Comparing risk of major bleeding between users of different oral anticoagulants in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation.

AIMS: The introduction of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) has broadened the treatment arsenal for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, but observational studies on the benefit-risk balance of DOACs compared to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) are needed. The aim of this study was to characterize the risk of major bleeding in DOAC users using longitudinal data collected from electronic health care databases from 4 different EU-countries analysed with a common study protocol. METHODS: A cohort study was conducted among new users (≥18 years) of DOACs or VKAs with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation using data from the UK, Spain, Germany and Denmark. The incidence of major bleeding events (overall and by bleeding site) was compared between current use of DOACs and VKAs. Cox regression analysis was used to calculate hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI) and adjust for confounders. RESULTS/CONCLUSION: Overall, 251 719 patients were included across the 4 study cohorts (mean age ~75 years, % females between 41.3 and 54.3%), with overall hazard ratios of major bleeding risk for DOACs vs VKAs ranging between 0.84 (95% CI: 0.79-0.90) in Denmark and 1.13 (95% CI 1.02-1.25) in the UK. When stratifying according to the bleeding site, risk of gastrointestinal bleeding was increased by 48-67% in dabigatran users and 30-50% for rivaroxaban users compared to VKA users in all data sources except Denmark. Compared to VKAs, apixaban was not associated with an increased risk of gastrointestinal bleeding in all data sources and seemed to be associated with the lowest risk of major bleeding events compared to dabigatran and rivaroxaban.

Major bleeding in users of direct oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation: A pooled analysis of results from multiple population-based cohort studies.

OBJECTIVE: To establish the risk of major bleeding in direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) users (overall and by class) versus vitamin K antagonist (VKA) users, using health care databases from four European countries and six provinces in Canada. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed according to a similar protocol. First-users of VKAs or DOACs with a diagnosis of non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) were included. The main outcome of interest was major bleeding and secondary outcomes included gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding and intracranial haemorrhage (ICH). Incidence rates of events per 1000 person years were calculated. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model. Exposure and confounders were measured and analysed in a time-dependant way. Risk estimates were pooled using a random effect model. RESULTS: 421 523 patients were included. The risk of major bleeding for the group of DOACs compared to VKAs showed a pooled HR of 0.94 (95% CI: 0.87-1.02). Rivaroxaban showed a modestly increased risk (HR 1.11, 95% CI: 1.06-1.16). Apixaban and dabigatran showed a decreased risk of respectively HR 0.76 (95% CI: 0.69-0.84) and HR 0.85 (95% CI: 0.75-0.96). CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms that the risk of major bleeding of DOACs compared to VKAs is not increased when combining all DOACs. However, we observed a modest higher risk of major bleeding for rivaroxaban, whereas for apixaban and dabigatran lower risks of major bleeding were observed compared to VKAs.

Incidence of direct oral anticoagulant use in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and characteristics of users in 6 European countries (2008-2015): A cross-national drug utilization study.

AIMS: To estimate the incidence of direct oral anticoagulant drug (DOAC) use in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and to describe user and treatment characteristics in 8 European healthcare databases representing 6 European countries. METHODS: Longitudinal drug utilization study from January 2008 to December 2015. A common protocol approach was applied. Annual period incidences and direct standardisation by age and sex were performed. Dose adjustment related to change in age and by renal function as well as concomitant use of potentially interacting drugs were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 186 405 new DOAC users (age ≥18 years) were identified. Standardized incidences varied from 1.93-2.60 and 0.11-8.71 users/10 000 (2011-2015) for dabigatran and rivaroxaban, respectively, and from 0.01-8.12 users/10 000 (2012-2015) for apixaban. In 2015, the DOAC incidence ranged from 9 to 28/10 000 inhabitants in SIDIAP (Spain) and DNR (Denmark) respectively. There were differences in population coverage among the databases. Only 1 database includes the total reference population (DNR) while others are considered a population representative sample (CPRD, BIFAP, SIDIAP, EGB, Mondriaan). They also varied in the type of drug data source (administrative, clinical). Dose adjustment ranged from 4.6% in BIFAP (Spain) to 15.6% in EGB (France). Concomitant use of interacting drugs varied between 16.4% (SIDIAP) and 70.5% (EGB). Cardiovascular comorbidities ranged from 25.4% in Mondriaan (The Netherlands) to 82.9% in AOK Nordwest (Germany). CONCLUSION: Overall, apixaban and rivaroxaban increased its use during the study period while dabigatran decreased. There was variability in patient characteristics such as comorbidities, potentially interacting drugs and dose adjustment. (EMA/2015/27/PH).

A proof-of-concept trial of HELIOX with different fractions of helium in a human study modeling upper airway obstruction.

BACKGROUND: Helium in oxygen (HELIOX) can relieve airway obstruction and lower the work of breathing because it increases the threshold at which turbulent gas flow is induced. Less turbulent and more laminar flow lowers the work of breathing. According to guidelines, the fraction of Helium in HELIOX should be maximized (e.g. to 79%). Here, we investigate whether HELIOX with less than 60% of Helium is able to relieve the sensation of dyspnea in healthy volunteers. METHODS: 44 volunteers underwent resistive loading breathing different gases (medical air and HELIOX with a fraction of 25%, 50% or 75% helium in oxygen) in a double-blinded crossover design. Subjects rated their degree of dyspnea (primary outcome parameter) and the variability of noninvasively measured systolic blood pressure was assessed. RESULTS: Dyspnea was significantly reduced by HELIOX-containing mixtures with a fraction of helium of 25% or more. Similarly, blood pressure variability was reduced significantly even with helium 25% during respiratory loading with the higher load, whereas with the smaller load an effect could only be obtained with the highest helium fraction of 75%. CONCLUSION: In this clinical trial, HELIOX with less than 60% of helium in oxygen decreased the sensation of dyspnea and blood pressure variability, a surrogate parameter for airway obstruction. Therefore, higher oxygen fractions might be applied without losing the helium-related benefits for the treatment of upper airway obstruction. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registration with clinical trials (NCT00788788) and EMA (EudraCT number: 2006-005289-37).

Tiotropium Respimat(®) vs. HandiHaler(®): real-life usage and TIOSPIR trial generalizability.

AIM: Two inhaler devices (Respimat® and HandiHaler®) are available for tiotropium, a long acting anticholinergic agent. We aimed to analyze drug utilization, off-label usage and generalizability of the TIOSPIR trial results for both devices. METHODS: Patients aged ≥18 years exhibiting at least one documented prescription of tiotropium in the database of the Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians, Bavaria, Germany, were included (years 2004-2008). Annual period prevalence rates (PPRs) were calculated stratified by age, gender and inhaler devices. Off-label usage (patients lacking a chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) diagnosis) and the proportion of patients meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the TIOSPIR trial were analyzed. RESULTS: Between 2004 and 2008, PPRs increased and varied between 49.2 and 74.5 per 10 000 persons for HandiHaler® and between 1.5 and 9.3 per 10 000 persons for Respimat®. Small differences regarding patient characteristics existed between the two inhaler devices. Only about 30% (HandiHaler® 32.1%, Respimat® 30.0%) of the database patients receiving tiotropium could be theoretically included in the TIOSPIR trial. CONCLUSIONS: Comparing the two tiotropium devices, no clinically relevant differences regarding patient and prescribing characteristics were revealed. Results of the TIOSPIR trial were generalizable only to a minority of our study patients, underlining the need for real-life data.

Prevalence of antibiotic use: a comparison across various European health care data sources.

PURPOSE: There is widespread concern about increases in antibiotic use, but comparative data from different European countries on rates of use are lacking. This study was designed to measure and understand the variation in antibiotic utilization across five European countries. METHODS: Seven European healthcare databases with access to primary care data from Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain and the UK were used to measure and compare the point and 1-year-period prevalence of antibiotic use between 2004 and 2009. Descriptive analyses were stratified by gender, age and type of antibiotic. Separate analyses were performed to measure the most common underlying indications leading to the prescription of an antibiotic. RESULTS: The average yearly period prevalence of antibiotic use varied from 15 (Netherlands) to 30 (Spain) users per 100 patients. A higher prevalence of antibiotic use by female patients, the very young (0-9 years) and old (80+ years), was observed in all databases. The lowest point prevalence was recorded in June and September and ranged from 0.51 (Netherlands) to 1.47 (UK) per 100 patients per day. Twelve percent (Netherlands) to forty-nine (Spain) percent of all users were diagnosed with a respiratory tract infection, and the most common type of antibiotic prescribed were penicillin. CONCLUSION: Using identical methodology in seven EU databases to assess antibiotic use allowed us to compare drug usage patterns across Europe. Our results contribute quantitatively to the true understanding of similarities and differences in the use of antibiotic agents in different EU countries.

Exposure to benzodiazepines (anxiolytics, hypnotics and related drugs) in seven European electronic healthcare databases: a cross-national descriptive study from the PROTECT-EU Project.

PURPOSE: Studies on drug utilization usually do not allow direct cross-national comparisons because of differences in the respective applied methods. This study aimed to compare time trends in BZDs prescribing by applying a common protocol and analyses plan in seven European electronic healthcare databases. METHODS: Crude and standardized prevalence rates of drug prescribing from 2001-2009 were calculated in databases from Spain, United Kingdon (UK), The Netherlands, Germany and Denmark. Prevalence was stratified by age, sex, BZD type [(using ATC codes), i.e. BZD-anxiolytics BZD-hypnotics, BZD-related drugs and clomethiazole], indication and number of prescription. RESULTS: Crude prevalence rates of BZDs prescribing ranged from 570 to 1700 per 10,000 person-years over the study period. Standardization by age and sex did not substantially change the differences. Standardized prevalence rates increased in the Spanish (+13%) and UK databases (+2% and +8%) over the study period, while they decreased in the Dutch databases (-4% and -22%), the German (-12%) and Danish (-26%) database. Prevalence of anxiolytics outweighed that of hypnotics in the Spanish, Dutch and Bavarian databases, but the reverse was shown in the UK and Danish databases. Prevalence rates consistently increased with age and were two-fold higher in women than in men in all databases. A median of 18% of users received 10 or more prescriptions in 2008. CONCLUSION: Although similar methods were applied, the prevalence of BZD prescribing varied considerably across different populations. Clinical factors related to BZDs and characteristics of the databases may explain these differences.

Prescribing of long-acting beta-2-agonists/inhaled corticosteroids after the SMART trial.

BACKGROUND: After the SMART trial evaluating the safety of salmeterol (long-acting beta-2-agonist (LABA)) in asthma patients, regulatory actions were taken to promote a guideline-adherent prescribing of LABA only to patients receiving inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). We aim to analyse LABA- and ICS-related prescription patterns after the SMART trial in Germany. METHODS: Patients documented in the Bavarian Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians database (approximately 10.5 million people) were included if they had a diagnosis of asthma and at least one prescription of LABA and/or ICS between 2004 and 2008. Annual period prevalence rates (PPRs) were estimated and Cochrane Armitage tests were used for time trend analyses. RESULTS: Highest annual PPRs were found for budesonide and the fixed combination of salmeterol/fluticasone. The proportion of "concomitant LABA and ICS users" increased from 52.0 to 57.6% within the study period, whereas for "LABA users without ICS" a slight decrease from 6.5 to 5.4% was found. In 2008, the proportion of patients with at least one quarter with a LABA prescription without concomitant ICS was highest in elderly, male patients (≈20%). In the majority of these patients, a concomitant diagnosis of COPD (i.e. asthma-COPD overlap syndrome [ACOS]) was present. CONCLUSIONS: Between 2004 and 2008, we found a moderate increase in guideline-adherent LABA prescribing in a representative German population. Elderly men received a significant number of LABA prescriptions without concomitant ICS probably due to ACOS.

Antiepileptic drugs and suicide: a systematic review of adverse effects.

BACKGROUND: Since the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) report on antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) and suicide risk was released (2008), several studies have been published on this controversial relationship. This systematic review (SR) gives an updated approach to this health issue. SUMMARY: We searched 6 databases. We ultimately included 11 publications: 4 cohort studies, 1 case-crossover study, 2 community case-control studies, and 4 SRs. Overall, 1 SR described studies already included; 3 studies reported a 2- to 4-fold overall increase in risk; 1 study reported an increased risk of suicide among epilepsy patients on AEDs with high risk of depression; 1study showed a protective effect among epilepsy patients; 2 studies were conducted with patients with bipolar disorder (1 showed a protective effect, whereas the other showed a 3-fold increase in risk of suicide), and the other 3 studies reported results for single AEDs. Several biases affected the published results. KEY MESSAGES: There is no clear evidence of an association between the use of AEDs and an increased risk of suicide because of the heterogeneity in the studies at the clinical and methodological level. A future study should cover all indications for use, retrieve information from a healthcare database, and include a defined set of covariates to avoid bias.

Antiepileptic drug use in seven electronic health record databases in Europe: a methodologic comparison.

OBJECTIVE: The annual prevalence of antiepileptic drug (AED) prescribing reported in the literature differs considerably among European countries due to use of different type of data sources, time periods, population distribution, and methodologic differences. This study aimed to measure prevalence of AED prescribing across seven European routine health care databases in Spain, Denmark, The Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Germany using a standardized methodology and to investigate sources of variation. METHODS: Analyses on the annual prevalence of AEDs were stratified by sex, age, and AED. Overall prevalences were standardized to the European 2008 reference population. RESULTS: Prevalence of any AED varied from 88 per 10,000 persons (The Netherlands) to 144 per 10,000 in Spain and Denmark in 2001. In all databases, prevalence increased linearly: from 6% in Denmark to 15% in Spain each year since 2001. This increase could be attributed entirely to an increase in "new," recently marketed AEDs while prevalence of AEDs that have been available since the mid-1990s, hardly changed. AED use increased with age for both female and male patients up to the ages of 80 to 89 years old and tended to be somewhat higher in female than in male patients between the ages of 40 and 70. No differences between databases in the number of AEDs used simultaneously by a patient were found. SIGNIFICANCE: We showed that during the study period of 2001-2009, AED prescribing increased in five European Union (EU) countries and that this increase was due entirely to the newer AEDs marketed since the 1990s. Using a standardized methodology, we showed consistent trends across databases and countries over time. Differences in age and sex distribution explained only part of the variation between countries. Therefore, remaining variation in AED use must originate from other differences in national health care systems.

Prescribing cascades in ambulatory care: A structured synthesis of evidence.

The strength of evidence for specific ambulatory care prescribing cascades, in which a marker drug is used to treat an adverse event caused by an index drug, has not been well characterized. To perform a structured, systematic, and transparent review of the evidence supporting ambulatory care prescribing cascades. Ninety-four potential prescribing cascades identified through a previously published systematic review. Systematic search of the literature to further characterize prescribing cascades. (1) Grading of evidence based on observational studies investigating associations between index and marker drugs, including: Level I-strong evidence [i.e. multiple high-quality studies]; Level II-moderate evidence [i.e. single high-quality study]; Level III-fair evidence [no high-quality studies but one or more moderate-quality studies]; and Level IV-poor evidence [other]. (2) Listing of the adverse event associated with the index drug in the product's United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) label. (3) Synthesis of the evidence supporting mechanisms linking index drugs and associated adverse events. Of 99 potential cascades, 94 were supported by one or more confirmatory observational studies and were therefore included in this review. The 94 cascades related to 30 types of adverse drug reactions affecting 10 different anatomic/physiologic systems and were investigated by a total of 88 confirmatory studies, including prescription sequential symmetry analysis (n = 51), cohort (n = 30), and case-control (n = 7) studies. Overall, the evidence from observational studies was strong for 18 (19.1%) prescribing cascades, moderate for 61 (64.9%), fair for 13 (13.8%), and poor for 2 (2.1%). Although the evidence supporting mechanisms that link index drugs and associated adverse events was variable, FDA labels included information about the adverse event associated with the index drug for most (n = 86) but not all of the 94 prescribing cascades. Although we identified 18 of 94 prescribing cascades supported by strong clinical evidence and most adverse events associated with index drugs are included in FDA label, the evidentiary basis for prescribing cascades varies, with many requiring further evidence of clinical relevance.

Clinical utility of overviews on adverse events of pharmacological interventions.

BACKGROUND: Overviews (i.e., systematic reviews of systematic reviews, meta-reviews, umbrella reviews) are a relatively new type of evidence synthesis. Among others, one reason to conduct an overview is to investigate adverse events (AEs) associated with a healthcare intervention. Overviews aim to provide easily accessible information for healthcare decision-makers including clinicians. We aimed to evaluate the clinical utility of overviews investigating AEs. METHODS: We used a sample of 27 overviews exclusively investigating drug-related adverse events published until 2021 identified in a prior project. We defined clinical utility as the extent to which overviews are perceived to be useful in clinical practice. Each included overview was assigned to one of seven pharmacological experts with expertise on the topic of the overview. The clinical utility and value of these overviews were determined using a self-developed assessment tool. This included four open-ended questions and a ranking of three clinical utility statements completed by clinicians. We calculated frequencies for the ranked clinical utility statements and coded the answers to the open-ended questions using an inductive approach. RESULTS: The overall agreement with the provided statements was high. According to the assessments, 67% of the included overviews generated new knowledge. In 93% of the assessments, the overviews were found to add value to the existing literature. The overviews were rated as more useful than the individual included systematic reviews (SRs) in 85% of the assessments. The answers to the open-ended questions revealed two key aspects of clinical utility in the included overviews. Firstly, it was considered useful that they provide a summary of available evidence (e.g., along with additional assessments, or across different populations, or in different settings that have not been evaluated together in the included SRs). Secondly, it was found useful if overviews conducted a new meta-analysis to answer specific research questions that had not been answered previously. CONCLUSIONS: Overviews on drug-related AEs are considered valuable for clinical practice by clinicians. They can make available evidence on AEs more accessible and provide a comprehensive view of available evidence. As the role of overviews evolves, investigations such as this can identify areas of value.

Impact of timing and combination of different BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1-S COVID-19 basic and booster vaccinations on humoral immunogenicity and reactogenicity in adults.

In this single-center observational study with 1,206 participants, we prospectively evaluated SARS-CoV-2-antibodies (anti-S RBD) and vaccine-related adverse drug reactions (ADR) after basic and booster immunization with BNT162b2- and ChAdOx1-S-vaccines in four vaccination protocols: Homologous BNT162b2-schedule with second vaccination at either three or six weeks, homologous ChAdOx1-S-vaccination or heterologous ChAdOx1-S/BNT162b2-schedule, each at 12 weeks. All participants received a BNT162b2 booster. Blood samples for anti-S RBD analysis were obtained multiple times over a period of four weeks to six months after basic vaccination, immediately before, and up to three months after booster vaccination. After basic vaccination, the homologous ChAdOx1-S-group showed the lowest anti-S RBD levels over six months, while the heterologous BNT162b2-ChAdOx1-S-group demonstrated the highest anti-S levels, but failed to reach level of significance compared with the homologous BNT162b2-groups. Antibody levels were higher after an extended vaccination interval with BNT162b2. A BNT162b2 booster increased anti-S-levels 11- to 91-fold in all groups, with the homologous ChAdOx1-S-cohort demonstrated the highest increase in antibody levels. No severe or serious ADR were observed. The findings suggest that a heterologous vaccination schedule or prolonged vaccination interval induces robust humoral immunogenicity with good tolerability. Extending the time to boost-immunization is key to both improving antibody induction and reducing ADR rate.

Cardiovascular effects, pharmacokinetics and cross-reactivity in digitalis glycoside immunoassays of an antidiarrheal uzara root extract.

Uzara glycosides (UG) extracted from Xysmalobium undulatum are used for treating non-specific diarrhea.Cross-reactivity has been described for UG in digitalis glycoside assays but digitalis-like cardiac effects are controversially discussed. Therefore, we performed a randomized, singleblind cross-over study in 18 healthy volunteers receiving a commercially available Uzara product (Uzara® Lösung N, Stada AG, Bad Vilbel, Germany (ULN)), digoxin (1 mg, i.v., positive control) and placebo in double-dummy technique. Pharmacodynamic effects were quantified by means of ECG and impedance cardiography (ICG). After oral administration of ULN, main metabolites were determined using HPLC-MS/MS and digitalis-like serum levels (DLSL) were measured in two digitoxin and digoxin assays, respectively. In comparison to placebo, ULN did not change significantly any PD parameters whereas digoxin altered significantly area under the effect curve of several ECG and ICG parameters, respectively. Since some serum levels of three ULN ingredients (uzarin, uzarigenin and xysmalorin) were below LLQ, PK analyses could only be performed for allouzarigenin and revealed a marked inter-individual variability. Therefore, median values (min; max) were calculated as follows: Cmax = 0.39 (0.15; 1.81) ng/ml, tmax = 7.0 (3.0; 36.0) h, T1/2 = 5.2 (0.8; 23.6) h, AUC0-36h = 4.2 (0.8; 11.1) ng/ml×h, AUC0-∞ = 5.8 (1.8; 13.1) ng/ml×h. DLSL reached Cmax of 28 ng/ml and 1,980 ng/ml for digoxin and digitoxin, respectively. We could not observe significant cardiovascular pharmacodynamic effects after oral administration of the recommended single dose of Uzara extract to healthy volunteers. However, considerable DLSL could be detected, proving cross-reactivity of uzara components with the conventional digitalis assays used. However, none of the metabolites we had suspected to be the cause for the crossreactivity could be identified in reasonable quantities.

Prescribing Cascades: How to Detect Them, Prevent Them, and Use Them Appropriately.

BACKGROUND: A prescribing cascade is the treatment of an adverse drug reaction (ADR) with another drug. In this review, we discuss (a) the different types of prescribing cascade and (b) the measures that can be taken so that they will be recognized and dealt with appropriately, both in the hospital and in the outpatient setting. METHODS: This review is based on pertinent publications retrieved by a selective literature search. RESULTS: The literature distinguishes intentional from unintentional prescribing cascades, and appropriate from inappropriate ones. We further distinguish prophylactic from therapeutic prescribing cascades and draw a line between those that are necessary and those that are merely appropriate. The following main questions are essential for dealing with prescribing cascades appropriately: (1) Did the precipitating drug cause a clinically relevant ADR or risk of an ADR? (2) Is the precipitating drug still indicated? (3) Can an ADR be avoided by altering the treatment with the precipitating drug, or by (4) switching to another drug instead? (5) Can the drug used to treat the ADR actually affect it beneficially? (6) Do the benefits of the prescribing cascade outweigh its risks? CONCLUSION: Prescribing cascades are not problematic in themselves; on the contrary, they are sometimes a necessary part of good prescribing practice. There is still a lack of practically implementable instruments to help physicians detect prescribing cascades reliably, assess them properly, and put them to appropriate use.

A review found heterogeneous approaches and insufficient reporting in overviews on adverse events.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate reporting and methodological characteristics of overviews on adverse (drug-associated) events (AEs) of pharmacological interventions. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Epistemonikos, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception to May 17, 2021 for overviews exclusively investigating AEs of pharmacological interventions. We extracted general, reporting, and methodological characteristics and analyzed data descriptively. RESULTS: We included 27 overviews, 70% of which were published in 2016 or later. The most common nomenclature in the title was "overview" (56%), followed by "umbrella review" (26%). The median number of included systematic reviews (SRs) in each overview was 15 (interquartile range 7-34). Study selection methods were reported in 52%, methods for data extraction in 67%, and methods for critical appraisal in 63% of overviews. An assessment of methodological quality of included SRs was performed in 70% of overviews. Only 22% of overviews reported strategies for dealing with overlapping SRs. An assessment of the certainty of the evidence was performed in 33% of overviews. CONCLUSION: To ensure methodological rigor, authors of overviews on AEs should follow available guidance for the conduct and reporting of overviews.

Development of a deprescribing manual for frail older people for use in the COFRAIL study and in primary care.

Introduction: Many older adults are affected by multimorbidity and subsequent polypharmacy which is associated with adverse outcomes. This is especially relevant for frail older patients. Polypharmacy may be reduced via deprescribing. As part of the complex intervention in the COFRAIL study, we developed a deprescribing manual to be used by general practitioners (GPs) in family conferences, in which GPs, patients and caregivers jointly discuss treatments. Methods: We selected indications with a high prevalence in older adults in primary care (e.g. diabetes mellitus, hypertension) and conducted a literature search to identify deprescribing criteria for these indications. We additionally reviewed clinical practice guidelines. Based on the extracted information, we created a deprescribing manual which was then piloted in an expert workshop and in family conferences with volunteer patients according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the study protocol. Results: Initially, 13 indications/topics were selected. The literature search identified deprescribing guides, reviews and clinical trials as well as lists of potentially inappropriate medication and systematic reviews on the risk and benefits of specific drugs and drug classes in older patients. After piloting and revisions, the deprescribing manual now covers 11 indications/topics. In each chapter, patient- and medication-related deprescribing criteria, monitoring and communication strategies, and information about concerns related to the use of specific drugs in older patients are provided. Discussion: We found varying deprescribing strategies in the literature, which we consolidated in our deprescribing manual. Whether this approach leads to successful deprescribing in family conferences is being investigated in the cluster-randomised controlled COFRAIL study. Plain Language Summary: Development of a manual to help doctors to identify which medications can be withdrawn Many older adults suffer from chronic diseases and take multiple medications concurrently. This can lead to side effects and other undesired events. We developed a manual to help doctors identify which medications can be withdrawn, so that they can discuss this with their patients. This manual was used in the COFRAIL study where doctors, patients and caregivers met in family conferences to discuss their preferences and decide together how future treatments should be handled. The manual contains information on common medications, symptoms and diseases in older patients such as diabetes and high blood pressure. Before the manual was used in the study, it was tested by volunteer patients and their doctors and caregivers to make sure that it is user-friendly.

Adverse drug reactions in Germany: direct costs of internal medicine hospitalizations.

PURPOSE: German hospital reimbursement modalities changed as a result of the introduction of Diagnosis Related Groups (DRG) in 2004. Therefore, no data on the direct costs of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) resulting in admissions to departments of internal medicine are available. The objective was to quantify the ADR-related economic burden (direct costs) of hospitalizations in internal medicine wards in Germany. METHODS: Record-based study analyzing the patient records of about 57,000 hospitalizations between 2006 and 2007 of the Net of Regional Pharmacovigilance Centers (Germany). All ADRs were evaluated by a team of experts in pharmacovigilance for severity, causality, and preventability. The calculation of accurate person-related costs for ADRs relied on the German DRG system (G-DRG 2009). Descriptive and bootstrap statistical methods were applied for data analysis. RESULTS: The incidence of hospitalization due to at least 'possible' serious outpatient ADRs was estimated to be approximately 3.25%. Mean age of the 1834 patients was 71.0 years (SD 14.7). Most frequent ADRs were gastrointestinal hemorrhage (n = 336) and drug-induced hypoglycemia (n = 270). Average inpatient length-of-stay was 9.3 days (SD 7.1). Average treatment costs of a single ADR were estimated to be approximately €2250. The total costs sum to €434 million per year for Germany. Considering the proportion of preventable cases (20.1%), this equals a saving potential of €87 million per year. CONCLUSIONS: Preventing ADRs is advisable in order to realize significant nationwide savings potential. Our cost estimates provide a reliable benchmark as they were calculated based on an intensified ADR surveillance and an accurate person-related cost application.

Comparing Predictions of a PBPK Model for Cyclosporine With Drug Levels From Therapeutic Drug Monitoring.

This study compared simulations of a physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model implemented for cyclosporine with drug levels from therapeutic drug monitoring to evaluate the predictive performance of a PBPK model in a clinical population. Based on a literature search model parameters were determined. After calibrating the model using the pharmacokinetic profiles of healthy volunteers, 356 cyclosporine trough levels of 32 renal transplant outpatients were predicted based on their biometric parameters. Model performance was assessed by calculating absolute and relative deviations of predicted and observed trough levels. The median absolute deviation was 6 ng/ml (interquartile range: 30 to 31 ng/ml, minimum = -379 ng/ml, maximum = 139 ng/ml). 86% of predicted cyclosporine trough levels deviated less than twofold from observed values. The high intra-individual variability of observed cyclosporine levels was not fully covered by the PBPK model. Perspectively, consideration of clinical and additional patient-related factors may improve the model's performance. In summary, the current study has shown that PBPK modeling may offer valuable contributions for pharmacokinetic research in clinical drug therapy.