The Role of European Healthcare Databases for Post-Marketing Drug Effectiveness, Safety and Value Evaluation: Where Does Italy Stand?

Enormous progress has been made globally in the use of evidence derived from patients' clinical information as they access their routine medical care. The value of real-world data lies in their complementary nature compared with data from randomised controlled trials: less detailed information on drug efficacy but longer observational periods and larger, more heterogeneous study populations reflecting clinical practice because individuals are included who would not usually be recruited in trials. Real-world data can be collected in various types of electronic sources, such as electronic health records, claims databases and drug or disease registries. These data sources vary in nature from country to country, according to national healthcare system structures and national policies. In Italy, a growing number of healthcare databases have been used to evaluate post-marketing drug utilisation and safety in the last two decades. The aim of this narrative review is to describe the available Italian sources of real-world data and their contribution to generating post-marketing evidence on drug use and safety. We also discuss the strengths and limitations of the most commonly used Italian healthcare databases in addressing various research questions concerning drug utilisation, comparative effectiveness and safety studies, as well as health technology assessment and other areas.

Pharmacoepidemiological safety studies in children: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: In order to identify challenges in pediatric pharmacoepidemiological safety studies, we assessed the characteristics of such (published) studies. METHODS: Relevant articles from inception to 2013 were retrieved from Embase and Medline. We sequentially screened titles, abstracts and full texts with independent validation. We systematically collected data regarding general information, study methods and results. RESULTS: Out of 4825 unique articles, 268 full texts (5.6%) were retained; 147 (54.9%) pertained to drugs rather than vaccines. Considering the 268 studies, 202 (75.4%) concerned children and adolescents (2 to 11 years) and 14 (5.3%) included preterm newborns. Most studies originated from North America (154 [57.5%]) or Europe (92 [34.3%]). Only 47 studies (17.5%) were privately funded. The majority (174 [64.9%]) were cohort studies. Out of 268 studies, 196 (73.1%) collected data retrospectively; paper medical charts were the most common data source for the exposures (85 [31.7%]) and outcomes (122 [45.5%]). Only 3 (2.0%) drug-only studies investigated rarely used drugs. Considering all 268 studies, only 27 (10.1%) reported sample size or power calculation. Most (75 [51.0%]) drug-only studies corrected confounding by multivariate modeling unlike stratification in 66 (55.9%) vaccine-only studies. Considering 75 child-only studies without any statistically significant result, 41 (54.7%) did not discuss lack of power. CONCLUSIONS: Although the field of pediatric pharmacoepidemiology is steadily developing evaluation seldom includes neonates, is mainly focused on few drug classes and safety outcomes and concerns mainly drug use in developed countries. Small study size is a specific challenge in pediatrics. Reporting should be improved. © 2016 The Authors. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Indications of newer and older anti-epileptic drug use: findings from a southern Italian general practice setting from 2005-2011.

AIMS: The aim of the study was to analyze the prescribing pattern of both newer and older AEDs. METHODS: A population of almost 150 000 individuals registered with 123 general practitioners was included in this study. Patients who received at least one AED prescription over 2005-2011 were identified. The 1 year prevalence and cumulative incidence of AED use, by drug class and individual drug, were calculated over the study period. Potential predictors of starting therapy with newer AEDs were also investigated. RESULTS: The prevalence of use per 1000 inhabitants of older AEDs increased from 10.7 (95% CI10.1, 11.2) in 2005 to 13.0 (95% CI12.4, 13.6) in 2011, while the incidence remained stable. Newer AED incidence decreased from 9.4 (95% CI 8.9, 9.9) in 2005 to 7.0 (95% CI 6.6, 7.5) in 2011, with a peak of 15.5 (95% CI 14.8, 16.1) in 2006. Phenobarbital and valproic acid were the most commonly prescribed AEDs as starting therapy for epilepsy. Gabapentin and pregabalin accounted for most new pain-related prescriptions, while valproic acid and lamotrigine were increasingly used for mood disorders. Female gender (OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.20, 1.53), age ranging between 45-54 years (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.16, 1.66) and pain as an indication (OR 16.7, 95% CI, 13.1, 21.2) were associated with newer AEDs starting therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Older AEDs were mainly used for epileptic and mood disorders, while newer drugs were preferred for neuropathic pain. Gender, age, indication of use and year of starting therapy influenced the choice of AED type. The decrease of newer AED use during 2007 is probably related to the restricted reimbursement criteria for gabapentin and pregabalin.