Economic burden of hospital admissions for adverse drug reactions in France: The IATROSTAT-ECO study.

AIMS: Hospitalizations for adverse drug reactions (ADR-HA) have increased over the last decade, but the impact of ADR-HA has rarely been evaluated. The aim of this study was to estimate the economic burden of ADR-HA in France. METHODS: A partial economic evaluation from the viewpoint of French public health insurance was performed, based on a previous pharmacovigilance study (IATROSTAT) performed in 2018 in public hospital medical units. The cost included direct medical costs, collected retrospectively, from the French hospital discharge database. The economic burden was estimated by calculating the total cost per ADR-HA patient (cost of hospital stays, additional daily cost of specific stays, such as in a resuscitation, intensive care or continuous surveillance unit, drug products and medical devices in addition to Healthcare Resource Group-based tariffs, and specific outpatient consultations and other clinical and technical medical procedures, over 3 months as from the first day of ADR-HA). The robustness of the results was assessed using a one-way deterministic sensitivity analysis of cost factors applying tariffs from 2023 instead of 2018. RESULTS: According to the 2018 tariffs (vs. 2023), the mean total cost per patient with ADR-HA was estimated at €5208 ± €3719 (vs. €5974 ± €4232) ranging from €514 to €23 355 (vs. €618 to €27 380). The total cost for 196 patients with ADR-HA admitted to a sample of French public hospitals was estimated at €1 020 549 (vs. €1 170 960). It could be estimated at €1.3 billion at the national level. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to the increase in the number of expensive drugs, the ageing population and polypharmacy, the economic impact of serious ADR-HA weighs heavily on healthcare spending.

Ocular Safety Profile of BRAF and MEK Inhibitors: Data from the World Health Organization Pharmacovigilance Database.

PURPOSE: BRAF inhibitors (BRAFi) and MEK inhibitors (MEKi) significantly improved metastatic melanoma prognosis. Ocular adverse effects (OAEs) represent an uncommon but disabling toxicity of these drugs. We aimed to characterize the ocular safety profile of BRAFi or MEKi and to detect possible safety signals. METHODS: We performed a retrospective, observational, pharmacovigilance study using VigiBase, the World Health Organization global safety database. Ocular adverse effects were classified according to the eye segments and the inflammatory pattern based on the Standardization of Uveitis Nomenclature. Associations among BRAFi monotherapy, MEKi monotherapy, and BRAFi+MEKi combination therapy and OAE reporting were assessed using disproportionality analysis. Results were expressed with the reporting odds ratio (ROR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: From January 2010 to October 2019, 1568 OAE cases were reported with BRAFi or MEKi. Among them, 1006 cases with sufficient data were included, corresponding to 310 (30.8%), 124 (12.3%), and 572 (56.9%) cases reported with BRAFi, MEKi, or BRAFi+MEKi combination therapy, respectively. BRAF inhibitor monotherapy was significantly associated with the reporting of iris and ciliary body abnormalities (ROR, 8.7; 95% CI, 6.0-12.5), diffuse abnormalities (ROR, 7.1; 95% CI, 5.4-9.4), anterior uveitis (ROR, 8.6; 95% CI, 6.0-12.1), and panuveitis (ROR, 7.1; 95% CI, 5.4-9.4). MEK inhibitor monotherapy was associated with the reporting of retinal and choroid abnormalities (ROR, 9.5; 95% CI, 7.4-12.2), diffuse abnormalities (ROR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.1-6.1), and panuveitis (ROR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.1-6.1). Combinations of BRAFi and MEKi therapies were associated with OAEs from both drugs, with a possible synergistic or additive effect for diffuse abnormalities and panuveitis. CONCLUSIONS: Our study characterizes the ocular safety profile of BRAFi and MEKi. We identify possible safety signals for several OAEs not previously reported with BRAFi and MEKi. Our data provide the rationale for a personalized management of OAE in patients with BRAFi+MEKi combination therapy according to the type of ocular reaction.

REview of potentially inappropriate MEDIcation pr[e]scribing in Seniors (REMEDI[e]S): French implicit and explicit criteria.

PURPOSE: To establish a consensus on both explicit and implicit criteria in order to identify potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) in French older people aged 75 years and over or 65 years and over with multimorbidity. METHODS: Fifteen experts in geriatrics, general practice, pharmacy, and clinical pharmacology were involved in a two-round Delphi survey to assess preliminary explicit and implicit criteria based on an extensive literature review and up-to-date evidence data. Experts were asked to rate their level of agreement using a 5-level Likert scale for inclusion of criteria and also for rationale and therapeutic alternatives. A consensus was considered as reached if at least 75% of the experts rated criteria as "strongly agreed" or "agreed." RESULTS: The new tool included a seven-step algorithm (implicit criteria) encompassing the three main domains that define PIP (i.e. overprescribing, underprescribing, and misprescribing) and 104 explicit criteria. Explicit criteria were divided into 6 tables related to inappropriate drug duplications (n = 7 criteria), omissions of medications and/or medication associations (n = 16), medications with an unfavourable benefit/risk ratio and/or a questionable efficacy (n = 39), medications with an unsuitable dose (n = 4) or duration (n = 6), drug-disease (n = 13), and drug-drug interactions (n = 19). CONCLUSION: The REMEDI[e]S tool (REview of potentially inappropriate MEDIcation pr[e]scribing in Seniors) is an original mixed tool, adapted to French medical practices, aimed at preventing PIP both at the individual level in clinical practice and the population level in large-scale studies. Therefore, its use could contribute to an improvement in healthcare professionals' prescribing practices and safer care in older adults.

Drug-induced linear immunoglobulin A bullous dermatosis: A French retrospective pharmacovigilance study of 69 cases.

AIMS: Linear immunoglobin A (IgA) bullous dermatosis is a rare autoimmune dermatosis considered spontaneous or drug-induced (DILAD). We assessed all DILAD cases, determined the imputability score of drugs and highlighted suspected drugs. METHODS: Data for patients with DILAD were collected retrospectively from the French Pharmacovigilance network (from 1985 to 2017) and from physicians involved in the Bullous Diseases French Study Group and the French Investigators for Skin Adverse Reactions to Drugs. Drug causality was systematically determined by the French imputability method. RESULTS: Of the 69 patients, 42% had mucous membrane involvement, 20% lesions mimicking toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), 21% eosinophil infiltrates and 10% keratinocytes necrosis. Direct immunofluorescence, in 80%, showed isolated linear IgA deposits. Vancomycin (VCM) was suspected in 39 cases (57%), 11 had TEN-like lesions, as compared with three without VCM suspected. Among the 33 patients with a single suspected drug, 85% had an intrinsic imputability score of I4. Among them, enoxaparin, minocycline and vibramycin were previously unpublished. For all patients, the suspect drug was withdrawn; 15 did not receive any treatment. First-line therapy for 31 patients was topical steroids. Among the 60 patients with available follow-up, 52 achieved remission, 10 without treatment. Four patients experienced relapse, four died and five had positive accidental rechallenges. CONCLUSIONS: There is no major clinical difference between DILAD and idiopathic linear IgA bullous dermatosis, but the former features a higher prevalence of patients mimicking TEN. VCM, suspected in more than half of the cases, might be responsible for more severe clinical presentations. We report three new putative drugs.

[Fibrates and risk of venous thromboembolism: Case/no-case study in French pharmacovigilance database]. / Fibrates et risques thrombo-emboliques veineux : étude cas/non-cas dans la base nationale de pharmacovigilance.

INTRODUCTION: Several studies have investigated the occurrence of venous thromboembolic events (phlebitis and pulmonary embolism) [VTE] and fibrates. Fibrates could be associated with VTE although published data are contradictory. The objective of this study is to confirm the link between VTE and fibrates. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective disproportionality analysis (case/non-case method) from observations recorded consecutively in the French pharmacovigilance database between 1985 and 2016. Cases were defined as embolic and thrombotic events, thrombophlebitis; Non-cases were other adverse events reported over the same period. We measured the disproportionality of exposure to each fibrate among cases and no-cases. The analysis was validated with a positive control (drospirenone) and a negative control (paracetamol). RESULTS: We compared 19,436 cases (including 161 mentioning fibrates) to 563,310 non-cases (including 3228 fibrates). Reports of VTE were significantly associated with fenofibrate (ROR=1.83; 95% CI=[1.53; 2.2]) but not with other fibrates: bézafibrate (ROR=0.44; 95% CI=[0.2; 0.99]), ciprofibrate (ROR=1.15; 95% CI=[0.76; 1.73]) and gemfibrozil (ROR=0.91; 95% CI=[0.45; 1.84]). CONCLUSION: With this study, we confirm the link between VTE and fenofibrate. It is therefore advisable to remain cautious when prescribing fenofibrate, in particular in case of past history of VTE and to declare systematically any venous thromboembolic adverse events observed with these drugs.

Validation and Reproducibility of the Updated French Causality Assessment Method: an Evaluation by Pharmacovigilance Centres & Pharmaceutical Companies.

OBJECTIVE: Assess the validity and reproducibility of the updated version of the French causality assessment method in conditions approaching real-life use. METHODS: A random sample of 31 drug-event pairs from the French pharmacovigilance database was assessed by the consensual judgement of three experts (gold standard). Separately, a team from a pharmacovigilance centre (PhVC) and another from a pharmaceutical company assessed these pairs using the current method, then with the updated method. To test the inter- and intra-rater reproducibility, two seniors and two juniors from a PhVC and a pharmaceutical company assessed the pairs twice with the updated method. A weighted kappa coefficient was used to measure the agreement of the two causality assessment methods with the consensual expert judgement (validity) as well as the agreement of the updated causality assessment over time (intra-rater reproducibility) and between evaluators (inter-rater reproducibility). RESULTS: Agreement between the current method and consensual expert judgement was fair for the PhVC team (weighted kappa [Kw] 0.33) and moderate for the pharmaceutical company team (Kw 0.41). For the updated method, agreement was better for both the PhVC (Kw 0.58) and the pharmaceutical company (Kw 0.52) teams. The inter- and intra-rater reproducibility of the updated method based on the intrinsic imputability was satisfactory overall (Kw 0.30-0.91). Discrepancies between evaluations from PhVC and pharmaceutical companies were observed with the updated method. CONCLUSION: The updated method performed better than the current one for drug causality assessment, suggesting that it should be used in routine pharmacovigilance.

Drugs and Sleep Apneas? A review of the French Pharmacovigilance database.

The present work reviews the case reports of drug-induced sleep apnea recorded in the French pharmacovigilance database. Notifications are very rare (around 1/100 000 notifications). This paper shows that sleep apnea can be aggravated or revealed by some drugs. Main drugs involved were psychotropics (benzodiazepines, neuroleptics) and opioids.

Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss after COVID-19 Vaccination: A Review of the Available Evidence through the Prism of Causality Assessment.

Sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL), a rare audiological condition that accounts for 1% of all cases of sensorineural hearing loss, can cause permanent hearing damage. Soon after the launch of global COVID-19 vaccination campaigns, the World Health Organization released a signal detection about SSNHL cases following administration of various COVID-19 vaccines. Post-marketing studies have been conducted in different countries using either pharmacovigilance or medico-administrative databases to investigate SSNHL as a potential adverse effect of COVID-19 vaccines. Here, we examine the advantages and limitations of each type of post-marketing study available. While pharmacoepidemiological studies highlight the potential association between drug exposure and the event, pharmacovigilance approaches enable causality assessment. The latter objective can only be achieved if an expert evaluation is provided using internationally validated diagnostic criteria. For a rare adverse event such as SSNHL, case information and quantification of hearing loss are mandatory for assessing seriousness, severity, delay onset, differential diagnoses, corrective treatment, recovery, as well as functional sequelae. Appropriate methodology should be adopted depending on whether the target objective is to assess a global or individual risk.

[Serious adverse effects with immunotherapies for the treatment of melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer, and renal cell carcinoma: Real-world evidence study]. / Effets indésirables graves des immunothérapies dans le traitement du mélanome, du cancer bronchique non à petites cellules et du carcinome à cellules rénales : étude en vie réelle.

INTRODUCTION: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are a key component of standard anticancer systemic therapy. While their immune-related adverse effects (irAEs) have been widely described, there are few data on grade≥3 irAEs. The primary aim of our descriptive study was to evaluate their incidence and characteristics. METHODS: An observational, retrospective, monocentric study was conducted. It included patients with locally advanced or metastatic melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer or renal cell carcinoma who initiated ICI therapy between 2016-2021 and experienced at least one grade≥3 irAEs coded according to the MedDRA® system. RESULTS: All cancer types and ICIs combined, the incidence of grade≥3 irAEs was estimated at 11.7% [9.6-13.9]. These were mainly hepatobiliary (22%), gastrointestinal (17%), musculoskeletal (16%) and respiratory (16%) disorders. They occurred on average 6.2±6.2 months after the start of treatment, resulting in hospitalization or prolonged hospitalization in over 40 and 20% of cases, respectively. Resolution without sequelae was observed in 56% of cases, but four patients died. DISCUSSION: This real-world study investigated three cancers and several ICIs, unlike previously published studies that focused on a single cancer and/or one ICI. It provides a better understanding of grade≥3 irAEs, most of which are reversible, which an aim to optimize patient care.

Updating the French method for the causality assessment of adverse drug reactions.

The Imputability Working Group (CRI) updated the French drug reaction causality assessment method. This tripartite group is made up of staff from the French network of regional pharmacovigilance centres, pharmaceutical companies, and the French National Agency for the Safety of Medicines and Health Products (ANSM). After reviewing the strengths and weaknesses of the previous method, several ideas for improvement were proposed: a better-worded and more discriminating scale for certain chronological and semiological criteria, a larger scale for the intrinsic score (increased from 5 to 7 levels), a new bibliographical scale to differentiate between expected and unexpected adverse drug reactions, and a new informativeness scale.

Pharmacovigilance follow-up of patients in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: In the context of COVID-19 pandemic, a national pharmacovigilance survey was set up in March 2020. The purpose of this survey was to ensure continuous monitoring of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in patients with COVID-19, not only related to the drugs used in this indication but also related to all drugs administered to these patients or suspected of having promoted the infection. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This descriptive study was based on data extracted from the French Pharmacovigilance Database from 1 January 2020 to 30 September 2021. Misuse was also analysed through the MESANGE project. The ADRs were classified according to three groups: "drugs used to treat COVID-19", "other drugs administered to COVID-19 positive patients" and "drugs suspected of having promoted COVID-19". The data were also presented according to 2 periods (period one was from January to June 2020 and period two from July 2020 onwards). RESULTS: Among 2189 included cases, 67.1% were serious. Cases were mainly related to "other drugs administrated to COVID-19 positive patients" (58.5%) followed by "drugs used to treat COVID-19" (33.7%) and "drugs suspected of having promoted COVID-19" (7.8%). Drugs used to treat COVID-19 and their main safety profile were different depending on the period: mostly hydroxychloroquine (51%) with heart injury and lopinavir/ritonavir (42%) with liver injury for the first period, and dexamethasone (46%) with hyperglycemia and tocilizumab (28%) with liver injury for the second period. The drugs suspected of worsening COVID-19 differed in both periods especially for non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs mainly reported in period 1 (41.5% versus 8.2% in period 2). Other immunosuppressive drugs were in the majority in the second period (85.7%), with mainly methotrexate (15.3%), anti-CD20 (15.3%) and anti-TNF alpha (10.5%). No confirmed safety signal was identified among other drugs administered to patients with COVID-19. The profile of ADRs and suspected drugs was similar between the 2 periods. The study of misuse in outpatient settings identified in both periods mainly hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, ivermectin and zinc±vitamin C. DISCUSSION: This survey, based on real-time pharmacological and medical assessment of ADRs and weekly meetings in a specific national committee, made it possible to identify relevant safety signals which contribute to patient care with no delay. The main safety signal highlighted was serious cardiac damage under hydroxychloroquine, alone or combined with azithromycin and also with lopinavir/ritonavir. This signal has contributed to the evolution of the recommendations for these 2 drugs. The methodology of this survey has been taken over and is still going on for the pharmacovigilance monitoring of vaccines against COVID-19, for monoclonal antibodies used against COVID-19 and also for Paxlovid® (nirmatrelvir/ritonavir) which benefit from dedicated surveys.

Pharmacovigilance signals from active surveillance of mRNA platform vaccines (tozinameran and elasomeran).

INTRODUCTION: Two severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines, tozinameran/BNT162b2 (Comirnaty®, Pfizer-BioNTech) and elasomeran/mRNA-1273 (Spikevax®, Moderna), were approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) at the end of 2020, less than a year after the start of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. In France, the health authorities have requested an intensive vaccination campaign, accompanied by a reinforced and active pharmacovigilance surveillance. This surveillance and analysis of real-life data, based on spontaneous reports received by the French Network of Regional PharmacoVigilance Centers (RFCRPV), has enabled to identify numerous pharmacovigilance signals. Some of them, such as myocarditis and heavy menstrual bleeding, have been confirmed as adverse effects of these vaccines. METHOD: We propose a descriptive review of the main pharmacovigilance signals identified by the RFCRPV concerning vaccines from the mRNA platform. RESULTS: Most pharmacovigilance signals were common to both mRNA vaccines: myocarditis, menstrual disorders, acquired haemophilia, Parsonage-Turner syndrome, rhizomelic pseudo-polyarthritis and hearing disorders. Other signals were more specific, such as arterial hypertension with tozinameran or delayed reaction site injection with elasomeran. CONCLUSION: This non-exhaustive review illustrates the experience of RFCRPV in identifying and monitoring pharmacovigilance signals related to mRNA vaccines in France during the COVID-19 pandemics, and the crucial role of pharmacological and clinical expertise in this area. It also highlights the predominant contribution of spontaneous reporting in the generation of pharmacovigilance signals, particularly for serious and rare adverse events not detected before marketing.

Safety Signal Generation for Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss Following Messenger RNA COVID-19 Vaccination: Postmarketing Surveillance Using the French Pharmacovigilance Spontaneous Reporting Database.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization recently described sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL) as a possible adverse effect of COVID-19 vaccines. Recent discordant pharmacoepidemiologic studies invite robust clinical investigations of SSNHL after COVID-19 messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines. This postmarketing surveillance study, overseen by French public health authorities, is the first to clinically document postvaccination SSNHL and examine the role of potential risk factors. OBJECTIVE: This nationwide study aimed to assess the relationship between SSNHL and exposure to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and estimate the reporting rate (Rr) of SSNHL after mRNA vaccination per 1 million doses (primary outcome). METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of all suspected cases of SSNHL after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination spontaneously reported in France between January 2021 and February 2022 based on a comprehensive medical evaluation, including the evaluation of patient medical history, side and range of hearing loss, and hearing recovery outcomes after a minimum period of 3 months. The quantification of hearing loss and assessment of hearing recovery outcomes were performed according to a grading system modified from the Siegel criteria. A cutoff of 21 days was used for the delay onset of SSNHL. The primary outcome was estimated using the total number of doses of each vaccine administered during the study period in France as the denominator. RESULTS: From 400 extracted cases for tozinameran and elasomeran, 345 (86.3%) spontaneous reports were selected. After reviewing complementary data, 49.6% (171/345) of documented cases of SSNHL were identified. Of these, 83% (142/171) of SSNHL cases occurred after tozinameran vaccination: Rr=1.45/1,000,000 injections; no difference for the rank of injections; complete recovery in 22.5% (32/142) of cases; median delay onset before day 21=4 days (median age 51, IQR 13-83 years); and no effects of sex. A total of 16.9% (29/171) of SSNHL cases occurred after elasomeran vaccination: Rr=1.67/1,000,000 injections; rank effect in favor of the first injection (P=.03); complete recovery in 24% (7/29) of cases; median delay onset before day 21=8 days (median age 47, IQR 33-81 years); and no effects of sex. Autoimmune, cardiovascular, or audiovestibular risk factors were present in approximately 29.8% (51/171) of the cases. SSNHL was more often unilateral than bilateral for both mRNA vaccines (P<.001 for tozinameran; P<.003 for elasomeran). There were 13.5% (23/142) of cases of profound hearing loss, among which 74% (17/23) did not recover a serviceable ear. A positive rechallenge was documented for 8 cases. CONCLUSIONS: SSNHL after COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are very rare adverse events that do not call into question the benefits of mRNA vaccines but deserve to be known given the potentially disabling impact of sudden deafness. Therefore, it is essential to properly characterize postinjection SSNHL, especially in the case of a positive rechallenge, to provide appropriate individualized recommendations.

Role of spontaneous reporting in investigating the relationship between mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and myocarditis: The French perspective.

AIM OF THE STUDY: Post-mRNA coronavirus diseases 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines myocarditis emerged as a rare adverse effect, particularly in adolescents and young adults, and was labeled as such for both vaccines in the summer of 2021. This study aims to summarize the timeline and process of signal detection, substantiation, and quantification of myocarditis cases related to mRNA vaccines in France. METHODS: The intensive monitoring plan for COVID-19 vaccine safety was based on case-by-case analysis of all cases collected in the French spontaneous reporting database (Base nationale de pharmacovigilance, BNPV). Cases were evaluated by drug safety medical professionals and discussed at a national level for signal detection purposes. Reported cases were compared to the number of vaccine-exposed persons up to September 30th, 2021. Reporting rates (Rr) of myocarditis per 100,000 injections were calculated and stratified according to age, gender, and injection rank of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines. Poisson distribution was used to compute Rrs 95% Confidence Interval (95% CI). RESULTS: The case-by-case analysis detected a possible cluster of myocarditis in April 2021 (5 cases, 4 after the 2nd injection). In June 2021, the signal was substantiated with 12 cases (9 related to BNT162b2, and 3 to mRNA-1273). As of September 2021, almost 73 million BNT162b2 and 10 million mRNA-1273 doses had been injected. The Rr per 100,000 injections was 0.5 (0.5-0.6) for BNT162b2 and 1.1 (95% CI 0.9-1.3) for mRNA-1273. The difference among vaccines was more pronounced after the second injection, particularly in men aged 18-24 years (4.3 [3.4-5.5] for BNT162b2 vs. 13.9 [9.2-20.1] for mRNA-1273) and aged 25-29 years (1.9 [1.2-2.9] vs. 7.0 [3.4-12.9]). CONCLUSION: The study highlighted the role of the spontaneous reporting system in the detection, assessment, and quantification of myocarditis related to m-RNA vaccines. It suggested from September 2021 that mRNA-1273 was reasonably related to a higher risk of myocarditis than BNT162b2 in people under 30, particularly after the second injection.

[Safety update on vaccination during pregnancy]. / Point sur les vaccinations à risque pendant la grossesse.

During influenza A pandemia, the vaccination on pregnant women has raised many questions. Pandemia, easiness of travelling, and insufficient vaccinal coverage, expose these patients to infection which may have serious consequences on their pregnancy and on the child to born. On pregnant women, the precautionary principle is a priority and the evaluation of epidemiological risk is essential, in order to prevent adverses events. Prophylactic vaccinal administration against infections should be assessed with caution due to the little amount of available data. Its use will depend on the vaccine's composition and known side effects, the stage of pregnancy, as well as the benefit for the mother and the child to born, and her clinical history. Whatever the vaccine's nature, its administration never justifies a therapeutic abortion; its evolution must be closely followed to cover the occurrence of complication.

Epidemiology and economic burden of "serious" adverse drug reactions: Real-world evidence research based on pharmacovigilance data.

AIM OF THE STUDY: Serious adverse drug reactions account for 3.6% of French hospital admissions. Of these, 48.5% are, at least potentially, preventable. The first aim of post-marketing pharmacovigilance is to detect adverse drug reactions as a safety signal to improve patients' safety. Thus, this study describes the epidemiology of "serious" adverse drug reactions reported between 2015 and 2018 to a regional pharmacovigilance centre and assesses their economic burden. METHODS: All "serious" adverse drug reactions reported to a regional pharmacovigilance centre during the four-year study period were collected and cost associated. Only congenital anomalies related to "serious" adverse drug reactions were excluded. RESULTS: All 2585 "serious" adverse drug reactions reported are related to 1242 "serious" individual case safety reports. Among 58.1% of them, patients required hospital admission or a visit to the emergency room with a median cost estimated to €3725 per "serious" individual case safety report. The most "serious" adverse drug reactions reported involved gastrointestinal disorders. Fifteen percent of the imputed drugs had a narrow therapeutic index and the most frequently drug was fluindione. Finally, high relationships with an economic burden were observed for ages over or equal to 65, and imputed drugs from "Blood and Blood-Forming Organs" and "Anti-infectives for systemic use" therapeutic groups. CONCLUSION: This study provides news data on epidemiology and cost of "serious" adverse drug reactions completing the existing literature. On a regional scale, pharmacovigilance real world data could be interesting for pharmacist clinicians in common practice to improve the good use of drugs.

[HIV preexposure prophylaxis with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine: What about safety?] / Utilisation de TRUVADA® en prophylaxie préexposition : analyse des bases de vigilance et revue de la littérature.

INTRODUCTION: Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is a combination of antiretroviral regimen, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF)/emtricitabine (FTC) that has been shown to prevent HIV transmission. It had been regulated through a temporary recommendation use since December 2015 and had marketing authorization in France since March 2017. As, this product is proposed for adults and adolescents safe from HIV but at high risk of infection, the question is to know if there is a safety concern about this use. METHODS: A request has been made in the French national pharmacovigilance database (ANPV) and VIGILYZE for an extraction of all cases containing TDF/FTC as suspect drugs in PrEP use. In the second part, we did a literature review in PubMED with MeSH terms and an analysis of the results of the American, English and French initial clinical trials was performed. RESULTS: In both database, 808 cases correspond to an indication of HIV prexposure prophylaxis who represent 2058 adverse effects (AEs) mainly distributed in gastro-intestinal disorders (38.5%), general disorders (16.8%) and 62 cases of seroconversion. We identify 24% of unexpected AEs including 12% of serious AEs in the French database. In literature review, there are no unexpected AEs published, the AEs are mainly gastro-intestinal disorders. There was no significant difference in the AE profile compared to the HIV-infected population treated with TDF/FTC. CONCLUSION: Data from the ANPV, combined with data from the worldwide pharmacovigilance database, show that the most commonly observed AEs are gastrointestinal, mainly nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. A significant number of asthenia and fatigue are also observed. These AEs are well described in the SMPc. However, we have little data, which can be explained by a probable under-reporting of AEs. We identify 24% of unexpected and potentially serious adverse effects in France mainly among chemsex users. Based on these results, our study confirms the safety of PrEP.