Recommendations for the safe use of direct oral anticoagulants in patients with cirrhosis based on a systematic review of pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic and safety data.

PURPOSE: The popularity of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) is increasing among patients with cirrhosis. Cirrhosis has a major impact on the pharmacokinetics of drugs, potentially increasing adverse events. Safe use of drugs in cirrhosis requires a diligent risk-benefit analysis. The aim of this study is to develop practice recommendations for safe use of DOACs in cirrhosis based on a systematic review of pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic and safety data. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search to identify studies on pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and safety of DOACs in cirrhosis. Data were collected and presented in summary tables by severity of cirrhosis using the Child-Turcotte-Pugh (CTP) classification. A multidisciplinary expert panel evaluated the results and classified the DOACs according to safety. RESULTS: Fifty four studies were included. All DOACs were classified as 'no additional risks known' for CTP A. For CTP B, apixaban, dabigatran and edoxaban were classified as 'no additional risks known'. Apixaban and edoxaban showed fewer adverse events in patients with cirrhosis, while dabigatran may be less impacted by severity of cirrhosis based on its pharmacokinetic profile. Rivaroxaban was classified as 'unsafe' in CTP B and C based on significant pharmacokinetic alterations. Due to lack of data, apixaban, dabigatran and edoxaban were classified as 'unknown' for CTP C. CONCLUSION: DOACs can be used in patients with CTP A cirrhosis, and apixaban, dabigatran and edoxaban can also be used in CTP B. It is recommended to avoid rivaroxaban in CTP B and C. There is insufficient evidence to support safe use of other DOACs in CTP C cirrhosis.

A Review of the Dose Justification of Phase 3 Trials to Regulatory Authorities for Drugs Intended for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes in Europe.

Aims: Cardiovascular outcome trials with anti-diabetic drugs suggest that additional cardiovascular benefit can be achieved independent of improving glycaemic control. Nonetheless, dose selection of anti-diabetic drugs is typically based solely on glycaemic effects. We evaluated whether off-target drug effects are currently considered for dose justification to regulatory agencies. Methods: In the European Union, anti-diabetic drugs are registered by the European Medicines Agency. We extracted available information regarding dose selection from public assessment reports and marketing application dossiers. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise the extracted information. Results: In total, 14 drugs of three drug classes were included; sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (n = 4), dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (n = 4) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (n = 6). For these drugs, 21 dose-finding trials were submitted including results of multiple off-target effects, of which body weight (n = 18) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (n = 14) were most frequently reported. Dose-response curves for off-target effects appeared to be different compared to the glycaemic dose-response curve. Glycated hemoglobin (100%) and fasting plasma glucose (42.9%), were used most frequently for the dose justification, but generally off-target effects (<25%) were not. Conclusions: Dose justification to regulatory authorities was mainly based on glycaemic effects. The dose-response relationship for the off-target effects did not necessarily follow the dose-response relationship of the on-target effects suggesting that selection of the optimal anti-diabetic dose could benefit from including off-target effects in the dose selection process as well.

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.

Safe use of proton pump inhibitors in patients with cirrhosis.

AIMS: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) belong to the most frequently used drugs, also in patients with cirrhosis. PPIs are extensively metabolized by the liver, but practice guidance on prescribing in cirrhosis is lacking. We aim to develop practical guidance on the safe use of PPIs in patients with cirrhosis. METHODS: A systematic literature search identified studies on the safety (i.e. adverse events) and pharmacokinetics of PPIs in cirrhotic patients. This evidence and data from the product information was reviewed by an expert panel who classified drugs as safe; no additional risks known; additional risks known; unsafe; or unknown. Guidance was aimed at the oral use of PPIs and categorized by the severity of cirrhosis, using the Child-Turcotte-Pugh (CTP) classification. RESULTS: A total of 69 studies were included. Esomeprazole, omeprazole and rabeprazole were classified as having 'no additional risks known'. A reduction in maximum dose of omeprazole and rabeprazole is recommended for CTP A and B patients. For patients with CTP C cirrhosis, the only PPI advised is esomeprazole at a maximum dosage of 20 mg per day. Pantoprazole and lansoprazole were classified as unsafe because of 4- to 8-fold increased exposure. The use of PPIs in cirrhotic patients has been associated with the development of infections and hepatic encephalopathy and should be carefully considered. CONCLUSIONS: We suggest using esomeprazole, omeprazole or rabeprazole in patients with CTP A or B cirrhosis and only esomeprazole in patients with CTP C. Pharmacokinetic changes are also important to consider when prescribing PPIs to vulnerable, cirrhotic patients.

Evidence-Based Recommendations to Improve the Safe Use of Drugs in Patients with Liver Cirrhosis.

INTRODUCTION: The presence of liver cirrhosis can have a major impact on pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics, but guidance for prescribing is lacking. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to provide an overview of evidence-based recommendations developed for the safe use of drugs in liver cirrhosis. METHODS: Recommendations were based on a systematic literature search combined with expert opinion from a panel of 10 experts. The safety of each drug was classified as safe, no additional risks known, additional risks known, unsafe, unknown or the safety class was dependent on the severity of liver cirrhosis (Child-Pugh classification). If applicable, drug-specific dosing advice was provided. All recommendations were implemented in clinical decision support systems and on a website. RESULTS: We formulated 218 recommendations for a total of 209 drugs. For nine drugs, two recommendations were formulated for different administration routes or indications. Drugs were classified as 'safe' in 29 recommendations (13.3%), 'no additional risks known' in 60 (27.5%), 'additional risks known' in 3 (1.4%), and 'unsafe' in 30 (13.8%). In 57 (26.1%) of the recommendations, safety depended on the severity of liver cirrhosis and was 'unknown' in 39 (17.9%) recommendations. Large alterations in pharmacodynamics were the main reason for classifying a drug as 'unsafe'. For 67 drugs (31%), a dose adjustment was needed. CONCLUSIONS: Over 200 recommendations were developed for the safe use of drugs in patients with liver cirrhosis. Implementing these recommendations into clinical practice can possibly enhance medication safety in this vulnerable patient group.

Evaluating the safety and dosing of drugs in patients with liver cirrhosis by literature review and expert opinion.

INTRODUCTION: Liver cirrhosis can have a major impact on drug pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. Patients with cirrhosis often suffer from potentially preventable adverse drug reactions. Guidelines on safe prescribing for these patients are lacking. The aim of this study is to develop a systematic method for evaluating the safety and optimal dosage of drugs in patients with liver cirrhosis. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: For each drug, a six-step evaluation process will be followed. (1) Available evidence on the pharmacokinetics and safety of a drug in patients with liver cirrhosis will be collected from the Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) and a systematic literature review will be performed. (2) Data regarding two outcomes, namely pharmacokinetics and safety, will be extracted and presented in a standardised assessment report. (3) A safety classification and dosage suggestion will be proposed for each drug. (4) An expert panel will discuss the validity and clinical relevance of this suggested advice. (5) Advices will be implemented in all relevant Clinical Decision Support Systems in the Netherlands and published on a website for patients and healthcare professionals. (6) The continuity of the advices will be guaranteed by a yearly check of new literature and comments on the advices. This protocol will be applied in the evaluation of a selection of drugs: (A) drugs used to treat (complications of) liver cirrhosis, and (B) drugs frequently prescribed to the general population. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Since this study does not directly involve human participants, it does not require ethical clearance. Besides implementation on a website and in clinical decision support systems, we aim to publish the generated advices of one or two drug classes in a peer-reviewed journal and at conference meetings.

Reported adverse drug reactions and their determinants in Dutch children outside the hospital.

PURPOSE: The interpretation of the available studies on adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in children outside the hospital is hampered because none of these studies used a control group. The aim of this study was to describe ADRs in children outside the hospital, controlled for drug use in the paediatric background population. METHODS: Using a case-control design, we compared drugs on which a suspected ADR was reported to the Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre LAREB, and drugs used in the general paediatric population from the InterAction pharmacy database, both in the year 2001, for children aged 0-16 years. RESULTS: The main findings are that ADRs were disproportionately more often reported on systemic drugs (OR 3.0; [95%CI: 1.9-4.8]), new drugs (2.4; [1.6-2.7]), anti-infective drugs (1.7; [1.1-2.7]) and nervous system drugs (2.1; [1.3-3.5]), whereas unlicensed drugs (0.1; [0.0-0.4]), frequently used drugs (0.3; [0.2-0.5]) and dermatologicals (0.1; [0.0-0.4]) were less likely to be associated with a reported ADR. Overall, the proportion of off-label prescriptions did not differ between drugs suspected of an ADR and drugs used by children in a general population. CONCLUSIONS: The pattern of drugs associated with a reported ADR could not be solely explained on the basis of drug utilisation patterns in the general population.