Suicide-related events in patients treated with antiepileptic drugs.

BACKGROUND: A previous meta-analysis of data from clinical trials showed an association between antiepileptic drugs and suicidality (suicidal ideation, behavior, or both). We used observational data to examine the association between the use or nonuse of antiepileptic drugs and suicide-related events (attempted suicides and completed suicides) in patients with epilepsy, depression, or bipolar disorder. METHODS: We used data collected as part of the clinical care of patients who were representative of the general population in the United Kingdom to identify patients with epilepsy, depression, or bipolar disorder and to determine whether they received antiepileptic drugs. We estimated the incidence rate of suicide-related events and used logistic regression to compute odds ratios, controlling for confounding factors. RESULTS: In a cohort of 5,130,795 patients, the incidence of suicide-related events per 100,000 person-years was 15.0 (95% confidence interval [CI], 14.6 to 15.5) among patients without epilepsy, depression, bipolar disorder, or antiepileptic-drug treatment, 38.2 (95% CI, 26.3 to 53.7) among patients with epilepsy who did not receive antiepileptic drugs, and 48.2 (95% CI, 39.4 to 58.5) among patients with epilepsy who received antiepileptic drugs. In adjusted analyses, the use of antiepileptic drugs was not associated with an increased risk of suicide-related events among patients with epilepsy (odds ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.98) or bipolar disorder (1.13; 95% CI, 0.35 to 3.61) but was significantly associated with an increased risk among patients with depression (1.65; 95% CI, 1.24 to 2.19) and those who did not have epilepsy, depression, or bipolar disorder (2.57; 95% CI, 1.78 to 3.71). CONCLUSIONS: The current use of antiepileptic drugs was not associated with an increased risk of suicide-related events among patients with epilepsy, but it was associated with an increased risk of such events among patients with depression and among those who did not have epilepsy, depression, or bipolar disorder.

Prescription patterns for asthma medications in children and adolescents with health care insurance in the United States.

Asthma is the most common chronic condition of childhood, and its prevalence has increased over recent decades. However, many children and adolescents with asthma are not being managed in accordance with guideline recommendations. The objective of this study was to analyze prescribing patterns for asthma medications in 6- to 18-yr-olds, with a focus on those aged 6-11 yr. Data from patients enrolled for ≥6 months in PharMetrics were analyzed between June 1, 1995, and September 30, 2008. PharMetrics contains data from 45 million US patients from 85 health care plans, including standard and mail order prescription records. Prescriptions for asthma medication for each patient were recorded. The overall asthma cohort included 659,169 patients; 34,950 (5%) were classified as having severe asthma. The 6- to 11-yr-old subgroup consisted of 374,068 patients (56.7% of the overall asthma cohort). Almost 40% of the population received no medication (severe asthma 1.0%; non-severe asthma 37.6%), with almost identical findings in the 6- to 11-yr-old subgroup. In patients with non-severe and severe asthma, frequency of medication use was as follows: short-acting ß(2) -agonists (53% and 92%), oral steroids (23% and 64%), leukotriene receptor antagonists (17% and 49%); inhaled corticosteroids alone (15% and 80%) and in combination with long-acting ß(2) -agonists (10% and 22%), respectively. Results for patients in the 6- to 11-yr subgroup were similar to those of the overall cohort. In conclusion, a considerable proportion of children and adolescents with asthma do not receive any asthma medication. Among those who do receive medication, adherence to current guidelines is questionable.

Lymphoma among patients with atopic dermatitis and/or treated with topical immunosuppressants in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: Atopic dermatitis (AD) has been associated with an increased risk of lymphoma. OBJECTIVES: To assess the risk of lymphoma associated with AD and use of topical corticosteroids (TCS) or topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCI) in a database allowing medical record validation. METHODS: We conducted a nested-case control study using the United Kingdom-based The Health Improvement Network (THIN) database. We excluded patients with established risk factors for lymphoma. Cases of lymphoma were identified and classified after review of the medical records and hospital discharge files. RESULTS: In the study population of 3,500,194 individuals, we identified 2738 cases of lymphoma (1722 non-Hodgkin lymphoma [NHL], 466 Hodgkin disease, 550 indeterminate cases; overall, 188 had cutaneous involvement) and 10,949 matched controls. AD was associated with an increased lymphoma risk (odds ratio [OR], 1.83; 95% CI, 1.41-2.36). In patients with AD referred to a dermatologist, the OR further increased (OR, 3.72; 95% CI, 1.40-9.87). We did not find any cases of lymphoma in TCI users; however, the number of patients exposed to TCI was insufficient to study any possible association between lymphoma and these drugs. TCS use was associated with an increased lymphoma risk (OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.33-1.61). The risk increase was dependent on TCS potency (OR for high-potency TCS, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.54-2.11). The increased risk involved both Hodgkin disease and NHL, especially NHL with skin involvement (OR for high-potency TCS, 26.24; 95% CI, 13.49-51.07). CONCLUSION: Our results show an association between lymphoma-especially skin lymphoma-and use of TCS. The risk increased with duration of exposure and potency of TCS.

Guidelines for submitting adverse event reports for publication.

Publication of case reports describing suspected adverse effects of drugs and medical products that include herbal and complementary medicines, vaccines, and other biologicals and devices is important for postmarketing surveillance. Publication lends credence to important signals raised in these adverse event reports. Unfortunately, deficiencies in vital information in published cases can often limit the value of such reports by failing to provide enough details for either (i) a differential diagnosis or provisional assessment of cause-effect association, or (ii) a reasonable pharmacological or biological explanation. Properly described, a published report of one or more adverse events can provide a useful signal of possible risks associated with the use of a drug or medical product which might warrant further exploration. A review conducted by the Task Force authors found that many major journals have minimal requirements for publishing adverse event reports, and some have none at all. Based on a literature review and our collective experience in reviewing adverse event case reports in regulatory, academic, and industry settings, we have identified information that we propose should always be considered for inclusion in a report submitted for publication. These guidelines have been endorsed by the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE) and the International Society of Pharmacovigilance (ISoP) and are freely available on the societies' websites. Their widespread distribution is encouraged. ISPE and ISoP urge biomedical journals to adopt these guidelines and apply them to case reports submitted for publication. They also encourage schools of medicine, pharmacy, and nursing to incorporate them into the relevant curricula that address the detection, evaluation, and reporting of suspected drug or other medical product adverse events.

(Unlearned) lessons from John Graunt and Kenneth Rothman: a "CLASSic" example.

This commentary reviews the work of John Graunt and Kenneth J. Rothman on statistical significance and the need for prespecification of study end points. The authors argue that it is dangerous to substitute oversimplifications based exclusively on whether a result has reached statistical significance for a rational process of causal inference. An example is given based on the Celecoxib Long-term Arthritis Safety Study.

Infliximab paediatric Crohn's disease educational plan: a European, cross-sectional, multicentre evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The infliximab (Remicade; Schering-Plough, Kenilworth, NJ, USA) Risk Management Plan included the development, execution and tracking of an education programme directed towards prescribers of infliximab for patients with paediatric Crohn's disease (the Infliximab Paediatric Crohn's Disease Educational Plan). The programme content consisted of educational materials and communications aimed at educating prescribers on the risks associated with infliximab use. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of the risk minimization plan. METHODS: Evaluation focused on two components: documentation of training of sponsors' personnel, and evaluation of awareness among prescribing physicians in European countries. Treating physicians, identified both independently of the sponsor (6 countries) and by the sponsor (24 countries), were surveyed using a structured questionnaire. RESULTS: Training of internal staff on the educational programme was performed and completed by every person designated an appropriate candidate for the programme in all European countries. The independent survey conducted in Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Sweden and the UK indicated that around 90% of the physicians were either paediatric gastroenterologists (57%) or paediatricians (33%). The great majority (96%) of the interviewed physicians were currently treating paediatric Crohn's disease, and most were currently using infliximab in their treatment of the disease. More specifically, 82% of gastroentrologists treating paediatric Crohn's disease were using infliximab; among paediatricians, the proportion was lower (42%). Ninety-six percent of paediatric gastroenterologists or gastroenterologists declared themselves aware of the benefits and risks of using infliximab for the treatment of paediatric Crohn's disease; in comparison, fewer paediatricians (82%) declared themselves aware of these benefits and risks. The majority initially gained awareness through congresses and workshops, and at the time of the survey only 25% declared that they were made aware of the benefits and risks through the educational programme. However, the majority of physicians reported that they had been approached by the sponsor's personnel in France (98%), Italy (100%), Spain (83%) and Sweden (70%). In Germany and the UK this proportion was 42%. Almost all physicians were aware of the need to perform tuberculosis (TB) and cancer screening prior to initiating therapy with infliximab, and to screen for hypersensitivity reactions before, during and after treatment. Ninety percent of the physicians were aware of the need to update immunization therapy before initiating therapy and, except in Italy (92% aware), around 50% of the physicians were aware of the need to provide patients with the infliximab Patient Alert Card. In the other European countries where the survey took place among physicians identified by the sponsor, 99% of paediatric gastroenterologists and 90% of gastroenterologists or paediatricians declared themselves aware of the benefits and risks of using infliximab for the treatment of paediatric Crohn's disease, and all of them were aware of the risk of TB and opportunistic infections and the need to perform TB and cancer screening prior to initiating therapy with infliximab. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the results of the evaluation of the Infliximab Paediatric Crohn's Disease Educational Plan were satisfactory. The objective of education of internal personnel of the pharmaceutical companies distributing infliximab was completely achieved; over 90% of physicians reported being aware of the benefits and risks of infliximab for the treatment of paediatric Crohn's disease. Further work should be carried out across all countries to educate physicians on providing patients with the infliximab Patient Alert Card. In Germany and the UK in particular, where <50% of physicians reported having been approached by the sponsor's personnel, further work is needed to raise awareness of the educational programme.

Risk of lymphoma following exposure to calcineurin inhibitors and topical steroids in patients with atopic dermatitis.

Systemic use of immunosuppressant agents increases the risk of lymphoma in transplantation. We performed a nested case-control study in the PharMetrics database to evaluate the association between topical immunosuppressants and lymphoma in a cohort of patients with atopic dermatitis. We identified cases of lymphoma and randomly selected four controls for each case, matched by length of follow-up. We used conditional logistic regression to calculate odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the association between topical immunosuppressants and lymphoma. Two hundred and ninety-four cases of lymphoma occurred in 293,253 patients, 81 in patients younger than 20 years. The adjusted analysis yielded the following OR (95%CI) for: severity (OR 2.4; 95% CI 1.5-3.8), oral steroids 1.5 (1.0-2.4), "super potent" topical steroids 1.2 (0.8-1.8) , "low potency" topical steroids OR 1.1 (0.7-1.6); pimecrolimus 0.8(0.4-1.6), tacrolimus OR 0.8 (0.4-1.7), and concomitant topical steroids, pimecrolimus, and tacrolimus 1.0 (0.3-4.1). We did not find an increased risk of lymphoma in patients treated with topical calcineurin inhibitors. It is difficult to disentangle the effects of severity of disease on outcome versus the true effects of drugs. However, in the adjusted analysis, severity of AD was the main factor associated with an increased risk of lymphoma.

Guidelines for submitting adverse event reports for publication.

Publication of case reports describing suspected adverse effects of drugs and medical products that include herbal and complementary medicines, vaccines, and other biologicals and devices is important for postmarketing surveillance. Publication lends credence to important signals raised in these adverse event reports. Unfortunately, deficiencies in vital information in published cases can often limit the value of such reports by failing to provide sufficient details for either (i) a differential diagnosis or provisional assessment of cause-effect association, or (ii) a reasonable pharmacological or biological explanation. Properly described, a published report of one or more adverse events can provide a useful signal of possible risks associated with the use of a drug or medical product which might warrant further exploration. A review conducted by the Task Force authors found that many major journals have minimal requirements for publishing adverse event reports, and some have none at all. Based on a literature review and our collective experience in reviewing adverse event case reports in regulatory, academic, and industry settings, we have identified information that we propose should always be considered for inclusion in a report submitted for publication. These guidelines have been endorsed by the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE) and the International Society of Pharmacovigilance (ISoP) and are freely available on the societies' web sites. Their widespread distribution is encouraged. ISPE and ISoP urge biomedical journals to adopt these guidelines and apply them to case reports submitted for publication. They also encourage schools of medicine, pharmacy, and nursing to incorporate them into the relevant curricula that address the detection, evaluation, and reporting of suspected drug or other medical product adverse events.

Use of cyclo-oxygenase 2 inhibitors (COX-2) and prescription non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS) in UK and USA populations. Implications for COX-2 cardiovascular profile.

BACKGROUND: COX-2 and NSAIDS differ in their gastrointestinal (GI) and cardiovascular (CV) toxicity from pharmacological, clinical and epidemiologic point of views. OBJECTIVE: Describe the patterns of use of NSAIDS and COX-2 in The Health Improvement Network (THIN) database in UK and the PharMetrics database in USA. METHODS: We examined the experience of 10 distinct cohorts of new users of diclofenac, naproxen, ibuprofen, piroxicam, other NSAIDS, meloxicam, celecoxib, etoricoxib, rofecoxib and valdecoxib. The study period was 1 January 1995 through 2004 (31 March in UK and 28 February in USA). We collected information on covariates including history of upper GI disease, CV disease, hepatic disease, dosage, concomitant medication, and visits to a rheumatologist. RESULTS: We identified 486 076 unique patient-drug pairs in UK and 1 533 239 in USA. In UK population 78 201 (16%) were COX-2 users and in PharMetrics 324 206 (21%) were COX-2 users. Diclofenac and ibuprofen (NSAIDS), and celecoxib and rofecoxib (COX-2) were the agents prescribed most frequently. The duration of therapy was longer among celecoxib and rofecoxib users than among other users. More COX-2 users than NSAIDS users received concomitant gastroprotective agents (GPA), corticosteroids and anti-platelet therapy, and had a history of thromboembolic events and hypertension. PharMetrics patients were prescribed higher doses of NSAIDS and COX-2. The use of any single agent for more than 90 days was uncommon, but more frequent in PharMetrics. Switching was uncommon and was generally to a NSAID. DISCUSSION: Our results confirm some previous findings from other authors such as the presence of both GI and CV channelling to COX-2 agents but refute others, such as the frequency of drug switching between these agents. The typical use of COX-2 agents in practice is for shorter duration, and at lower doses, than was employed in randomized clinical trials. This difference may help clarify the apparent discrepancy with respect to CV toxicity between the results from clinical trials, which showed a higher CV risk with these drugs, and non-experimental epidemiologic studies, which showed lower or no increase in risk.

Hematologic effects of linezolid: summary of clinical experience.

Linezolid has been associated with reversible myelosuppression. Clinical trial data were evaluated for anemia, thrombocytopenia, and neutropenia. Thrombocytopenia and a slight increased risk for anemia were evident at > or =2 weeks of linezolid treatment. Hematologic abnormalities were consistent with mild, reversible, duration-dependent myelosuppression. Appropriate monitoring is warranted with linezolid use.