Major cardiovascular events under biologic psoriasis therapies: a 19-year real-world analysis of FAERS data.

Objective: Over the years when biologic psoriasis therapies (TNF inhibitors, IL-12/23 inhibitors, IL-23 inhibitors, and IL-17 inhibitors) have been used in psoriasis patients, reports of major cardiovascular events (MACEs) have emerged. This study aims to investigate the association between MACEs and biologic psoriasis therapies by using information reported to the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS). Methods: FAERS data (January 2004 to December 2022) were reviewed. For each drug-event pair, the proportional reporting ratio (PRR) and the multi-item gamma Poisson shrinker (MGPS) algorithms were used to identify drug-adverse event associations. Results: We filtered the query for indication and identified 173,330 reports with psoriasis indication in FAERS throughout the analyzed time frame. MACEs occurred in 4,206 patients treated with biologics. All the four biological classes had an elevated and similar reporting rates for MACEs relative to other alternative psoriasis treatments (PRR from 2.10 to 4.26; EB05 from 1.15 to 2.45). The descending order of association was IL-12/23 inhibitors>IL-17 inhibitors>IL-23 inhibitors>TNF inhibitors. The signal strength for myocardial infarction (PRR, 2.86; χ2, 296.27; EBGM 05, 1.13) was stronger than that for stroke, cardiac fatality, and death. All the biological classes demonstrated a little higher EBGM 05 score≥1 for the MACEs in patients aged 45-64 years. The time-to-onset of MACEs was calculated with a median of 228 days. Conclusions: Analysis of adverse event reports in the FAERS reflects the potential risk of MACEs associated with the real-world use of biological therapies in comparison to other alternative psoriasis treatments. Future long-term and well-designed studies are needed to further our knowledge regarding the cardiovascular safety profile of these agents.

Updated insights on dementia-related risk of sacubitril/valsartan: A real-world pharmacovigilance analysis.

AIM: Sacubitril/valsartan is a new cardiovascular agent characterized by its dual inhibition on the reninangiotensin system (RAS) and the neprilysin. As neprilysin also involved itself in the degradation of amyloid-ß, there is an ongoing concern about the effect of sacubitril/valsartan on cognition, especially in case of long-term administration. METHODS: The FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) was mined between 2015Q3 and 2022Q4 to analyze the association between sacubitril/valsartan and adverse events (AEs) involving dementia. Standardized Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) Queries (SMQs) with "broad" and "narrow" preferred terms (PTs) relevant to dementia was applied to systematically search demented AE reports. The Empirical Bayes Geometric Mean (EBGM) from Multi-Item Gamma Poisson Shrinker (MGPS) and proportional reporting ratio with Chi-square (PRR, χ2 ) were used to calculate the disproportionality. RESULTS: We filtered the query for indication and identified 80,316 reports with heart failure indication in FAERS during the analytical period. Among all the reports, sacubitril/valsartan was listed as primary suspected or secondary suspected drug in 29,269 cases. No significantly elevated reporting rates of narrow dementia were evident with sacubitril/valsartan. The EBGM05 for narrow dementia-related AEs associated with sacubitril/valsartan was 0.88 and the PRR (χ2 ) was 1.22 (2.40). Similarly, broad demented complications were not over-reported in the heart failure patients administrated with sacubitril/valsartan (EBGM05 1.11; PRR 1.31, χ2 109.36). CONCLUSION: The number of dementia-related cases reported to FAERS generate no safety signal attributable to sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure for now. Further follow-ups are still warranted to address this question.

Hearing disorder following COVID-19 vaccination: A pharmacovigilance analysis using the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: Evidence on whether the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination could cause hearing-related adverse events is still conflicting. This study aims to access the association between COVID-19 vaccine and hearing disorder. METHODS: The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) was queried between January 2020 to November 2021. The disproportionality pattern for hearing impairment of COVID-19 vaccine was accessed by calculating the reporting odds ratio (ROR) and proportional reporting ratio (PRR). A further subgroup analysis based on the type of COVID-19 vaccine and the doses administered was performed. In addition, the disproportionalities for hearing dysfunction between COVID-19 and influenza vaccines were compared. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: A total of 14,956 reports of hearing-related adverse events were identified with COVID-19 vaccination and 151 with influenza vaccine during the analytic period in VAERS. The incidence of hearing disorder following COVID-19 vaccination was 6.66 per 100,000. The results of disproportionality analysis revealed that the adverse events of hearing impairment, after administration of COVID-19 vaccine, was significantly highly reported (ROR 2.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.20-2.56; PRR: 2.35, χ2 537.58), for both mRNA (ROR 2.37, 95% CI 2.20-2.55; PRR 2.34, χ2 529.75) and virus vector vaccines (ROR 2.50, 95% CI 2.28-2.73; PRR 2.56, χ2 418.57). While the disproportional level for hearing dysfunction was quite lower in influenza vaccine (ROR 0.36, 95% CI 0.30-0.42; PRR 0.36, χ2 172.24). WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: This study identified increased risk for hearing disorder following administration of both mRNA and virus vector COVID-19 vaccines compared to influenza vaccination in real-world settings.

Booster dose of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine does not increase risks of myocarditis and pericarditis compared with primary vaccination: New insights from the vaccine adverse event reporting system.

Background: Despite the likely association between coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) mRNA vaccines and cases of myocarditis/pericarditis, the benefit-risk assessment by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) still showed a favorable balance for the primary series of COVID-19 mRNA vaccinations. Since August 2021, a full-scale booster vaccination in certain recipients has been recommended. Great concerns about whether the COVID-19 mRNA booster vaccination could increase the risks of myocarditis/pericarditis have been raised since then. The present study aimed to compare the incidence rates and risks of myocarditis/pericarditis between booster and primary vaccination programs. Methods: The CDC COVID Data Tracker and the Vaccines Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) were queried between December 11, 2020 and March 15, 2022. Incidence rates were calculated by cases of myocarditis/pericarditis divided by the number of vaccinated people or the total doses of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. Disproportionality patterns for myocarditis/pericarditis of different COVID-19 mRNA vaccinations were accessed based on the reporting odds and proportional reporting ratios (ROR and PRR, respectively). Results: A total of 2,588 reports of myocarditis/pericarditis were identified after administration of primary-series COVID-19 mRNA vaccination and 269 after the booster dose program during the study period. The incidence of myocarditis/pericarditis following booster COVID-19 mRNA vaccination was lower than that of primary series. The results showed significantly high reporting of myocarditis/pericarditis following the administration of primary COVID-19 mRNA vaccination, whereas the disproportional level was lower in the booster-dose vaccination. Conclusion: This study found that the booster dose of COVID-19 mRNA vaccination when compared with primary series course did not lead to an increase in the risks of myocarditis/pericarditis.

Musculoskeletal Adverse Events Associated with PCSK9 Inhibitors: Disproportionality Analysis of the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System.

BACKGROUND: Some studies suggest that potential safety issues about PCSK9 inhibitors have not been sufficiently explored in clinical trials, including musculoskeletal adverse events (MAEs). OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between use of PCSK9 inhibitors with and without concurrent statins and risk of MAEs. Patients and Methods. FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) dataset of PCSK9 inhibitors and statins from October 2015 to June 2021 was queried. The reporting odds ratio (ROR) with relevant 95% confidence interval (95% CI) was calculated as the index of disproportionality. Outcome of MAEs of different PCSK9 inhibitors regimens was also investigated. RESULTS: 3,185 cases of PCSK9 inhibitor-associated MAEs were recorded. PCSK9 inhibitor class alone demonstrated a strong link to MAEs (ROR 5.92; 95% CI 5.70-6.15), and evolocumab was associated with more reports of MAEs than alirocumab. Concomitant use with statins leaded to an increased occurrence of MAEs (ROR 32.15 (25.55-40.46)), and the risk differed among different statins. The PCSK9 inhibitors were safer than statins in terms of hospitalization rate and death rate (15.64% vs. 36.83%; 0.72% vs. 3.53%). CONCLUSIONS: This pharmacovigilance investigation suggests that PCSK9 inhibitors are associated with MAEs. The risk significantly increases when combined with statins. Increased laboratory and clinical monitoring are required to timely diagnose and manage MAEs.

Effect of evidence-based therapy for secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The combination pharmacotherapy of antiplatelet agents, lipid-modifiers, ACE inhibitors/ARBs and beta-blockers are recommended by international guidelines. However, data on effectiveness of the evidence-based combination pharmacotherapy (EBCP) is limited. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of EBCP on mortality and Cardiovascular events in patients with Coronary Heart Disease (CHD) or cerebrovascular disease. METHODS: Publications in EMBASE and Medline up to October 2018 were searched for cohort and case-control studies on EBCP for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. The main outcomes were all-cause mortality and major cardiovascular events. Meta-analyses were performed based on random effects models. RESULTS: 21 studies were included. Comparing EBCP to either monotherapy or no therapy, the pooled risk ratios were 0.60 (95% confidence interval 0.55 to 0.66) for all-cause mortality, 0.70 (0.62 to 0.79) for vascular mortality, 0.73 (0.64 to 0.83) for myocardial infarction and 0.79 (0.68 to 0.91) for cerebrovascular events. Optimal EBCP (all 4 classes of drug prescribed) had a risk ratio for all-cause mortality of 0.50 (0.40 to 0.64). This benefit became more dilute as the number of different classes of drug comprising EBCP was decreased-for 3 classes of drug prescribed the risk ratio was 0.58 (0.49 to 0.69) and for 2 classes, the risk ratio was 0.67 (0.60 to 0.76). CONCLUSIONS: EBCP reduces the risk of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events in patients with CHD or cerebrovascular disease. The different classes of drugs comprising EBCP work in an additive manner, with optimal EBCP conferring the greatest benefit.