Healthcare providers' use of a concise summary to prescribe for lactating patients.

BACKGROUND: Most breastfeeding individuals take at least one prescription drug, yet limited data from lactation studies are available to inform the safety of these drugs during breastfeeding. As a result, healthcare providers (HCPs) rely on available information about safety of drugs used during pregnancy or on personal experiences to inform prescribing/counseling decisions for breastfeeding individuals. To improve risk communication regarding drugs used during lactation, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration published the Pregnancy and Lactation Labeling Rule (PLLR) in 2015, which added a narrative summary of available risk information to the lactation section of Prescribing Information (PI). Prior studies on labeling in PLLR format revealed that although HCPs found these details valuable, they regarded the narrative as too long to support decision-making during patient encounters. OBJECTIVE: This qualitative study's objective was to assess the utility of adding a concise summary to the Lactation subsection of PI to complement the narrative and succinctly communicate to busy HCPs a drug's risks when used during lactation. The concise summary consisted of a bolded headline, bulleted descriptions of available study findings and potential adverse reactions, and recommendations for risk mitigation. METHODS: Twenty-five online focus groups were conducted with five segments of HCPs to obtain their feedback on the concise summary and discuss their prescribing/counseling decisions for four fictitious prescription drugs including one vaccine. RESULTS: HCPs utilized the concise summary to make initial prescribing/counseling decisions. Many also used the labeling narrative for a comprehensive benefit-risk assessment. CONCLUSION: The findings indicate a need to continue to improve communication about safety of drugs used during lactation, and that the concise summary may help facilitate this communication. The study also highlights the need to educate HCPs about PI limitations when clinical data are lacking and the need to encourage clinical studies to be conducted to support actionable recommendations about use of prescription drugs during lactation.

Lecanemab: Appropriate Use Recommendations.

Lecanemab (Leqembi®) is approved in the United States for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD) to be initiated in early AD (mild cognitive impairment [MCI] due to AD or mild AD dementia) with confirmed brain amyloid pathology. Appropriate Use Recommendations (AURs) are intended to help guide the introduction of new therapies into real-world clinical practice. Community dwelling patients with AD differ from those participating in clinical trials. Administration of lecanemab at clinical trial sites by individuals experienced with monoclonal antibody therapy also differs from the community clinic-based administration of lecanemab. These AURs use clinical trial data as well as research and care information regarding AD to help clinicians administer lecanemab with optimal safety and opportunity for effectiveness. Safety and efficacy of lecanemab are known only for patients like those participating in the phase 2 and phase 3 lecanemab trials, and these AURs adhere closely to the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the trials. Adverse events may occur with lecanemab including amyloid related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) and infusion reactions. Monitoring guidelines for these events are detailed in this AUR. Most ARIA with lecanemab is asymptomatic, but a few cases are serious or, very rarely, fatal. Microhemorrhages and rare macrohemorrhages may occur in patients receiving lecanemab. Anticoagulation increases the risk of hemorrhage, and the AUR recommends that patients requiring anticoagulants not receive lecanemab until more data regarding this interaction are available. Patients who are apolipoprotein E ε4 (APOE4) gene carriers, especially APOE4 homozygotes, are at higher risk for ARIA, and the AUR recommends APOE genotyping to better inform risk discussions with patients who are lecanemab candidates. Clinician and institutional preparedness are mandatory for use of lecanemab, and protocols for management of serious events should be developed and implemented. Communication between clinicians and therapy candidates or those on therapy is a key element of good clinical practice for the use of lecanemab. Patients and their care partners must understand the potential benefits, the potential harms, and the monitoring requirements for treatment with this agent. Culture-specific communication and building of trust between clinicians and patients are the foundation for successful use of lecanemab.

Inconsistencies of absolute drug-drug contraindication reports: Analysis of Summaries of Product Characteristics of commonly prescribed drugs.

AIMS: Prescribing information should follow a defined structure to help prescribers easily find required information. Often information appears in different sections of Summaries of Product Characteristics (SmPCs) in an inconsistent way. Still unknown is how this inconsistency affects absolute contraindications and how it can be improved. Thisstudy aimed to evaluate the structure of absolute contraindications in SmPCs based on absolute drug-drug contraindications (DDCI) in the section 'contraindications' and references to sections 'special warnings and precautions for use' (here as 'warnings') and 'interaction with other medicinal products and other forms of interaction' (here as 'interactions'). METHODS: SmPCs of 693 commonly prescribed drugs were analysed regarding absolute DDCI in 'contraindications' sections. References to sections on 'warnings' and 'interactions' were evaluated to characterize information provided about DDCI. RESULTS: Of 693 analysed SmPCs, 138 (19.9%) contained ≥1 absolute DDCI. Of 178 SmPCs that referred to sections on 'warnings' or 'interactions', 131 (73.6%) did not contain further information on absolute DDCI, whereas 47 (26.4%) did. Such additional information was found in sections on 'interactions' and 'warnings' in 41 (87.2%) and 9 (19.1%) SmPCs, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Information regarding absolute DDCI was found not only in sections on 'contraindications' but also in sections on 'warnings' and 'interactions'. Information was not given with consistently straightforward phrasing and structure and so can leave uncertainty for prescribers. To improve drug safety, clear definitions and wording for absolute and relative contraindications should be provided, ideally in tables.

The myths behind DOAC measurement: Analyses of prescribing information from different regulatory bodies and a call for harmonization.

For more than a decade, US laboratories have failed to implement solutions to help their clinicians in managing complex situations or patients on direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). The problem may find different origins, among which is the position of the Food and Drug Administration, which categorized these drugs as monitoring- and measurement-free, whereas other regulatory bodies like the European Medicines Agency or the Therapeutic Goods Administration in Australia were more conservative on the principle that the absence of proof (of monitoring/measurement benefits) is not proof of an absence (of monitoring/measurement needs). Pivotal clinical studies that led to the approval of DOACs were presented as devoid of such testing, although some companies considered monitoring as a solution to improve their benefit/risk ratio. In this JTH In Clinics issue, we report more than a decade of development that has permitted the activation of smart laboratory solutions to qualify or quantify DOACs and discuss myths and misconceptions around technical and regulatory requirements that support the current reluctance of implementing these technologies in most US laboratories. Use of DOACs is ever expanding, with DOAC prescriptions now exceeding those of other anticoagulants, including vitamin K antagonists, in some geographies. As this use increases, the likely need to measure DOAC exposure will also increase. Measurement of DOACs does not represent any technical difficulty. That these laboratory tests are not available in some locations suggests disparities in patient care, and we suggest it is time to address such inequalities.

Comprehensibility of Contraindications in German, UK and US Summaries of Product Characteristics/Prescribing Information-A Comparative Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis.

Contraindications (CIs) in Summaries of Product Characteristics (SmPCs)/Prescribing Information (PI) that lack clarity may pose a risk to medication safety and increase the risk for adverse drug reactions. We assessed and compared SmPCs/PI from three major drug markets regarding comprehensibility from the prescriber perspective, as well as usability in clinical decision support systems. 158 drugs met the following inclusion criteria: marketed in Germany (DE), United Kingdom (UK) and United States (US) and belonged to the 100 most recently FDA approved and/or 100 most frequently prescribed drugs in either country. In the 474 (3 × 158) SmPCs/PI all expressions for absolute CIs were identified, divided into 3999 stand-alone terms and evaluated according to 'clarity' and 'codability'. The average number of absolute CIs per drug differed drastically between the three markets (DE: 11.7, UK: 9.0, US: 4.6). Expressions were frequently unclear (DE: 27.2% (95% CI 25.2-29.2%), UK: 28.5% (26.2-30.9%), US: 22.6% (19.7-25.8%)). Moreover, 60.9% (58.6-63.1%), 63.6% (61.0-66.0%), and 64.7% (61.2-68.1%) of the expressions were not codable in DE, UK, and US, respectively. Taken together, in three major drug markets, statements regarding CIs in SmPCs/PI substantially differ in frequency and frequently lack clarity and codability which poses an unnecessary obstacle to medication safety.

Use of medication data alone to identify diagnoses and related contraindications: Application of algorithms to close a common documentation gap.

AIMS: Automated checks for medication-related problems have become a cornerstone of medication safety. In many clinical settings medication checks remain confined to drug-drug interactions because only medication data are available in an adequately coded form, leaving possible contraindicated drug-disease combinations unaccounted for. Therefore, we devised algorithms that identify frequently contraindicated diagnoses based on medication patterns related to these diagnoses. METHODS: We identified drugs that are associated with diseases constituting common contraindications based on their exclusive use for these conditions (such as allopurinol for gout or salbutamol for bronchial obstruction). Expert-based and machine learning algorithms were developed to identify diagnoses based on highly specific medication patterns. The applicability, sensitivity and specificity of the approach were assessed by using an anonymized real-life sample of medication and diagnosis data excerpts from 3506 discharge records of geriatric patients. RESULTS: Depending on the algorithm, the desired focus (i.e., sensitivity vs. specificity) and the disease, we were able to identify the diagnoses gout, epilepsy, coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure and bronchial obstruction with a specificity of 44.0-99.8% (95% CI 41.7-100.0%) and a sensitivity of 3.8-83.1% (95% CI 1.0-86.1%). Using only medication data, we were able to identify 123 (51.3%) of 240 contraindications identified by experts with access to medication data and diagnoses. CONCLUSION: This study provides a proof of principle that some key diagnosis-related contraindications can be identified based on a patient's medication data alone, while others cannot be identified. This approach offers new opportunities to analyse drug-disease contraindications in community pharmacy or clinical routine data.

Inconsistencies and Ambiguities in Liver-Disease-Related Contraindications-A Systematic Analysis of SmPCs/PI of Major Drug Markets.

Liver disease is a common condition worldwide that can cause alterations in drug disposition and susceptibility to drug toxicities, with increased risk of adverse drug reactions. European Summaries of Product Characteristics (SmPCs) and United States Prescribing Information (US PI) should therefore be comprehensible to prescribers regarding their liver-associated contraindications to ensure safe prescribing. This study aimed to evaluate the ambiguity of terminology used in communicating liver-associated absolute contraindications in SmPCs/PI of commonly prescribed drugs in four major drug markets (Germany, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States) by assigning wordings to different categories and analyzing their clinical comprehensibility. For US PI, 79% did not contain liver-related contraindications, compared to 2, 13, and 6% of German, Swiss, and British SmPCs, respectively. Study findings indicate that out of 228 examined SmPCs/PI containing liver-related contraindications, 77, 79, 76, and 52% contained unclear wording in the German, Swiss, British, and American drug market, respectively. Only 40% (German), 52% (Swiss), 39% (British), and 29% (American) of SmPCs/PI included terms with explicit wording. Including more precise statements in SmPCs/PI based on laboratory parameters (such as albumin) or scores (e.g., the Child-Pugh score) to objectify the severity of liver disease may improve the clarity of SmPCs/PI and the safety of drug prescription.

The CredibleMeds® list: Usage of QT interval prolonging drugs in Germany and discordances with prescribing information.

AIMS: A substantial number of Summaries of Product Characteristics (SmPCs)/Prescribing Information (PI) have warnings or contraindications on QT interval prolongation. The goal of this work was to quantify usage of QT interval prolonging drugs according to the CredibleMeds® database of the German outpatient drug prescription market and to evaluate discrepancies between German SmPCs/US PI and CredibleMeds® . METHODS: Drugs listed on CredibleMeds® with known, possible or conditional risk for torsade de pointes were evaluated from 2000 to 2020. The German drug prescription report was used as source for defined daily dose- (DDD-) based prescriptions of the German outpatient drug prescription market of the public health insurance system. German SmPCs and US PI of 253 CredibleMeds® -listed drugs were evaluated for contents regarding QT interval prolongation. RESULTS: Of the drugs currently listed on CredibleMeds® , 59.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 53.5-65.5%) were listed after 2012. Due to newly listed drugs, the proportion of DDDs of CredibleMeds® drugs among all prescriptions increased from 4.6% in 2013 to 21.1% in 2019. DDD-based usage of the CredibleMeds® drugs already listed in 2013 was similar in 2019. Among the drugs with known QT risk according to CredibleMeds® , 7.5% (95% CI 2.6-19.9%) of German SmPCs and 21.1% (95% CI 11.1-36.3%) of US PI had no mention of QT issues whatsoever. CONCLUSION: A significant proportion of all drugs prescribed in the outpatient sector is associated with QT risks according to CredibleMeds® . SmPCs and PI should systematically be evaluated for concordance with the widely used CredibleMeds® database to increase medication safety.

An Audit of Black Box Warnings (BBWs) in the United States Food and Drug Administration (US-FDA) Database - A Five-Year Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The Black-Box Warning (BBW) is the most serious warning that US-FDA can ask for on a drug's labelling. BBWs represent key safety concerns uncovered either during dossier review or post-approval. We have conducted the present study with the primary objective of assessing BBWs issued by the US-FDA. METHODS: BBWs were identified on US-FDA's website from 1st January 2015 to 31st December, 2019. Prescribing information was used to identify and characterize BBWs into new and minor/major updates on a previous BBW. The therapeutic class of the drug, nature [Biological/New Molecular entity (NME)], formulation type, expected duration of use, along with the year of first approval of the molecule with BBWs were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of n = 167 BBWs were issued by the FDA of which 53 (31.7%) had major updates, 57(34.1%) had minor updates and 57(34.1%) were new BBWs. A total of 137(82%) of BBWs were with NME's whereas 30(18%) were with biologics. Drugs for neurology 40(25.5%)had the highest number of BBWs, followed by oncology 38(24.2%). Among the type of BBWs, cardiovascular risk 31 (15%) were the highest. CONCLUSION: Practicing physicians need to understand that benefit-risk of a drug is dynamic and keep abreast of new data related to it.

Physicians' use of and preferences for FDA-approved prescribing information.

BACKGROUND: The Prescribing Information (PI) is the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s primary tool for communicating a summary of the essential scientific information needed for the safe and effective use of a prescription drug to healthcare providers.[1] One challenge with this type of communication is balancing the need to be thorough with the need to be concise. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to explore physicians' preferences for and understanding of specific content and formatting in the PI. This study also explored physicians' use of and perceptions of the PI. METHODS: Seventy semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with primary care physicians (n = 35) and physicians from a wide range of specialties (n = 35) using web conferencing technology. Using fictitious PI examples, the guide assessed physicians' interpretation of language and preferences for how certain information is organized and communicated in select sections of the PI. The interview guide also included questions about the resources physicians use to find information about prescription drugs, when and how physicians access the PI, and their perceptions of the PI. RESULTS: The findings suggest that of the content and formatting items surveyed, physicians had the greatest preference for: (1) uniformly specifying the age group for which the drug is indicated in the INDICATIONS AND USAGE section, even for medical conditions that are highly associated with only one particular age group (e.g., adult patients), and (2) uniformly including administration information in relation to food (e.g., "with or without food") in the DOSAGE AND ADMINISTRATION section for drugs with oral dosing. The findings also suggest that including a long list of interacting drug examples in the DRUG INTERACTIONS section may be misinterpreted to be a comprehensive list. CONCLUSION: This qualitative research suggests physicians may prefer more clarity in some sections of the PI.

Harmonization of summaries of product characteristics (SmPCs) of drugs with the same active ingredients: an evaluation of SmPCs of the most frequently prescribed active substances.

PURPOSE: In aut-idem or generic substitution, discrepancies between summaries of product characteristics (SmPCs) referring to the same active substance (AS) may cause difficulties regarding informed consent and medical liability. The qualitative and quantitative characteristics of such discrepancies are insufficiently studied, impeding harmonization of same-substance SmPCs and compromising safe drug treatment. METHODS: SmPCs of the one hundred most frequently prescribed ASs in Germany were analyzed for discrepancies in the presentation of indications (Inds) and contraindications (CInds). Inclusion and exclusion criteria of drugs/SmPCs were chosen according to the standards of the aut-idem substitution in Germany. RESULTS: According to the study protocol, we identified 1486 drugs, of which 1426 SmPCs could be obtained. 41% respectively 65% of the ASs had same-substance SmPCs that differed from the respective reference SmPC in the number of listed Inds respectively CInds. The number of listed Inds/CInds varied considerably between same-substance SmPCs with maximum ranges in Inds of 7 in amoxicillin, and in CInds of 11 in lisinopril. Many ASs had large proportions (> 50%) of associated same-substance SmPCs that differed from the respective reference SmPC. A considerable proportion of ASs had same-substance SmPCs with formal and content-related differences other than the discrepancy in the number of Inds/CInds. CONCLUSION: This evaluation of same-substance SmPCs shows a clear lack of harmonization of same-substance SmPCs. Considering that generic substitution has become the rule and that physicians usually do not know which drug the patient receives in the pharmacy, these discrepancies raise several questions, that require a separate legal evaluation.

[Use of summaries of product characteristics (SmPC) among family doctors and pharmacists in the context of the aut-idem regulation: Results of an exploratory cross-sectional survey]. / Nutzung von Fachinformationen bei Hausärzten und Apothekern im Zusammenhang der Aut-idem-Regelung: Ergebnisse einer explorativen Querschnittsbefragung.

INTRODUCTION: Summaries of product characteristics (SmPC) of same-substance medications may feature content-related differences. This may cause difficulties regarding informed consent in the case of prescriptions of drugs in the context of the aut-idem regulation. A survey among family doctors (FD) and pharmacists (PH) was conducted in order to evaluate the usage behaviour of SmPCs, sources used to obtain information about drugs and the awareness of the existence of differences between SmPCs of same-substance medications. METHODS: An exploratory/non-representative, questionnaire- and telephone-based, semi-structured cross-sectional survey was performed (June to August 2018). RESULTS: Participation rate of FD and PH was 29.8 % (34/114) and 73.0 % (73/100), respectively. In the previous month, all PH and 82.4 % of FD said that they had used a SmPC at least once (p=0.001). FD used SmPCs 6.4±4.9 and PH 65.0±52.5 times a month (p<0.001). In both occupational groups SmPCs were used most frequently to obtain information about dosing and/or type of application (FD: 97.1 %; PH: 98.6 %) and contraindications (97.1 % and 86.3 %, resp.). In both samples, the internet was the most frequently used drug information source (FD: 97.1 %; PH: 98.6 %), followed by the Rote/Gelbe Liste (97.1 % and 71.2 %, resp.) and the SmPCs of the original product (52.9 % and 65.8 %, resp.) or generic drug (52.9 % and 61.6 %, resp.). Only 32.4 % of the FD vs. 79.5 % of PH believed that differences might exist between SmPCs of same-substance medications (p<0.001). FD stated that they never (11.8 %) or rarely (85.3 %) use SmPCs for informed consent. It was indicated that the aut-idem substitution is excluded in 10.3 %±5.0 (FD) and 9.6 %±6,1 (PH) of issued or received prescriptions. DISCUSSION: The results of the present survey indicate a low utilization rate of SmPCs by FD and little awareness of the existing differences of SmPCs of same-substance medications in this occupational group. Both aspects may impede proper information of patients, particularly in cases of aut-idem prescriptions of substances for which many same-substance medications with different SmPCs are available. CONCLUSION: Physicians should use SmPCs regularly and keep themselves informed about differences between SmPCs of same-substance medications.

Comment on Akbar et al., "Valbenazine-induced parkinsonism".

This letter to the editor acknowledges the contribution of Akbar et al. to the field of tardive dyskinesia (TD) and provides important regulatory information about the potential for parkinson-like symptoms in patients with TD who are treated with valbenazine.

Evaluation of Information in Summaries of Product Characteristics (SmPCs) on the Use of a Medicine in Patients With Hepatic Impairment.

Background: In 2005, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) released guidance on pharmacokinetic studies in patients with hepatic impairment. This guidance describes the design of these studies and what information should be presented in the Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC). We aim to evaluate the availability and clinical applicability of information on medicine use in patients with hepatic impairment in SmPCs and registrational dossiers of recently approved medicines. Methods: We reviewed SmPC information on use in patients with hepatic impairment of 51 new medicines authorized between 2015 and 2017. Per medicine, we assessed the availability of nine information items derived from the EMA guidance, i.e. type of hepatic disease studied; stratification by severity of hepatic impairment; influence of hepatic impairment on the pharmacokinetics; safety advice in mild, moderate, and severe hepatic impairments; and dosing recommendation in mild, moderate, and severe hepatic impairments. If unavailable, the European Public Assessment Report (EPAR) and study report were consulted consecutively. Of available items, clinical applicability was assessed by labeling information as "clear" or "ambiguous". Results: Of 51 medicines, 15 had no pharmacokinetic study in patients with hepatic impairment described in their SmPC. The other 36 SmPCs contained on average seven of the nine information items (range 4-9). One SmPC contained all 9 items, and after consulting, the study reports, 11 SmPCs were complete. The item "type of hepatic disease studied" was available in one SmPC, though it could be retrieved in 21 study reports. Regarding clinical applicability, there was no medicine with all information items available and clearly formulated in the SmPC. A total of 12 medicines (33%) contained only clearly formulated information, while 24 (67%) contained at least one ambiguously formulated information item (range 0-4). Items often ambiguously formulated were: "definition of mild, moderate, and severe hepatic impairment" (15 ambiguous SmPCs) and "safety advice in severe hepatic impairment" (17 ambiguous SmPCs). Conclusion: While SmPCs contain a large part of information requested by the EMA, clinical applicability seems low, as it is often unclear to which specific type of hepatic disease patient the advice applies. This can negatively influence the practical use by healthcare professionals.

Risk of Cleft Lip and/or Palate Associated With Antiepileptic Drugs: Postmarketing Safety Signal Detection and Evaluation of Information Presented to Prescribers and Patients.

BACKGROUND: The aim was to analyze safety data associated with the maternal use of antiepileptic drugs in pregnancy and to assess the risk of cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P) as an outcome in the neonate. A parallel objective was to assess the completeness of the safety information concerning pregnancy exposures in the Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPCs) and the Patient Information (PI) in the USA and the UK. METHODS: We analyzed individual case safety reports of CL/P associated with antiepileptic drugs in the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System. For the antiepileptic drugs with signals (EB05 ≥ 2), we reviewed Drug Analysis Prints for CL/P cases in the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). We performed descriptive analyses of relevant SmPCs and PIs in the UK and the USA using a checklist of recommendations collected from the literature. RESULTS: In total 817 CL/P reports were identified for 12 antiepileptic drugs in the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System. Ten of the 12 antiepileptic drugs were associated with 156 CL/P cases in the MHRA Sentinel. Safety information concerning pregnancy was found to be more comprehensive in UK SmPCs than in the US equivalents. CONCLUSIONS: There is statistical disproportionality in individual case safety reports indicative of an increased risk of CL/P with 12 antiepileptic drugs studied. More studies are required to explore the association between in utero exposure to antiepileptic drugs and the risk of CL/P. There are inconsistencies between the UK and US safety labels. CL/P associated with antiepileptic drugs is an important topic and requires providing inclusive, unbiased, up-to-date information to prescribers and women of childbearing age.

A Review of Practical Issues on the Use of Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists for the Management of Type 2 Diabetes.

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are well established as effective treatments for patients with type 2 diabetes. GLP-1 RAs augment insulin secretion and suppress glucagon release via the stimulation of GLP-1 receptors. Although all GLP-1 RAs share the same underlying mechanism of action, they differ in terms of formulations, administration, injection devices and dosages. With six GLP-1 RAs currently available in Europe (namely, immediate-release exenatide, lixisenatide, liraglutide; prolonged-release exenatide, dulaglutide and semaglutide), each with its own characteristics and administration requirements, physicians caring for patients in their routine practice face the challenge of being cognizant of all this information so they are able to select the agent that is most suitable for their patient and use it in an efficient and optimal way. The objective of this review is to bring together practical information on the use of these GLP-1 RAs that reflects their approved use.Funding: Eli Lilly and Company.Plain Language Summary: Plain language summary available for this article.

Impact of Pharmacists' audit on improving the quality of prescription of dabigatran etexilate methanesulfonate: a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Appropriate prescription of dabigatran etexilate methanesulfonate (JAN) is more complicated than assumed, because there are totally 10 items of contraindications and instructions for dosage reduction depending on patients' characteristics. We aimed to study whether the routine audit of first-time prescriptions of dabigatran performed by pharmacists is effective in improving the quality of prescription. METHODS: A retrospective re-audit was performed on all the prescriptions of dabigatran issued at Kitahara International Hospital, Tokyo between March 2011 and February 2014, by evaluating the prescriptions rigorously against the approved prescribing information of the drug. The original routine audit of the prescriptions for inpatients was performed by hospital pharmacists using electronic medical records (EMR), whereas the audit for ambulant patients receiving external prescriptions was performed by community pharmacists using information obtained mainly by questioning patients. The frequencies of inappropriate prescriptions detected by the re-audit in the two groups were compared. RESULTS: Two hundred and twenty-eight patients (131 ambulant patients and 97 inpatients) were prescribed dabigatran for the first time during the study period. All patients met the approved indications. While 33% of the prescriptions for ambulant patients showed at least one violation of the approved usage, only 11% of the prescriptions for inpatients showed violations (p < 0.001). Two ambulant patients with creatinine clearance < 30 mL/min were dispensed dabigatran, whereas no such case was found among inpatients. A significantly greater proportion of ambulant patients aged ≥70 years showed violation of the instruction for dosage reduction compared to inpatients of the same age group (18 and 4%, respectively). CONCLUSION: The present study suggests that pharmacists may achieve better performance in auditing prescriptions of dabigatran when medical records are fully available than when information is available mainly by questioning patients. Further large-scale studies are required to clarify whether the audit of dabigatran prescriptions improves ultimate therapeutic outcomes or complications.

An Innovative, Collaborative, and Strategic Approach to Proactively Evaluate and Update Drug Interactions Based on Prescribing Information of Newly Approved Medicinal Products.

BACKGROUND: Drug-drug interaction (DDIs) are evaluated using pharmacokinetic (PK) simulation models, clinical studies, and scientific publications throughout drug development. DDIs with Norvir (ritonavir) and combination products (eg, Kaletra [lopinavir/ritonavir]) containing ritonavir as a PK enhancer are relevant, because these drugs could affect exposures of CYP3A4 substrates. Application of algorithms proactively identified recently approved drugs, which potentially cause adverse outcomes when given with drugs containing ritonavir. METHODS: An evidence-based medicine technology platform was used to identify newly approved products. PK-related information from the products' prescribing information was reviewed to identify DDIs with ritonavir. Algorithms were used to further evaluate PK, clinical, and postmarketing information pertinent to the interaction to determine if prescribing information required revision. RESULTS: From January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2015, 39 newly approved drugs were identified as having potential interactions with Norvir and/or Kaletra. Ten drugs were excluded, 19 drugs went through initial screening, and 10 drugs underwent in-depth algorithm-based analyses for DDIs. No changes to prescribing information for Norvir or Kaletra were recommended from evaluation of the DDIs. Regulatory concurrence with AbbVie decisions was 93.1% (27/29, 93.1%); in 6.9% (2/29, 6.9%) of the evaluated interactions, at least 1 local regulatory authority disagreed with recommendations, requiring label changes to incorporate the DDI information. CONCLUSIONS: This proactive algorithmic approach identifies and complements existing methods used to detect DDIs with newly approved products. Additionally, this approach facilitates timely communication of risks to patients and healthcare providers via label revisions, publications, or other regulatory communications.

Reactogenicity and safety of the human rotavirus vaccine, Rotarix™ in The Philippines, Sri Lanka, and India: a post-marketing surveillance study.

Regulatory bodies in The Philippines, Sri Lanka, and India require post-marketing surveillance to provide additional safety data on Rotarix™ in real-life settings. In such studies conducted in The Philippines (November 2006 to July 2012; NCT00353366), Sri Lanka (November 2008 to August 2009; NCT00779779), and India (August 2009 to April 2010; NCT00938327), 2 doses of Rotarix™ were administered according to the local prescribing information (PI). The occurrence of at least Grade "2"/"3" solicited adverse event (AE) (fever, vomiting, or diarrhea), within 15 days in The Philippines or 8 days in Sri Lanka and India; unsolicited AEs within 31 days and serious adverse events (SAEs) throughout the study were recorded. Of the 1494, 522, and 332 infants enrolled in The Philippines, Sri Lanka, and India, 14.7% 14.9% and 12.7% infants, respectively recorded at least Grade "2"/"3" solicited AEs. The most commonly reported solicited AEs were irritability in The Philippines (32.2% post-Dose-1; 23.5% post-Dose-2) and India (23.0% post-Dose-1; 13.2% post-Dose-2), and fever (18.0% post-Dose-1; 20.2% post-Dose-2) in Sri Lanka. Unsolicited AEs were recorded in 24.5% (The Philippines), 4.8% (Sri Lanka), and 6.9% (India) of infants. Forty-one SAEs were recorded in the Philippines of which 6 (decreased oral intake with increased sleeping time and constipation; pneumonia, urinary tract infection, and intussusception) were considered by the investigators as causally related to vaccination. One vaccine-unrelated SAE occurred in a Sri Lankan infant. All SAEs resolved and the infants recovered. Two doses of Rotarix™, administered to healthy infants according to local PI, were well tolerated in The Philippines, Sri Lanka, and India.