Medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw: Analysing the range of implicated drugs from the Australian database of adverse event notifications.

AIMS: Medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) is an uncommon but potentially debilitating condition, characterised by nonhealing jawbone, with or without mucosal exposure, in the presence of certain drugs. Those already strongly associated with MRONJ include antiresorptives denosumab and bisphosphonates; however, a growing range of other non-antiresorptive drugs is implicated. The aim of this study was to analyse all case reports of MRONJ submitted to the publicly available Database of Adverse Event Notification from the Therapeutic Goods Administration in Australia. METHODS: The Therapeutic Goods Administration was contacted on 6 January 2020 and asked for all reports containing the words "osteonecrosis of the jaw". This was provided in a spreadsheet of de-identified reports received from commencement of the database in 1971 until 1 October 2019. RESULTS: The drugs implicated in the 419 cases were divided by established drugs with MRONJ and secondary drugs that possibly contribute to MRONJ development. While the majority of cases were associated with denosumab or bisphosphonates (n = 405), there were 14 reports where secondary agents that directly or indirectly affect bone turnover, were also implicated. Some of these secondary drugs, including adalimumab, etanercept, methotrexate and rituximab have previously been associated with MRONJ in published case reports. CONCLUSIONS: This study contributes to the sparse but growing literature associating an increasing number of drugs with MRONJ, and underscores the importance of considering all possible drugs that elevate a patient's MRONJ risk.

The safety of commonly used vitamins and minerals.

Dietary supplements are the most common type of complementary medicine in Australia, reportedly used by 47% of the population. Vitamins and minerals are particularly popular Like all medicines, supplements can cause potential harms such as adverse reactions, drug interactions, monetary cost, delay of more effective therapy, false hope, and increased medication burden Although most vitamins and minerals are available for open sale, many are subject to legal restrictions as scheduled medicines, depending on the dose Consumers are at risk of overdose when the same ingredient is present in multiple products Health professionals can assist consumers by discussing the potential benefits and harms of vitamins and minerals and assisting them to find authoritative information Adverse events with vitamins and minerals should be reported to the Therapeutic Goods Administration.

Are teething gels safe or even necessary for our children? A review of the safety, efficacy and use of topical lidocaine teething gels.

Lidocaine-based teething gels have been widely available in Australia for decades in both commercial preparations and those compounded by pharmacies. However, many case reports have highlighted potential risks and toxicity associated with lidocaine-based teething gels when used in infants and young children, including seizures, respiratory arrest and death. The Australian and New Zealand Society of Paediatric Dentistry and the American Academy of Paediatrics do not recommend topical agents for teething, and the US Food and Drug Administration does not recommend topical lidocaine for this purpose due to concerns of toxicity. Literature supporting the efficacy of lidocaine for teething is scant and difficult to interpret due to the flawed design of the trials conducted and varied formulations used. This opinion article aims to summarise the available literature showing the limited effectiveness and associated risks of topical lidocaine gels for use in teething. In light of these findings, the authors recommend that regulatory bodies such as the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration review the efficacy and safety of this type of medicine and consider removing the indication for teething or limiting the age of use to older children.

A review and guide to drug-associated oral adverse effects-Oral mucosal and lichenoid reactions. Part 2.

Dental practitioners and other health professionals commonly encounter and manage adverse medicine effects that manifest in the orofacial region. Numerous medicines are associated with a variety of oral adverse effects. However, due to lack of awareness and training, these side effects are not always associated with medicine use and are underreported to pharmacovigilance agencies by dentists and other health professionals. This article aims to inform health professionals about the various oral adverse effects that can occur and the most commonly implicated drugs to improve the management, recognition and reporting of adverse drug effects. This article follows on from Part 1; however, the focus here is on lichenoid reactions and oral mucosal disorders including oral aphthous-like ulceration, mucositis and bullous disorders such as drug-induced pemphigus, pemphigoid, Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis.

A review and guide to drug-associated oral adverse effects-Dental, salivary and neurosensory reactions. Part 1.

Numerous adverse drug reactions (ADR) manifest in the oral cavity and orofacial region. Dentists and other health professionals commonly encounter and manage these adverse effects however, due to lack of awareness and training, they are not always recognised as being drug-induced nor reported to pharmacovigilance agencies. The broad diversity and increasing number of medications for which dental pharmacovigilance is needed can be overwhelming for all health professionals. Thus, the aim of this review and guide was to outline the common medications associated with orofacial side effects so as to improve recognition, management and reporting of ADR. Adverse effects discussed in Part 1 include drug-induced bruxism, tardive dyskinesia, hairy tongue, gingival enlargement, hypersalivation, xerostomia, tooth discolouration and taste disturbance.

Your questions about complementary medicines answered: gingko biloba.

This is the fourth article in a series providing evidence-based answers to common questions about complementary medicines from consumers and healthcare professionals.

Your questions about complementary medicines answered.

This is the first article in a series providing evidence-based answers to common questions about complementary medicines from consumers and healthcare professionals.

Your questions about complementary medicines answered: glucosamine.

This is the second article in a series providing evidence-based answers to common questions about complementary medicines from consumers and healthcare professionals.

Your questions about complementary medicines answered: fish oil.

This is the third article in a series providing evidence-based answers to common questions about complementary medicines from consumers and healthcare professionals.

Self-medication for cough and the common cold: information needs of consumers.

BACKGROUND: Despite the high use of over-the-counter (OTC) cough and cold medicines, little is known about Australia's cough and cold medicines information needs. The aim of this study was to identify gaps in consumers' perceived knowledge and concerns, to better target consumer medicines information and improve quality use of medicines. METHODS: We analysed cough-and-cold related enquiries from consumers who contacted an Australian national medicine call centre between September 2002 and June 2010. RESULTS: Of 5503 cough and cold calls, female callers made up 86% of the calls and 33% were related to children. Questions most frequently related to drug-drug interactions (29%). An analysis of narratives over an 18-month period (248 calls) revealed 20% of the calls concerned potentially clinically relevant interactions, particularly those involving psychotropic agents. DISCUSSION: The potential for interactions with cough and cold medicines purchased OTC is recognised by consumers. Patient information should address their concerns. Doctors should be aware of the common cough and cold interactions and communicate likely clinical symptoms to patients when prescribing medication to prevent potential harm.

To prescribe or not to prescribe? A review of the Prescribing Competencies Framework for dentistry.

OBJECTIVES: Dentists in Australia are the second largest prescriber group, and are generally not formally taught how to prescribe. The objective of this review is to describe the Prescribing Competencies Framework and its relevance to dentistry. DATA: The four-model stage of prescribing by Coombes and colleagues, and the seven competencies within the Prescribing Competencies Framework devised by the Australian National Prescribing Service MedicineWise, are discussed and applied to dentistry. SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: Each of the seven competencies are analysed and detailed in the context of clinical dental practice. Competencies 1-5 describe the skillset and tasks required by dentists to safely prescribe, whereas Competencies 6 and 7 describe the clinical environment and recommended resources to support dentists to prescribe safely and effectively. CONCLUSIONS: The Prescribing Competencies Framework provides an overview of safe and effective prescribing. Prescribing is a process, and a separate skillset to clinical dentistry. The process involves information gathering, clinical assessment, effective communication and review of the patient. Access to timely and appropriate resources and relevant electronic sources of health information for clinicians are important to provide the support required for better informed prescribing decisions. The framework describes a patient-centered prescribing process, and ultimately prescribing should be a shared decision between the dentist and the patient. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Safe and effective prescribing is an integral part of dentistry and dentists are the second largest prescriber group. However, dentists display high rates of inappropriate and unnecessary prescribing, and to minimise errors, the Prescribing Competencies Framework has been established. This article details how the Framework applies to clinical practice dentistry.

Patient concerns regarding antidepressant drug–drug interactions: a retrospective analysis using data from a medicines call centre.

Introduction Antidepressant use has increased over the last two decades, with Australia and New Zealand among the highest antidepressant users in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. Comorbidity and polypharmacy are common in antidepressant users, increasing the likelihood of interaction-related adverse drug events, which are frequently preventable. Aim We aimed to identify, profile, and analyse potential antidepressant drug-drug interactions in information-seeking antidepressant users. Methods We retrospectively analysed antidepressant-related drug-drug interaction enquiries from patients or carers who contacted a pharmacist-led Australian national medicines call centre over an 8-year period to determine patient characteristics, concomitant drugs involved, prevalence and type of antidepressant-related drug-drug interaction across life stages, and associated risks. Results Of 3899 antidepressant drug-drug interaction calls, the most frequent concomitant drugs were antipsychotics, opioids, benzodiazepines, and complementary medicines. Narrative analyses of 2011 calls identified 81.0% of patients with potential drug-drug interactions and 10.4% categorised with worrying symptoms. The most frequent drug-drug interaction risks were excessive sedation, increased anticholinergic effects, serotonin syndrome, and suicidal thoughts. Carers of children aged Discussion Antidepressant users often have information gaps and safety concerns regarding drug-drug interactions that motivate help-seeking behaviour. Symptoms and drug-drug interaction consequences may be underestimated in these patients. Primary care health professionals have a role in proactively addressing the risk of drug-drug interactions to support benefit-risk assessment and shared decision-making.

The Challenge of Medication-Induced Dry Mouth in Residential Aged Care.

With a reported prevalence between 20% and 30%, dry mouth is more common among older people than any other age group. The major risk factor for dry mouth is polypharmacy. Older people take more medications than any other age group, not only for symptomatic relief of various age-associated chronic diseases, but also to reduce the likelihood of the complications that may arise from those conditions. Most aged care residents take even more medications than older people who are living in their own homes. The greater the number of medications taken, the greater the associated anticholinergic burden, and the more likely it is that the individual will suffer from dry mouth. The condition not only affects the dentition and ability to wear dentures, but also the sufferers' quality of life. Treating dry mouth is a considerable challenge for clinicians. As medication use is by far the most important risk factor, there is a need for pharmacists, doctors and dentists to work together to prevent this from occurring. Medication review and deprescribing is a key strategy, but there have not yet been any randomised control trials of its efficacy in reducing the occurrence of dry mouth.

Where are oral and dental adverse drug effects in product information?

OBJECTIVES: Oral adverse drug reactions are common and are associated with some of our most frequently used medicines. It is important to identify and manage oral adverse drug effects promptly as they not only negatively impact dental health, but also adversely affect medication adherence, clinical outcomes and patient quality of life. This study assessed the location of oral drug-induced adverse effects in the registered drug company product information (PI) of the top 100 most commonly used drugs in Australia as dispensed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme in 2018. METHOD: Publicly available data on dispensed medicines were accessed from the Australian Commonwealth Department of Health, to determine the top 100 medicines. The drug company PI for each of these drugs was manually searched to find their oral adverse effects. The number, type and location of the oral adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were recorded. KEY FINDINGS: Oral ADRs were commonly found varying in nature and severity. However, they were difficult to find as there is no dedicated section for oral/dental adverse effects in the PI and the section they are in is inconsistently applied. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend that regulatory authorities such as the Therapeutic Goods Administration in Australia create an additional section for oral/dental adverse effects so they are easier to find, which may assist health professionals detect recognise and report adverse drug effects manifesting in the oral cavity.