Pancreatitis with use of new diabetic medications: a real-world data study using the post-marketing FDA adverse event reporting system (FAERS) database.

Background: Pancreatitis is characterized by inflammation of the pancreas and significantly affects quality of life. Less than 5% of pancreatitis cases are drug-induced, but recent evidence suggests a substantial risk associated with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs). The aim of this study was to compare the risk of developing pancreatitis between those using GLP-1 RAs and those using sodium-glucose transport protein 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors. Methods: This study was done using the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database from 2019 to 2021. This database contains information from diverse submissions from healthcare providers, patients, and manufacturers. To ensure fairness and accuracy, the risk of pancreatitis associated with other hypoglycemic agents (SGLT2 inhibitors and DPP-4 inhibitors) was also investigated. Traditional and Bayesian statistical analysis methods were used to identify disproportionate statistics and included the reporting odds ratio (ROR), proportional reporting ratio (PRR), empirical Bayes geometric mean (EBGM), and information component (IC). A drug-adverse-event combination that met the criteria of all four indices was deemed a signal. Results: The analysis of 2,313 pancreatitis reports linked to hypoglycemic agents revealed a predominant association with GLP-1 RA (70.2%) compared to DPP-4 inhibitors (15%) and SGLT2 (14.7%). Most of these reports involved female patients (50.4%), and the highest incidence occurred in those over 50 years old (38.4%). Additionally, 17.7% of the reports were associated with serious events. The ROR was significant for the risk of pancreatitis when using DPP-4 (13.2, 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.84-14.70), while the ROR for GLP-1 was 9.65 (95% CI 9.17-10.16). The EBGM was highest with DPP-4 (12.25), followed by GLP-1 (8.64), while IC was highest with DPP-4 inhibitors (3.61). Liraglutide had the greatest association with pancreatitis among the GLP-1 RAs (ROR: 6.83, 95% CI 6.60-7.07). Conclusion: The findings show that pancreatitis has a strong link with DPP-4 inhibitors and GPL1 agonists, which pose a greater risk. Among the GLP-1 agonist medications, liraglutide has been found to have an association with pancreatitis.

The Reporting of a Disproportionality Analysis for Drug Safety Signal Detection Using Individual Case Safety Reports in PharmacoVigilance (READUS-PV): Development and Statement.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Disproportionality analyses using reports of suspected adverse drug reactions are the most commonly used quantitative methods for detecting safety signals in pharmacovigilance. However, their methods and results are generally poorly reported in published articles and existing guidelines do not capture the specific features of disproportionality analyses. We here describe the development of a guideline (REporting of A Disproportionality analysis for drUg Safety signal detection using individual case safety reports in PharmacoVigilance [READUS-PV]) for reporting the results of disproportionality analyses in articles and abstracts. METHODS: We established a group of 34 international experts from universities, the pharmaceutical industry, and regulatory agencies, with expertise in pharmacovigilance, disproportionality analyses, and assessment of safety signals. We followed a three-step process to develop the checklist: (1) an open-text survey to generate a first list of items; (2) an online Delphi method to select and rephrase the most important items; (3) a final online consensus meeting. RESULTS: Among the panel members, 33 experts responded to round 1 and 30 to round 2 of the Delphi and 25 participated to the consensus meeting. Overall, 60 recommendations for the main body of the manuscript and 13 recommendations for the abstracts were retained by participants after the Delphi method. After merging of some items together and the online consensus meeting, the READUS-PV guidelines comprise a checklist of 32 recommendations, in 14 items, for the reporting of disproportionality analyses in the main body text and four items, comprising 12 recommendations, for abstracts. CONCLUSIONS: The READUS-PV guidelines will support authors, editors, peer-reviewers, and users of disproportionality analyses using individual case safety report databases. Adopting these guidelines will lead to more transparent, comprehensive, and accurate reporting and interpretation of disproportionality analyses, facilitating the integration with other sources of evidence.

The REporting of A Disproportionality Analysis for DrUg Safety Signal Detection Using Individual Case Safety Reports in PharmacoVigilance (READUS-PV): Explanation and Elaboration.

In pharmacovigilance, disproportionality analyses based on individual case safety reports are widely used to detect safety signals. Unfortunately, publishing disproportionality analyses lacks specific guidelines, often leading to incomplete and ambiguous reporting, and carries the risk of incorrect conclusions when data are not placed in the correct context. The REporting of A Disproportionality analysis for drUg Safety signal detection using individual case safety reports in PharmacoVigilance (READUS-PV) statement was developed to address this issue by promoting transparent and comprehensive reporting of disproportionality studies. While the statement paper explains in greater detail the procedure followed to develop these guidelines, with this explanation paper we present the 14 items retained for READUS-PV guidelines, together with an in-depth explanation of their rationale and bullet points to illustrate their practical implementation. Our primary objective is to foster the adoption of the READUS-PV guidelines among authors, editors, peer reviewers, and readers of disproportionality analyses. Enhancing transparency, completeness, and accuracy of reporting, as well as proper interpretation of their results, READUS-PV guidelines will ultimately facilitate evidence-based decision making in pharmacovigilance.

Are drug safety measures harmonized? A real-world evidence from three regulatory authorities.

Background: Risk minimization measures (RMMs) are interventions intended to mitigate or prevent the occurrence of adverse reactions associated with medications. Having consistent measures across regulatory bodies (i.e., the Saudi Food and Drug Authority (SFDA), the United States Food and Drug Administration (US FDA), and the European Medicines Agency (EMA)) benefits medication use and safety and ultimately the patient. Objectives: This study aimed to investigate whether there is variability in these published RMMs between the three regulatory bodies. Methods: A specific data collection form was created to extract information from the SFDA's RMM list, US FDA's Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) list, and EMA's Risk Management Plan (RMP) list, as of February 2022 all RMMs that were available on the websites were reviewed. Medications with the same trade name were matched across regulators, and unmatched medications were checked for approval status. For medication groups such as NSAIDs in the SFDA's RMM list, they were matched by searching for the groups individually in the regulatory websites. All risks and types of minimizing measures were compared. Results: A total of 317 medications were retrieved from the SFDA's RMM list. The majority of medication classes were immunosuppressants (n = 60), antihypertensive (n = 33), and oncology medication (n = 29). There were only 62 medications with REMS from the US FDA website, a total of 14 medications were approved by the SFDA, and only nine medications were matched with the SFDA's RMM list. Also, there were 828 medications with RMP from the EMA website, a total of 334 has RMM, 128 are approved by the SFDA, and 71 matched with the SFDA's RMM list. Furthermore, seven medications were matched between SFDA, US FDA and EMA. After content review, four medications had similar risks and measures across the regulators and three medications had different risks and measures across the regulators. For the medication groups, a total of 36 groups were in the SFDA's list, 18 groups were matched with the US FDA, and 14 were matched with the EMA. Conclusions: Our study showed substantial differences among the regulatory authorities regarding RMMs. Harmony in published risk measures can have a significant impact on medication safety.

Saudi Critical Care Society clinical practice guidelines on the prevention of venous thromboembolism in adults with trauma: reviewed for evidence-based integrity and endorsed by the Scandinavian Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine

To develop evidence-based clinical practice guidelines on venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention in adults with trauma in inpatient settings. The Saudi Critical Care Society (SCCS) sponsored guidelines development and included 22 multidisciplinary panel members who completed conflict-of-interest forms. The panel developed and answered structured guidelines questions. For each question, the literature was searched for relevant studies. To summarize treatment effects, meta-analyses were conducted or updated. Quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, then the evidence-to-decision (EtD) framework was used to generate recommendations. Recommendations covered the following prioritized domains: timing of pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis initiation in non-operative blunt solid organ injuries; isolated blunt traumatic brain injury (TBI); isolated blunt spine trauma or fracture and/or spinal cord injury (SCI); type and dose of pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis; mechanical VTE prophylaxis; routine duplex ultrasonography (US) surveillance; and inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs). The panel issued 12 clinical practice recommendations­one, a strong recommendation, 10 weak, and one with no recommendation due to insufficient evidence. The panel suggests starting early pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis for non-operative blunt solid organ injuries, isolated blunt TBIs, and SCIs. The panel suggests using low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) over unfractionated heparin (UFH) and suggests either intermediate­high dose LMWH or conventional dosing LMWH. For adults with trauma who are not pharmacologic candidates, the panel strongly recommends using mechanical VTE prophylaxis with intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC). The panel suggests using either combined VTE prophylaxis with mechanical and pharmacologic methods or pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis alone. Additionally, the panel suggests routine bilateral lower extremity US in adults with trauma with elevated risk of VTE who are ineligible for pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis and suggests against the routine placement of prophylactic IVCFs. Because of insufficient evidence, the panel did not issue any recommendation on the use of early pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis in adults with isolated blunt TBI requiring neurosurgical intervention. The SCCS guidelines for VTE prevention in adults with trauma were based on the best available evidence and identified areas for further research. The framework may facilitate adaptation of recommendations by national/international guideline policymakers.