Integrated safety and efficacy analysis of once-daily fluticasone furoate for the treatment of asthma.

BACKGROUND: Fluticasone furoate is a once-daily inhaled corticosteroid. This report provides an overview of safety and efficacy data that support the use of once-daily fluticasone furoate 100 µg or 200 µg in adult and adolescent asthma patients. METHODS: Fourteen clinical studies (six Phase II and eight Phase III) were conducted as part of the fluticasone furoate global clinical development programme in asthma. Safety data from 10 parallel-group, randomised, double-blind Phase II and III studies (including 3345 patients who received at least one dose of fluticasone furoate) were integrated to provide information on adverse events, withdrawals, laboratory assessments, vital signs and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis function. The efficacy of once-daily fluticasone furoate was evaluated in all included studies. RESULTS: Once-daily fluticasone furoate 100 µg and 200 µg safety profiles were consistent with those reported for other inhaled corticosteroids, and both doses consistently demonstrated efficacy versus placebo. In the integrated analysis, no dose-response relationship was observed for the overall incidence of adverse events and there were no significant effects of fluticasone furoate on hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis function. CONCLUSION: Once-daily fluticasone furoate 100 µg and 200 µg had acceptable safety profiles and was efficacious in adult and adolescent patients with asthma. There was no evidence of cortisol suppression at studied doses. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: GSK (NCT01499446/FFA20001, NCT00398645/FFA106783, NCT00766090/112202, NCT00603746/FFA109684, NCT00603278/FFA109685, NCT00603382/FFA109687, NCT01436071/115283, NCT01436110/115285, NCT01159912/112059, NCT01431950/114496, NCT01165138/HZA106827, NCT01086384/106837, NCT01134042/HZA106829 and NCT01244984/1139879).

Application of the bradford hill criteria to assess the causality of cisapride-induced arrhythmia: a model for assessing causal association in pharmacovigilance.

INTRODUCTION: The Bradford Hill criteria are a widely used, useful tool for the assessment of biomedical causation. We have examined their application to pharmacovigilance using the example of cisapride-induced QTc interval prolongation/arrhythmia. METHODS: A literature search was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Reactions Weekly and regulatory websites to identify evidence for the association between cisapride and QTc interval prolongation/arrhythmia that had been published in the English language. Two hundred and five publications were identified as being potentially suitable for the study. After excluding irrelevant articles, studies on high-risk populations and review articles, 70 publications were assessed using the Bradford Hill criteria. These included 24 case reports, case series or spontaneous report summaries; eight epidemiological studies; 22 clinical studies; and 16 experimental (in vivo and in vitro) publications. RESULTS: The most compelling evidence for an association between cisapride use and QTc interval prolongation/arrhythmia came from case/spontaneous reports and biological plausibility. Considering the rare incidence of serious cardiac events, these criteria formed the basis for the strength of the association. The number of reports from different populations showed consistency. Specificity was supported by clinical and cardiographic characterisation of the events. There were temporal relationships between the events and the initiation of cisapride treatment, increases in the dosage and the receipt of interacting medications. The relationships between the adverse events and the latter two factors exhibited biological gradients. Experimental evidence could be found from biological models, as well as reports of positive dechallenge and/or rechallenge found in individual patients. Cisapride was found to bind the human ether-a-go-go-related gene (HERG) potassium channel, which provides a plausible mechanism for QTc interval prolongation/arrhythmia. Other QTc interval-prolonging/arrhythmic drugs that also bind to HERG provided an analogy for cisapride causing QTc interval prolongation/arrhythmia via this mechanism. The evidence provided by clinical studies was inconsistent, and epidemiological studies failed to demonstrate an association. Nevertheless, this did not prevent the assessment of causation. DISCUSSION: This study showed how different types of evidence found in pharmacovigilance can be evaluated using the Bradford Hill criteria. Further work is required to examine how the criteria can be applied to different types of adverse events and how they may be applied to pharmacovigilance.

A modified prescription-event monitoring study to assess the introduction of Seretide Evohaler in England: an example of studying risk monitoring in pharmacovigilance.

INTRODUCTION: Monitoring was required for the introduction of non-chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) propellants in metered dose inhalers (MDIs) to ensure that there were no unexpected adverse events due to the new products. A postmarketing surveillance study has been conducted to evaluate the introduction of the MDI Seretide Evohaler (hydrofluoroalkane-134a inhaler containing salmeterol and fluticasone propionate). OBJECTIVES: To summarise the modified prescription-event monitoring (PEM) study conducted to evaluate the introduction of Seretide Evohaler and discuss the relevance of this type of study towards pharmacovigilance risk-management planning. METHODS: Modified PEM methodology was used to examine the introduction of Seretide Evohaler into general practice in England. Patients were identified from the first National Health Service prescriptions dispensed in England for Seretide Evohaler. One postal questionnaire was sent to the prescribing doctor, requesting demographic information, severity of the indication, concomitant medication for this condition, smoking history, event data 3 months prior to and 3 months after the first prescription for Seretide Evohaler and also reason for stopping if it had been stopped. Pregnancies, deaths and selected events were followed up. Incidence density ratios were calculated to compare event rates 3 months prior to and 3 months after the introduction of Seretide Evohaler. A matched cohort analysis examined oral corticosteroid use and hospital admissions between the pre- and post-exposure periods. RESULTS: The cohort comprised 13,464 patients prescribed Seretide Evohaler, with a response rate of 62%. There was no significant difference in the length of courses of oral corticosteroid use when the pre- and post-exposure periods were compared. A matched cohort analysis showed there was no increase in the use of oral corticosteroids (relative risk [RR] 0.95; 95% CI 0.90, 0.99) or hospital admissions in the post-exposure period (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.73, 1.04). When the number of patients with events were compared for the periods 3 months before and 3 months after exposure, fewer events were reported in the post-exposure period. There were 64 patients who experienced adverse events within an hour of using Seretide Evohaler, including one report of paradoxical bronchospasm and one of myocardial infarction with fatal outcome that were both assessed as possibly related to treatment. DISCUSSION: The results of the study suggest that the introduction of Seretide Evohaler was generally well tolerated. The modified methodology has allowed a comparison of the event rates before and after the introduction of this CFC-free inhaler into general practice.

Incidence of venous thromboembolism in users of strontium ranelate: an analysis of data from a prescription-event monitoring study in England.

BACKGROUND: Strontium ranelate is indicated for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. An association between strontium ranelate and venous thromboembolism (VTE) was identified in an analysis of phase III clinical trials. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the incidence of VTE in patients within the strontium ranelate (Protelos(R)) Prescription-Event Monitoring (PEM) study cohort during the first 12 months after starting treatment. METHODS: Patients in this analysis were identified from dispensed prescriptions that had been issued by general practitioners (GPs) in England for strontium ranelate between October 2004 and January 2008. For each individual patient, a Green Form questionnaire was sent to their GP 12 months after the date of the first prescription issued for strontium ranelate, requesting information about the patient including start and stop dates of treatment (if stopped), age, sex, indication, any history of VTE events, reasons for stopping and whether the patient had any events since starting the drug. VTE was defined as reports of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE). The crude incidence of VTE was calculated for events that occurred during the first 12 months after starting treatment (plus 30 days after stopping), with 95% Poisson exact CIs for the whole cohort, and subsets defined by age and past history of VTE. RESULTS: The final analysis cohort consisted of 10 782 patients. Where specified, mean age was 73.3 years (SD 11.45) [n = 10 696]; 9833 (91.3%) were female and 934 (8.7%) were male. Where the history of VTE was specified, 233 patients (2.6%) had a history of VTE prior to starting. In the first 12-month period, there were 48 incident reports of VTE (DVT or PE) during treatment (or within 30 days of stopping) in the cohort, with 7696.89 years of exposure, giving a crude incidence rate of VTE of 6.24 cases (95% CI 4.60, 8.27) per 1000 patient-years exposed. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis has provided an estimate of the incidence of VTE in patients treated with strontium ranelate in the general practice setting. The rate is similar to estimates in populations of similar age and corresponds to the incidence found in patients from phase III clinical studies and observational cohort studies of strontium ranelate on this topic. The crude annual incidence rate of VTE in the PEM cohort is higher than the background annual incidence rate found in the UK population, but is similar to estimates in populations of similar age and populations receiving treatment for postmenopausal osteoporosis. Also, we acknowledge the potential for underestimating the incidence in this population. Nevertheless, this analysis contributes to the ongoing postmarketing safety assessment of this product.

A modified prescription-event monitoring study to assess the introduction of Flixotide Evohaler into general practice in England: an example of pharmacovigilance planning and risk monitoring.

INTRODUCTION: A modified prescription-event monitoring (PEM) study was conducted to examine the safety of the introduction of the metered dose inhaler (MDI) Flixotide Evohaler (fluticasone with the propellant HFA 134a). METHODS: Patients were identified from the first NHS prescriptions dispensed in England for Flixotide Evohaler. Postal questionnaires were sent to the prescribing doctor, requesting information including: demographic characteristics, severity of indication, concomitant medication, event data 3 months prior to and 3 months after the first prescription, and any reasons for stopping Flixotide. Pregnancies, deaths and selected events were followed up. Incidence density ratios (IDRs) were calculated to compare event rates 3 months before and 3 months after the introduction of Flixotide Evohaler. RESULTS: The cohort comprised 13 413 patients that were prescribed Flixotide Evohaler. The response rate was 64.0%. When the pre- and post-exposure periods were compared fewer patients had events in the post-exposure period, and there was no significant difference in the length of courses of oral steroid use. Eighteen patients experienced an event within 1 hour of using Flixotide Evohaler; these were minor with the exception of one case of angioneurotic facial oedema. Six of these events were assessed as possibly related to Flixotide Evohaler. During the study period there were an additional 13 patients with events assessed as possibly related to Flixotide Evohaler, including two reports of allergic reactions. DISCUSSION: The results suggest that the transition to Flixotide Evohaler was generally well tolerated. The modified methodology has contributed to the risk management of the introduction of this product.

The safety profiles of orlistat and sibutramine: results of prescription-event monitoring studies in England.

INTRODUCTION: Observational cohort studies were conducted using prescription-event monitoring (PEM) to examine the safety profiles of the anti-obesity agents orlistat and sibutramine. Adverse events reported as case reports were also evaluated to determine whether these events were also identified by PEM. RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES: Patients were identified from dispensed prescriptions written by general practitioners (GPs) in England for orlistat or sibutramine. Patient demographic and clinical event information, including reasons for stopping and adverse drug reactions, were requested on questionnaires posted to GPs at least 6 months after the first prescription for individual patients. Event incidence densities (IDs) (number of first reports of event/1000 patient-months treatment) were calculated for month 1 (ID(1)) and months 2-3 (ID(2-3)). Published case reports were identified by searching Medline and Embase. RESULTS: The cohorts comprised 16,021 and 12,336 patients prescribed orlistat and sibutramine, respectively. Both cohorts had a median age of 45 years, and approximately 80% were female. The most common reason for stopping orlistat within 3 months was diarrhea (332 patients; 2.1% cohort), and for stopping sibutramine it was hypertension (203 patients; 1.6%). Clinical events significantly associated with taking orlistat were mainly gastrointestinal and those for sibutramine included central nervous system effects, nausea/vomiting, palpitation, and sweating. We identified 8 published case reports for orlistat and 10 for sibutramine that had equivalent or similar events assessed as causally related in the PEM studies. CONCLUSIONS: The PEM studies highlighted different adverse event profiles for orlistat and sibutramine that were consistent with their distinct pharmacological mechanisms and other published information.

An analysis of the exclusion criteria used in observational pharmacoepidemiological studies.

PURPOSE: The application of exclusion criteria in pharmacoepidemiological studies could have a major impact on the findings but there appears to have been no previous research to examine the types of exclusion criteria applied. METHODS: We searched the literature and identified 10 senior pharmacoepidemiologists who had published five or more relevant papers between 1999 and 2004. All their published drug safety studies during this period were reviewed. A classification system was developed to categorise the exclusion criteria, with 5 categories and 11 sub-categories. The categories were: (1) data quality and validation, (2) disease-related, (3) exposure-related, (4) patient characteristics and (5) miscellaneous reasons. Within each sub-category, only the first exclusion criterion identified for that study was counted. RESULTS: We identified 200 studies, from which a total of 752 exclusion criteria sub-categories had been applied (mean 3.8 per study; between-author range of means 2.8-5.1). At the category level, exclusion criteria relating to data quality and validation were the most commonly applied (87% of publications), followed by patient characteristics (75%), disease-related (69%), exposure-related (38%) and miscellaneous (3%). The main categories for which research practice appeared to differ were those relating to diseases and exposures. The application of sub-category 'risk factors and alternative causes' varied between authors from 0% to 81% of studies, and for the sub-category 'medication of interest' it varied from 5% to 93%. CONCLUSIONS: There are important differences between investigators in the application of exclusion criteria in pharmacoepidemiological studies. It is likely that a substantial part of the observed variation reflects different research practices of investigators.