[Bariatric surgery and drugs: Review of the literature and Adverse Drug Reactions analysis in French National Pharmacovigilance Database]. / Chirurgie bariatrique et médicaments : revue de la littérature et analyse des effets indésirables dans la banque nationale de pharmacovigilance.

INTRODUCTION: Bariatric surgery is the only treatment for severe obesity (BMI>35kg/m2) currently recognized as effective both in achieving tangible and lasting weight loss, and in improving obesity-related comorbidities such as type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and cardiovascular complications. Bariatric surgery, like any other surgery of the digestive tract, can have an impact on nutrient absorption, as well as on drug absorption. The literature on drug management in bariatric surgery patients concerned mainly of case reports and retrospective studies involving a small number of patients. No official guidelines are available. METHODS: We conducted a literature search on the consequences of bariatric surgery in terms of drug bioavailability and/or effect. The Medline® (PubMed) database was searched using the following keywords: "bariatric surgery", "bioavailability", "gastric bypass", and "obesity". We completed this review with an analysis of reports of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in post-bariatric surgery patients for obesity registered in the National pharmacovigilance database (PVDB). We selected all cases with the mention of "bariatric surgery and/or gastrectomy" as "medical history". After reading the cases, we excluded those in which the patient had undergone surgery for an indication other than obesity, where the route of administration was other than oral, and cases in which ADRs resulted from voluntary overdose, attempted suicide, allergy, switch to Levothyrox® new formulation, meningioma under progestative drugs, inefficacy related to generic substitution and medication error. RESULTS: The literature search identified mainly "case report" about the impact of bariatric surgery on so-called "narrow therapeutic window" drugs. We identified 66 informative cases out of a total of 565 cases selected (11%) in the PVDB. Nevertheless, the information does not allow a clear relationship between the occurrence of the ADR and the influence of bariatric surgery. CONCLUSION: There is a lack of official information and/or recommendations on medication use in subjects who have undergone bariatric surgery. Apart from under-reporting, ADRs reports remain largely uninformative. Health professional and patients would be awareness for improving, quantitatively and qualitatively the reporting of ADRs in this population.

Interest of a general practitioner pharmacovigilance network to provide drug information: A comparative study in France.

INTRODUCTION: Since 2015, Toulouse University PharmacoVigilance Center (TUPVC) set up a pharmacovigilance (PV) general practitioner (GP) network, called PharmacoMIP-MG. A clinical research assistant (CRA) moves to the office of GPs included in the PharmacoMIP-MG network (PMIP-GPs). There, he collects the adverse drug reaction (ADR) reports and drug-related questions. This additional support is not available to GPs not included in the PV network (NoPMIP-GPs) who have to ask drug questions spontaneously to the TUPVC. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the number and characteristics of drug questions between PMIP-GPs and NoPMIP-GPs. METHODS: All questions asked by GPs to the TUPVC from 01 Jan 2015 to 31 Dec 2017 were reviewed. Questions were classified into two groups: "general" and "related to a patient". The "related to a patient" category was divided in three subgroups: "ADRs", Drug-Drug Interactions and "Drug Management". Drugs were classified according to anatomical therapeutic chemical (ATC) classification. For comparisons, Wilcoxon test, Chi2 test or Fisher test were used. RESULTS: During the study period, the CRA collected 293 questions from the 165 PMIP-GPs. TUPVC received 333 questions asked spontaneously by the 3400 NoPMIP-GPs. PMIP-GPs asked significantly 3 times more questions than NoPMIP-GPs. Most of the GP questions were classified in the "related to a patient" category (74.9%). When we compared the proportion of "related to a patient" to "general" questions, there was no statistically significant difference between PMIP-GPs and NoPMIP-GPs. PMIP-GPs asked more questions about "ADRs", but less on "Drug Management" and or "Drug-Drug Interactions". The drugs most frequently involved were amiodarone, rivaroxaban and levothyroxine. CONCLUSION: This is the first study about GPs' drug-related questions asked to a PV center. We found that an organization, such as a CRA-GP "face to face" visit, increased the number of drug questions. This kind of organization should be developed in order to improve independent drug information outreach.

[Completeness of pharmacovigilance reporting in general medicine in France.] / Informativité des déclarations de pharmacovigilance en médecine générale en France.

INTRODUCTION: Spontaneous reporting remains one of the cornerstones of post-marketing drug safety surveillance. One of its main limitations is a lack of completeness.The main aim of this study was to assess the completeness of pharmacovigilance reports sent by general practitioners (GPs) to regional pharmacovigilance centers (RPC) reported in the French pharmacovigilance database (FPVD). Secondary aim was to identify factors associated with complete reports. METHOD: All adverse drugs reactions (ADRs) sent by GPs in France in 2015 were analyzed. According to information provided in ADR reports (ADR, date of occurrence, clinical description, drugs suspected, etc.), completeness was analyzed from “mandatory” criteria (age, gender, ADR and suspected drug(s)) and “non-mandatory” criteria (medical history, concomitant drugs, symptoms evolution and complementary exams) and classified as “well-documented”, “slightly-documented” or “poorly-documented”. RESULTS: In 2015, the FPVD contained 3,020 ADR reports realized by GPs. Only 16.4% of these reports were classified as “well-documented”, in accordance with study criteria. The most poorly documented items were concomitant drugs (41.4%) and complementary exams (37.4%). An association between a “well-documented” ADR report and its “seriousness” (OR = 3,02 [95% CI 2,44; 3,23], P < 10–3) and elderly compared to adults (OR = 1,76 [95% CI 1,42; 2,18], P < 10–3) or children (OR = 4,59 [95% CI 2,51; 8,39], P < 10–3). CONCLUSION: Our study shows that only one out of six ADR reports was “well-documented”. It appears to be important to promote pharmacovigilance to improve completeness of ADR reports.

[Satisfaction of a pharmacovigilance declaration support network in general practice]. / Satisfaction des médecins généralistes d'un réseau d'aide à la déclaration de pharmacovigilance PharmacoMIP-MG.

OBJECTIVE: General practitioners (GPs) report little adverse drug reactions (ADR), although it is mandatory in France. The objective was to evaluate the satisfaction of the GPs who participated to a pharmacovigilance ADR declaration support network via a clinical research assistant (CRA) moving to their GP office in the French South-West region of Midi-Pyrénées. STUDY DESIGN: A satisfaction questionnaire was sent to the 59 active GPs of this network in November 2016. RESULTS: A total number of 44 GPs responded to the survey (mean age 44±11years; 48% of women). The overall satisfaction grade was rated 9/10 (SD±1). The personalized help from a CRA was highly appreciated (n=39; 89%), reduced time-loss (n=35; 90%), and facilitated communication with the local pharmacovigilance department (n=33; 85%). Most GP (95%; n=35) stated that they would keep reporting ADRs, 83% (n=35) stated to declare ADRs via the CRA, the others stated to declare ADRs directly to the Regional Pharmacovigilance Center, mainly via numerical or online tools. For 59% (n=26) their participation to the network had a positive impact on their relationship with patients through the improvement of their vigilance to ADR. DISCUSSION: Most of the active GP answered. They were very satisfied of the pharmacovigilance CRA network helping ADR reports. It may corroborate the increase of ADRs reporting in Midi-Pyrénées since this network was set up.

[Improving adverse drug reaction reporting by general practitioners through clinical research assistants visits]. / Apport de la visite d'assistants de recherche clinique aux cabinets de médecins généralistes sur la notification des effets indésirables médicamenteux.

The main limitation of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) reporting, particularly by general practitioners (GP), to the regional pharmacovigilance centers is under-reporting. The Midi-Pyrénées Regional Pharmacovigilance Center (South western, France) sets up regular visits by a clinical research assistant (CRA) to GP in order to increase the number of ADR reports. The aim of this pilot study was to assess the effect of regular visits of a CRA in GPs offices on the rate of ADR reporting. After one year, CRA visits permit a two-fold increase in ADR reporting.

Completeness of Spontaneous Adverse Drug Reaction Reports Sent by General Practitioners to a Regional Pharmacovigilance Centre: A Descriptive Study.

INTRODUCTION: Spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) remains the cornerstone of postmarketing drug safety surveillance (pharmacovigilance); however, one of its main limitations is incomplete data, thus limiting conclusions about causality assessment. OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of this study was to assess the completeness of ADR reports sent by general practitioners (GPs) to regional pharmacovigilance centres and the secondary objective was to identify factors associated with complete ADR reports. METHODS: All ADR reports sent by GPs to the Midi-Pyrénées Regional Pharmacovigilance Center (Toulouse, France) from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2013 were reviewed. Healthcare professionals and patients can forward an ADR using either an online form through the Pharmacology Information Bulletin website ( http://www.bip31.fr ) or 'traditional' ADR reports (i.e. email, letter or fax). According to information provided in ADR reports (i.e. patient identification, ADR, date of occurrence, clinical description, drugs, etc.), reports were classified into three groups: 'well-documented', 'slightly documented' or 'poorly documented'. A multivariate logistic regression was performed to investigate potential factors associated with a 'well-documented' ADR report. RESULTS: During the study period, 613 ADR reports were analysed. Among these reports, only 12.7 % were classified as 'well-documented', 68.5 % as 'slightly documented' and 18.8 % as 'poorly documented'. An association between a 'well-documented' ADR report and its 'seriousness' was found (odds ratio = 1.70 [95 % CI 1.04-2.76], p = 0.01). No association between report completeness ('well-documented' report) and GP practice location or mode of ADR reporting was found. CONCLUSIONS: The study shows that only one out of eight ADR reports from GPs was 'well-documented'. Therefore, it appears to be important to promote further information being available regarding the data required in ADR reports to optimise the evaluation of drug causality.

[Adverse drug reactions reporting is helping "non substituable" prescription!]. / La notification d'effet indésirable au secours de l'ordonnance « non substituable ¼ !

In August 2012, general practitioners of Haute- Garonne received a letter from Health insurance system, informing that prescriptions could be endorsed by "not substituable" after reporting an adverse drug reactions (ADR). Compared to an equivalent period before this letter, we observed an increase of ADRs reports for generics, mainly concerning gastrointestinal ADR and lack of efficacy.

[Could we improve notification of adverse drugs reactions in hospital? Assessment of 5 years of network PharmacoMIP's activities]. / Peut-on améliorer la notification des effets indésirables dans les établissements hospitaliers ? Bilan de 5 ans d'activité du réseau PharmacoMIP.

BACKGROUND: Spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADR) is fundamental to drug safety surveillance (pharmacovigilance) and assessment of benefit/risk ratio. However, under-reporting remains the limit of the system. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the effect of regular visits of an Assistant in Clinical Research (CRA) on the improvement of ADR reporting in non-university hospitals. METHODS: We set up an ADR report collecting system that involved regular visits in non-university hospitals, We began the visits in 2006 in 2 areas (Haute Garonne and Gers), extended to 4 other areas in 2009. We compared the reporting rate (number of reports/number of beds) of total ADRs reported by non-university hospitals in these areas before (one year) and after the start of CRA visits. RESULTS: A total 2831 of reports were collected by the CRA: 40% were "serious" including two deaths. The results suggest an increase of 100% of the rate of reporting of ADRs. CONCLUSION: This study shows that regular visits increases the number of ADRs reported by non-university hospitals. Further assessment of this procedure is necessary for long term evaluation of its effectiveness.

Improving adverse drug reaction reporting in hospitals: results of the French Pharmacovigilance in Midi-Pyrénées region (PharmacoMIP) network 2-year pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) is fundamental to drug safety surveillance (pharmacovigilance); however, substantial under-reporting exists and is the main limitation of the system. Several factors could favour under-reporting. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this pilot study was to assess the effect of regular visits of a Clinical Research Assistant (CRA) on the improvement of ADR reporting in non-university hospitals. METHODS: We set up an ADR report collecting system that involved regular visits by a CRA to non-university hospitals, which was similar to a system that already existed in university hospitals in Toulouse, France. Two areas in our region were chosen: Haute Garonne and Gers. We compared firstly the reporting rate (number of reports/number of beds) of total ADRs (i.e. spontaneously reported ADRs plus solicited ADRs collected by the CRA) and secondly, the percentage of serious ADRs reported by non-university hospitals in these two areas, in 2005 (the year prior to CRA visits) and after the start of CRA visits (2006 until the end of December 2008). We also compared the reporting rate of total ADRs in Haute Garonne and Gers non-university hospitals with those reported during the same period with a control group (the Ariège area, which has a similar number of beds to Gers and that was not visited by the CRA). The characteristics of ADRs collected by the CRA were also described. RESULTS: A total of 687 reports were collected by the CRA: 40% were classified as serious, including two deaths. The number of ADRs and the reporting rate increased significantly between 2005 and 2008 in non-university hospitals of Haute-Garonne and Gers, but not in Ariège. In Gers, the reporting rate was 3% in 2005 and 25% in 2008. In Haute-Garonne, the reporting rate was 11% in 2005 and 40% in 2008. The difference between the number of spontaneous and solicited reports also increased. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that regular visits by a CRA increases the number of ADRs collected by a Regional Pharmacovigilance Centre. Another interesting consequence was the rise in spontaneous reporting by healthcare professionals following the set-up of this system. Further assessment of this procedure is necessary for the long-term evaluation of its effectiveness.