[Androgens and cardiovascular risk: A series of case report in the French and Canadian pharmacovigilance databases]. / Androgènes et risque cardiovasculaire : série de cas dans les bases de pharmacovigilance française et canadienne.

INTRODUCTION: Age-related androgenic deficiency (DALA) is a pathology that is increasingly cited in recent publications. The cardiovascular risk of testosterone is debated: present for the FDA, absent for the European Medicines Agency in 2015. Our objective was to analyze the association between androgens and vascular pathologies in adverse reactions reported in pharmacovigilance databases. MATERIAL AND METHOD: We conducted a retrospective case series study of the French and Canadian pharmacovigilance databases for the period 2005-2015. Cases were defined as the association of the occurrence of a cardiovascular event (myocardial infarction or stroke) and the presence of testosterone in the treatment of patients. RESULTS: Of the 10 years analyzed, 12 French cases and 6 Canadian cases (representing 13 MIs and 5 strokes) were recorded in men aged 55 years on average. All were doubtful: differential diagnoses were possible (2.4 confounding conditions on average per patient) and overall cardiovascular risk was high for the majority of cases. CONCLUSION: Our study shows a very low report of cardiovascular effects under testosterone, all doubtful. Pending further studies, it seems reasonable to consider the cardiovascular risk of patients who are candidates for hormone therapy for age-related androgen deficiency. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

[Monoclonal gammopathies of undetermined significance do not systematically require a specialized consultation]. / Les gammapathies monoclonales de signification indéterminée ne nécessitent pas systématiquement un recours à une consultation spécialisée.

INTRODUCTION: Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) is a frequent entity in the general population. The incidence rate of fortuitous discovery of a monoclonal component in asymptomatic patients is increasing nowadays. The majority of MGUS is being addressed to a hematologist for diagnosis or follow-up by their generalist practitioners. The management of MGUS consists of a clinical and biological surveillance as per published and validated international guidelines available for MGUS diagnosis and follow-up. MGUS thus may not necessarily need a specialized consultation and follow-up in a hematology ward, as we believe it could be performed by generalist practitioners. METHODS: We studied 190 patients addressed to our hematology department of Lille for diagnosis or follow-up of MGUS. RESULTS: Among the patients, 9.5% developed a malignant hemopathy (multiple myeloma or Waldenström macroglobulinemia). Among patients diagnosed with MGUS of IgG isotype and a monoclonal component <15 g/L, 96.2% showed no pejorative outcome: these represent simple and routine prognostic factors that can be assessed at diagnosis in order to predict the risk of progression. Those patients could have easily been followed by their generalist practitioner from the diagnosis of MGUS. CONCLUSION: A specialist's consultation would still be recommended for patients with pejorative factors at diagnosis, or if a clinical or biological event that could suggest progression occurs during follow-up, or in case of MGUS with complication, in which cases patients would need a specialized management in a hematology department.