Possibility of Multiple Drug-Drug Interactions in Patients Treated with Statins: Analysis of Data from the Japanese Adverse Drug Event Report (JADER) Database and Verification by Animal Experiments.

Adverse drug events due to drug-drug interactions can be prevented by avoiding concomitant use of causative drugs; therefore, it is important to understand drug combinations that cause drug-drug interactions. Although many attempts to identify drug-drug interactions from real-world databases such as spontaneous reporting systems have been performed, little is known about drug-drug interactions caused by three or more drugs in polypharmacy, i.e., multiple drug-drug interactions. Therefore, we attempted to detect multiple drug-drug interactions using decision tree analysis using the Japanese Adverse Drug Event Report (JADER) database, a Japanese spontaneous reporting system. First, we used decision tree analysis to detect drug combinations that increase the risk of rhabdomyolysis in cases registered in the JADER database that used six statins. Next, the risk of three or more drug combinations that significantly increased the risk of rhabdomyolysis was validated with in vivo experiments in rats. The analysis identified a multiple drug-drug interaction signal only for pitavastatin. The reporting rate of rhabdomyolysis for pitavastatin in the JADER database was 0.09, and it increased to 0.16 in combination with allopurinol. Furthermore, the rate was even higher (0.40) in combination with valsartan. Additionally, necrosis of leg muscles was observed in some rats simultaneously treated with these three drugs, and their creatine kinase and myoglobin levels were elevated. The combination of pitavastatin, allopurinol, and valsartan should be treated with caution as a multiple drug-drug interaction. Since multiple drug-drug interactions were detected with decision tree analysis and the increased risk was verified in animal experiments, decision tree analysis is considered to be an effective method for detecting multiple drug-drug interactions.

Adverse Drug Events Caused by Drugs Contraindicated for Coadministration Reported in the Japanese Adverse Drug Event Report Database and Recognized by Reporters.

The "INTERACTIONS" section of package inserts aims to provide alert-type warnings in clinical practice; however, these also include many drug-drug interactions that occur rarely. Moreover, considering that drug-drug interaction alert systems were created based on package inserts, repeated alerts can lead to alert fatigue. Although investigations have been conducted to determine prescriptions that induce drug-drug interactions, no studies have focused explicitly on the adverse events induced by drug-drug interactions. We, therefore, sought to investigate the true occurrence of adverse events caused by drug pair contraindications for coadministration in routine clinical practice. Toward this, we created a list of drug combinations that were designated as "contraindications for coadministration" and extracted the cases of adverse drug events from the Japanese Adverse Drug Event Report database that occurred due to combined drug usage. We then calculated the reporters' recognition rate of the drug-drug interactions. Out of the 2121 investigated drug pairs, drug-drug interactions were reported in 43 pairs, 23 of which included an injected drug and many included catecholamines. Warfarin potassium and miconazole (19 reports), azathioprine and febuxostat (11 reports), and warfarin potassium and iguratimod (six reports) were among the 20 most-commonly reported oral medication pairs that were contraindicated for coadministration, for which recognition rates of drug-drug interactions were high. Although these results indicate that only a few drug pair contraindications for coadministration were associated with adverse drug events (43 pairs out of 2121 pairs), it remains necessary to translate these findings into clinical practice.

Categorisation of Pharmaceutical Adverse Events Using the Japanese Adverse Drug Event Report Database: Characteristic Adverse Drug Events of the Elderly Treated with Polypharmacy.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of drugs in elderly individuals differ from those in younger adults; thus, adverse drug events (ADEs) are common in older patients with polypharmacy because co-existing comorbidities elevate the risk of ADEs occurring. However, ADEs have not yet been characterised based on the elderly patients of Japanese origin and polypharmacy. OBJECTIVE: The 100 most commonly reported ADEs were grouped into four classes (Class 1-Class 4) based on elderly patients with polypharmacy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this study, logistic regression analysis was performed using cases recorded in the Japanese Adverse Drug Event Report (JADER) database. RESULTS: ADEs in elderly patients treated with polypharmacy-in whom the risk of electrolyte abnormalities, renal and respiratory disorders, and coagulopathy was high-were categorised as 'Class 1 [E(+), P(+)]', while ADEs in elderly patients not treated with polypharmacy-in whom the risk of delirium and fall was high-were categorised as 'Class 2 [E(+), P(-)]'. When there was no association with being elderly, ADEs associated with polypharmacy that carried a high risk of myelosuppression and infection were categorised as 'Class 3 [E(-), P(+)]', and allergic ADEs that were not affected by being elderly or polypharmacy, were categorised as 'Class 4 [E(-), P(-)]'. Class 1 events as well as Class 3 ADEs occurred more frequently in females than in males, whereas Class 3 ADEs (deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism) occurred more frequently in males. CONCLUSIONS: Class 1 and Class 2 ADEs should be investigated in analyses that focus on individual drugs.

Antidiabetic Drugs for the Risk of Alzheimer Disease in Patients With Type 2 DM Using FAERS.

Alzheimer disease (AD) may develop after the onset of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), and the risk of AD may depend on the antidiabetic drug administered. We compared the risk of AD among 66 085 patients (≥ 65 years) with T2DM (1250 having concomitant AD) who had been administered antidiabetic drug monotherapy for T2DM who had voluntarily reported themselves in the Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System. The risk of AD from the use of different antidiabetic drug monotherapies compared to that of metformin monotherapy was assessed by logistic regression. Rosiglitazone (adjusted reporting odds ratio [aROR] = 0.11; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.07-0.17; P < .001), exenatide (aROR = 0.22; 95% CI: 0.11-0.37; P < .001), liraglutide (aROR = 0.36; 95% CI: 0.19-0.62; P < .001), dulaglutide (aROR = 0.39; 95% CI: 0.17-0.77; P = .014), and sitagliptin (aROR = 0.75; 95% CI: 0.60-0.93; P = .011) were found to have a significantly lower associated risk of AD than that of metformin. Therefore, the administration of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists and rosiglitazone may reduce the risk of AD in patients with T2DM.

Discrepancies between patients' and pharmacists' perceptions of the role of community pharmacists as advisors on the use of pharmaceuticals in Japan: A comparison prior to and following revision of the Pharmacists' Act.

OBJECTIVES: In 2014, immediately prior to the revision of Article 25-2 of the Pharmacists' Act, we conducted a survey on pharmacists' and patients' perceptions of pharmacists' roles. A role discrepancy between the two was identified. The objective was to examine changes in role perceptions and awareness of pharmacists as medication specialists following revision to the Pharmacists' Act. METHODS: The survey was conducted using an Internet-based questionnaire. A total of 469 patients and 354 pharmacists responded to 12 questions about the perceived roles of pharmacists. RESULTS: Analysis revealed that the only evaluation that changed as a result of revisions was pharmacists' role as "family or regular pharmacist," with scores dropping by about half. As in 2014, the high rating rate for pharmacists surpassed the high rating of patients for all other items. The greatest discrepancy in role perception was observed for the same three items ("Understanding the effects of the drugs the patients are taking," "Understanding the health changes caused by the drugs dispensed to the patients," and "Consciously protecting patients from the adverse effects of drugs") as 2014. CONCLUSION: A major role discrepancy continues to exist between patients and pharmacists, and it is necessary for pharmacists to take on a more advanced role in patient care. Results suggest that pharmacists must monitor changes in patients' lifestyles and provide clear explanations for patients to rate them highly as medication specialists.