises the key anticipated benefits and risks for which further data are needed. Ongoing clinical trial data can be incorporated into the framework when available to provide an updated benefit-risk assessment.

Evidence for the hERG Liability of Antihistamines, Antipsychotics, and Anti-Infective Agents: A Systematic Literature Review From the ARITMO Project.

A systematic review was performed to categorize the hERG (human ether-a-go-go-related gene) liability of antihistamines, antipsychotics, and anti-infectives and to compare it with current clinical risk of torsade de pointes (TdP). Eligible studies were hERG assays reporting half-minimal inhibitory concentrations (IC50). A "hERG safety margin" was calculated from the IC50 divided by the peak human plasma concentration (free Cmax ). A margin below 30 defined hERG liability. Each drug was assigned an "uncertainty score" based on volume, consistency, precision, and internal and external validity of evidence. The hERG liability was compared to existing knowledge on TdP risk (www.credibledrugs.org). Of 1828 studies, 82 were eligible, allowing calculation of safety margins for 61 drugs. Thirty-one drugs (51%) had evidence of hERG liability including 6 with no previous mention of TdP risk (eg, desloratadine, lopinavir). Conversely, 16 drugs (26%) had no evidence of hERG liability including 6 with known, or at least conditional or possible, TdP risk (eg, chlorpromazine, sulpiride). The main sources of uncertainty were the validity of the experimental conditions used (antihistamines and antipsychotics) and nonuse of reference compounds (anti-infectives). In summary, hERG liability was categorized for 3 widely used drug classes, incorporating a qualitative assessment of the strength of available evidence. Some concordance with TdP risk was observed, although several drugs had hERG liability without evidence of clinical risk and vice versa. This may be due to gaps in clinical evidence, limitations of hERG/Cmax data, or other patient/drug-specific factors that contribute to real-life TdP risk.

Neuropsychiatric events with varenicline: a modified prescription-event monitoring study in general practice in England.

BACKGROUND: Varenicline (Champix(®)), launched in the UK in December 2006, is indicated for the treatment of smoking cessation in adults (≥18 years of age). In 2008, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) in the UK issued a warning suggesting that varenicline was associated with disparate neuropsychiatric symptoms, including depression, suicidal thoughts and behaviour. In response to this regulatory warning, the Drug Safety Research Unit conducted a modified prescription-event monitoring (M-PEM) study to monitor the safety of varenicline. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to estimate the incidence and examine the pattern of neuropsychiatric events reported to general practitioners (GPs) in England during the immediate postmarketing period for varenicline. METHODS: A postmarketing surveillance study was conducted using the observational cohort technique of M-PEM. Patients were identified from dispensed prescriptions issued by primary care physicians between December 2006 and March 2007. Data on exposure, previous history of psychiatric illness and events reported during and after treatment were collected from questionnaires. In order to determine whether hazards for neuropsychiatric events of interest (depression, anxiety, aggression, suicidal ideation, non-fatal self-harm) were non-constant over time (which could indicate a possible association with the drug), the pattern of events was examined by plotting the smoothed hazard function estimate and then fitting a Weibull model. The Weibull model shape parameter (ß) and 95 % confidence interval were used as a test for a non-constant hazard function (where a value of 1 indicates a constant hazard over time). In addition to this analysis, the difference in incidence densities (IDs) between month 1 and months 2-3 were calculated and compared. RESULTS: The cohort comprised of 12,159 patients (median age 47 years [interquartile range 19]; 56.9 % [n = 6924 female]). The number of events reported during treatment, reason for stopping, adverse drug reactions (ADRs), and the p-value for the Weibull shape parameter were as follows: depression (n = 94; 42; 19; p = 0.144); anxiety (n = 94; 49; 9; p = 0.009); aggression (n = 7; 4; 2; p = 0.465); suicidal ideation (n = 8; 4; 1; p = 0.989) and non-fatal self-harm (n = 5; 1; 0; p = 0.771). No differences in the IDs between months 1 and months 2-3 were found for any of the events. CONCLUSION: Whilst between 7 and 17 % of neuropsychiatric events were attributed to the drug by GPs and approximately 20-50 % were given as reasons for stopping, no signal was raised using the ID differences approach, and only anxiety was flagged as a potential signal for an ADR using the Weibull model. The signal for anxiety requires further evaluation to determine whether the drug plays a part in the development of anxiety or whether it is a withdrawal symptom caused by smoking cessation. Analysis methods will lack power when the numbers of events are low even when a large number of participants are included in the study.

Safety and drug utilization profile of varenicline as used in general practice in England: interim results from a prescription-event monitoring study.

BACKGROUND: Varenicline tartrate (Champix), a new smoking cessation medicine, was launched in the UK in December 2006. Varenicline is a highly selective partial agonist of the alpha(4)beta(2) nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (alpha(4)beta(2) receptor). The partial agonistic binding leads to alleviation of symptoms of craving and withdrawal, and simultaneously prevents nicotine from binding to the alpha(4)beta(2) receptor thereby causing reduction in the rewarding and reinforcing effects of smoking. Regulatory concerns have arisen about psychiatric events associated with varenicline, including depression, suicidal ideation and changes in behaviour/emotion. AIM: To present the interim results of an ongoing study by the Drug Safety Research Unit (DSRU) monitoring the safety of varenicline. METHODS: The observational cohort study is being conducted to study the postmarketing safety of varenicline, using modified prescription-event monitoring (PEM) methodology. Patients are identified from dispensed prescriptions issued by general practitioners (GPs) from December 2006. Demographic, clinical event (during the course and 1 month after stopping varenicline, reasons for discontinuing and suspected adverse drug reactions [ADRs] to varenicline) and drug utilization data are collected from detailed study-specific questionnaires posted to GPs at least 4 months after the date of first prescription for each patient. Event incidence densities (IDs; number of first reports of an event/1000 patient-months of exposure) are calculated. RESULTS: The interim cohort comprises 2,682 patients: median age 47 years (interquartile range [IQR] 38-56), 60.7% females (n = 1627). Nausea/vomiting was the most frequent clinical reason for stopping varenicline (n = 91; 35.3% of clinical reasons) and the most frequently reported suspected ADR to varenicline (n = 60, 50.9% of patients for whom an ADR was reported). The most frequently reported psychiatric events (causality not implied) during treatment included (n; % of cohort): sleep disorder (43; 1.6%), anxiety (33; 1.2%), depression (29; 1.1%), abnormal dreams (26; 1.0%) and mood change (17; 0.6%). Two cases of attempted suicide were reported during treatment with varenicline (one patient took an overdose of a benzodiazepine with alcohol, the other slashed their wrist). Both these patients had previous history of psychiatric illness and precipitating factors for the event. CONCLUSION: This study reflects 'real life' use of varenicline. Nausea/vomiting - the event most frequently reported as an ADR and as reason for stopping treatment - is listed in the UK Summary of Product Characteristics (SPC). The most frequently reported psychiatric events are listed in the UK SPC. All patients with suicidal events either had a past medical history of psychiatric illness prior to starting varenicline and/or a precipitating factor for the event. Clinicians should closely monitor patients with pre-existing psychiatric illness who are taking varenicline. Further evaluation of events of interest including psychiatric events is ongoing. Results presented are expected to change as the cohort size increases. Results of this study should be taken into account together with other clinical and pharmacoepidemiological studies.

A modified prescription-event monitoring study to assess the introduction of Seretide Evohaler in England: an example of studying risk monitoring in pharmacovigilance.

INTRODUCTION: Monitoring was required for the introduction of non-chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) propellants in metered dose inhalers (MDIs) to ensure that there were no unexpected adverse events due to the new products. A postmarketing surveillance study has been conducted to evaluate the introduction of the MDI Seretide Evohaler (hydrofluoroalkane-134a inhaler containing salmeterol and fluticasone propionate). OBJECTIVES: To summarise the modified prescription-event monitoring (PEM) study conducted to evaluate the introduction of Seretide Evohaler and discuss the relevance of this type of study towards pharmacovigilance risk-management planning. METHODS: Modified PEM methodology was used to examine the introduction of Seretide Evohaler into general practice in England. Patients were identified from the first National Health Service prescriptions dispensed in England for Seretide Evohaler. One postal questionnaire was sent to the prescribing doctor, requesting demographic information, severity of the indication, concomitant medication for this condition, smoking history, event data 3 months prior to and 3 months after the first prescription for Seretide Evohaler and also reason for stopping if it had been stopped. Pregnancies, deaths and selected events were followed up. Incidence density ratios were calculated to compare event rates 3 months prior to and 3 months after the introduction of Seretide Evohaler. A matched cohort analysis examined oral corticosteroid use and hospital admissions between the pre- and post-exposure periods. RESULTS: The cohort comprised 13,464 patients prescribed Seretide Evohaler, with a response rate of 62%. There was no significant difference in the length of courses of oral corticosteroid use when the pre- and post-exposure periods were compared. A matched cohort analysis showed there was no increase in the use of oral corticosteroids (relative risk [RR] 0.95; 95% CI 0.90, 0.99) or hospital admissions in the post-exposure period (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.73, 1.04). When the number of patients with events were compared for the periods 3 months before and 3 months after exposure, fewer events were reported in the post-exposure period. There were 64 patients who experienced adverse events within an hour of using Seretide Evohaler, including one report of paradoxical bronchospasm and one of myocardial infarction with fatal outcome that were both assessed as possibly related to treatment. DISCUSSION: The results of the study suggest that the introduction of Seretide Evohaler was generally well tolerated. The modified methodology has allowed a comparison of the event rates before and after the introduction of this CFC-free inhaler into general practice.

Pregnancy outcome of women exposed to bupropion during pregnancy: a prospective comparative study.

OBJECTIVE: Bupropion was developed for the treatment of depression, but subsequently was found to be effective for smoking cessation. To date, there are no prospective comparative studies examining its safety in pregnancy. The primary objective was to determine whether bupropion increases the risks for major malformations above baseline. The secondary objective was to examine the rates of live births, stillbirths, spontaneous and therapeutic abortions, mean birth weight, and gestational age at birth. STUDY DESIGN: Women who were pregnant or planning a pregnancy and taking bupropion were enrolled in the study. Follow-up of pregnancy outcome was carried out between 4 months and 1 year after delivery. Three comparisons were carried out: 1) women exposed to bupropion vs a nonteratogen group; 2) those taking for depression vs other antidepressants, vs a nonteratogen group; 3) spontaneous abortions were compared between those taking for depression, vs another antidepressant group vs a nonteratogen group. RESULTS: We completed follow-up on 136 women exposed to bupropion during the first trimester of pregnancy. There were (105) live births, no major malformations, the mean birth weight was (3450g), the mean gestational age at delivery was (40 weeks), the number of spontaneous abortions was 20, there were 10 therapeutic abortions, there was 1 stillbirth, and 1 neonatal death. There were no statistically significant differences between any of the end points we examined between the exposed and comparison groups, with the exception of significantly more spontaneous abortions in the bupropion group (P = .009). CONCLUSION: These results suggest that bupropion does not increase the rates of major malformation above baseline. The higher rates of spontaneous abortions are similar to other studies examining the safety of antidepressants during pregnancy.

Safety profile of raloxifene as used in general practice in England: results of a prescription-event monitoring study.

Raloxifene, a selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM) licensed for the prevention of non-traumatic vertebral fractures in postmenopausal women at increased risk of osteoporosis, was launched in the UK in August 1998. The aim of the study was to monitor the safety of raloxifene prescribed in the primary care setting in England using prescription-event monitoring (PEM). Patients were identified by means of prescription data supplied by the Prescription Pricing Authority between September 1998 and November 2000. Demographic and clinical event data were collected from questionnaires posted to primary care physicians (GPs) at least 6 months after the date of the first prescription for each patient. Information on medical events, suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs), reasons for stopping treatment, pregnancies, and causes of death was requested. Event rates [Incidence Densities (IDs): no. first reports /1000 patient-months of treatment] were calculated. Differences between IDs for events reported in month one (ID(1)) and months 2-6 (ID(2-6)) of treatment were examined. The cohort comprised 13,987 patients [median age 62 years (IQR 55,69); 99.8% female]. The major indication was osteoporosis (40.9%, n=5725). Flushing was the event with the highest ID in month 1 (22.8), reported most frequently by GPs as an ADR to raloxifene (67/461 reports) and as the reason for stopping (700/4592 reports). Events associated with starting treatment included flushing, malaise/lassitude, headache/migraine, nausea/vomiting, sweating, cramp, pain abdomen, dizziness, diarrhea, mastalgia and vaginal hemorrhage. Less common events reported during treatment included deep vein thrombosis (n=13), pulmonary embolism (n=13), thrombophlebitis (n=31) and visual disturbance (n=29). In this study, there were 122 (0.9%) confirmed deaths, of which 32 causes of death were unknown. This study shows that raloxifene is generally well tolerated when used in general practice in England. Potential signals of unrecognised ADRs requiring further evaluation included gastrointestinal adverse symptoms and vaginal hemorrhage. There were also a small number of reports of events associated with venous thromboembolism and visual disorders that require further investigation.

Safety profile of celecoxib as used in general practice in England: results of a prescription-event monitoring study.

AIMS: A post-marketing surveillance study using the technique of Prescription Event Monitoring was undertaken to monitor the safety of celecoxib, a cyclo-oxygenase (COX)-2 inhibitor, as prescribed in primary care in England. METHODS: Patients were identified from dispensed British National Health Service prescription data supplied in confidence by the Prescription Pricing Authority for celecoxib between May and December 2000. Simple questionnaires were sent to the prescribing general practitioner at least 6 months after the date of the first dispensed prescription for each individual patient. Event incidence densities (IDs) [the number of 1st reports per 1000 patient-months of exposure (pme)] were calculated. ID differences for events reported in month 1 (ID1) and months 2-6 (ID2) were examined for temporal changes in event rate. Information on suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs), reasons for stopping treatment, outcome of pregnancies and cause of death were also requested. Data were gathered on potential gastrointestinal (GI) risk factors [recent use of other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), past history of upper GI disorders and concomitant gastro-irritant agents or anti-ulcer drugs]. Crude IDs per 1000 pme and ID ratios were calculated according to potential risk factors, and age (> or = 65 years, < or = 64 years). RESULTS: The cohort comprised of 17,458 patients [median age 62 years (IQR 51,73); 68.3% female]. The most common specified indication was osteoarthritis (28.1%, n = 4905). Not effective was the event with the highest ID1 (139.9 per 1000 pme). The clinical events with the highest ID1 were dyspepsia (25.4 per 1000 pme) followed by abdominal pain (10.6). These were also given frequently as reasons for stopping (551 and 174 of 9126 reports). Of 436 events in 325 patients (1.9% of total cohort) that were reported as ADRs, the most frequent were events within the alimentary system (186 reports). Uncommon events reported during treatment (not necessarily as ADRs) included allergy (0.10%, n = 17), anaphylaxis (0.01%, n = 2), angioneurotic oedema (0.02%, n = 3) and bronchospasm (0.05%, n = 9). There were 103 reports of events associated with thromboembolism and 111 reports of serious GI events [90 GI bleeds (upper and lower); 21 peptic ulcers] received during treatment or within 1 month of stopping. A past history of dyspeptic/other upper GI conditions and use of concomitant gastro-protective drugs were each associated with a significantly increased risk of dyspepsia and abdominal pain. CONCLUSIONS: Frequently reported adverse events were those GI events commonly associated with treatment with other NSAIDS. Stratification by identified risk factors suggested that channelling of high-risk patients is likely. Serious upper and lower GI events, and thromboembolic events did occur during this study, although the incidence was low (< 1%). Doctors should continue to prescribe NSAIDs, including COX-2-specific inhibitors, with caution.

Evaluation of the safety of bupropion (Zyban) for smoking cessation from experience gained in general practice use in England in 2000.

BACKGROUND: Bupropion (Zyban) is the first new pharmacological treatment for smoking cessation to be introduced since nicotine replacement therapy. In smoking cessation trials, it has been associated with minimal side effects. A range of suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were reported via the spontaneous reporting system following its use in smoking cessation. AIM: To examine the safety of bupropion used in general medical practice in England as a treatment for cessation of smoking. OBJECTIVES: To quantify the incidence of events that were reported for patients prescribed bupropion; and to identify any previously unrecognised ADRs. METHODS: A post-marketing observational cohort study was conducted using the methodology of prescription-event monitoring (PEM). Exposure data were derived from the first prescription dispensed for patients whose prescription details were processed by the Prescription Pricing Authority in August 2000. Outcome data were derived from 'green form' questionnaires (GFs) sent to general practitioners (GPs) at least 6 months following the first prescription issued. Incidence densities (IDs) were calculated for events reported per 1000 weeks of patient treatment and ID differences between time periods analysed. Events of interest were followed up by postal questionnaire sent to GPs. All-cause and condition-specific mortality up to 12 weeks after starting bupropion were compared through indirect standardisation between the PEM cohort and Cancer Prevention Study-II (USA) (CPS-II) data. RESULTS: GF response rate was 48.1%, with 11,735 GFs containing useful data - of these patients, 5695 (48.5%) were male (median age 47 years, range 16-88 years) and 6009 (51.2%) were female (median age 47 years, range 16-87 years). Age was recorded for 4092 (34.9%) of the cohort of 11,735 after follow-up. There were 566 events in 350 patients reported by GPs as ADRs to bupropion. GPs reported 10,200 reasons for stopping bupropion among 9056 patients. The highest ranked clinical events (by ID for weeks 1-6 of treatment) were; 'insomnia' ( n=308), 'nausea/vomiting' ( n=243) and 'dizziness' ( n=185). Bupropion was taken in the first trimester of 12 pregnancies and the outcome ascertained in eight cases - five live births (no congenital abnormalities reported), two therapeutic terminations and one intrauterine death (no further details). The standardised mortality ratio (SMR) for all-cause mortality up to 12 weeks after starting bupropion was 0.77 (95% CI: 0.42, 1.28). CONCLUSION: This study describes the safety profile of bupropion (Zyban) as used in the community; a small number of adverse events were reported that were not included on the SmPC. For many events, nicotine withdrawal was a confounding factor. SMR calculations did not provide evidence for a higher rate of mortality (either all-cause or condition-specific) in the PEM cohort relative to smokers from the CPS-II cohort in the USA. While reassuring, the SMR should be interpreted in context with results from other studies on bupropion when used for smoking cessation.

The pharmacovigilance of mirtazapine: results of a prescription event monitoring study on 13554 patients in England.

Mirtazpine is the first noradrenaline and serotonin specific antidepressant. We monitored the safety of mirtazapine as reported in primary practice in England. The exposure data were provided by monitoring the dispensed prescriptions issued between September 1997 and February 1999. Questionnaires sent to GPs provided outcome data. Drowsiness/sedation and malaise/lassitude were the most frequent ADRs (116, 71 respectively) and had the highest incidence density (per 1000 patient-months) in the first month of treatment (58.1, 27.8 respectively). Agitation (73), aggression (70), rash (20), hallucinations (13) and abnormal dreams (31 were unlabelled AES while abnormal liver function tests (12), syncope (8), abnormal behaviour (4) and visual disturbance (3) were labelled AES possibly due to mirtazapine use. Serious suspected ADRs reported were facial oedema (5), allergy (3), bone marrow toxicity (2) and myelodysplasia (1).