The value of the polypill in cardiovascular disease: an Italian multidisciplinary Delphi panel consensus.

The purpose of this work was to reach the consensus of a multidisciplinary and multistakeholder Italian panel on the value of polypill in cardiovascular disease, with respect to the clinical, technological, economic and organizational dimension. A three-step modified Delphi method was used to establish consensus. Eleven experts in the area of cardiology, pharmaceutical technology, general practice, hospital pharmacy, pharmacology, and health economics participated in the expert panel. To identify existing evidence concerning the value of polypill in the prevention of patients with cardiovascular disease, a systematic literature review was carried out according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses statement guidelines. In the first round, 22 statements were distributed to the panel. Panel members were asked to mark 'agree' or 'disagree' for each statement and provide any comments. The same voting method was again used for the second round. In the first round nine statements met consensus. In the second round, 10 statements reached consensus. Overall, consensus was reached for 19 statements representing five value polypill domains: clinical, technological, economic and organizational. During a final web meeting with all panel members consensus document open points were discussed. Panel members agreed to recognize polypill as effective in reducing cardiovascular events, blood pressure and lipids, cardiovascular risk and the weight of therapy, in therapeutic adherence improvement, in the absence of differences in bioavailability between drugs administered in fixed or free combinations and the better cost-effectiveness profile compared with standard care. This document represents a knowledge framework to inform decision makers of the value of polypill in cardiovascular prevention.

Potential Direct Costs of Adverse Drug Events and Possible Cost Savings Achievable by their Prevention in Tuscany, Italy: A Model-Based Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Adverse drug events (ADEs) may represent an important item of expenditure for healthcare systems and their prevention could be associated with a relevant cost saving. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to simulate the annual economic burden for ADEs in Tuscany (Italy) and the potential cost savings related to avoidable ADEs. METHODS: A systematic review was performed, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) and Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) statements, on observational studies published from 2006 to 2016 in MEDLINE and EMBASE, focusing on direct costs of ADEs in the inpatient setting from high-income countries. The mean probability of preventable ADEs was estimated over the included studies. The mean ADE cost was calculated by means of Monte Carlo simulation. We then extrapolated the spontaneous reports of ADEs in Tuscany, Italy in 2016 from the Italian National Pharmacovigilance Network (Rete Nazionale di Farmacovigilanza), and we assumed the same costs and preventability probability for these as obtained in the systematic review. Finally, we simulated the possible costs of ADEs and preventable ADEs in Tuscany. Three sensitivity analyses were also performed to test the robustness of the results. RESULTS: Of 11,936 articles initially selected, 12 observational studies were included. The estimated mean [± standard deviation (SD)] ADE cost was €2471.46 (± €1214.13). The mean (± SD) probability of preventable ADEs was 45% (± 21). The Tuscan expenditure for ADEs was €3,406,280.63 per million inhabitants (95% confidence interval (CI) 1,732,910.44-5,079,664.61) and the potential cost saving was €1,532,760.25 per million inhabitants (95% CI 779,776.1-2,285,750.60). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results. CONCLUSIONS: The present simulation showed that ADEs could have a relevant economic impact on the Tuscan healthcare system. In this setting, the prevention of ADEs would result in important cost savings. These results could be likely extended to other healthcare systems.

Adherence with regulatory resolutions on prevention of NSAIDS-related gastrointestinal injury in Italy.

Background The rate of gastrointestinal (GI) complications with non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or low-dose aspirin (LD-ASA) varies according to risk factors. For at risk patients, the Italian regulatory resolution enforce prophylaxis with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or misoprostol. Objective This study evaluated the consistency with such resolution in patients receiving NSAIDs or LD-ASA and assessed whether patients continued to receive GI protection with PPIs for an adequate time following NSAID discontinuation. Setting An observational retrospective study was conducted using data from Health District of Pisa. Methods The analysis was performed on patients receiving prescription of NSAIDs or LD-ASA, with or without concomitant PPIs or misoprostol, accordingly with the presence of risk factors (2008-2010). Prescription data were retrieved from the database of reimbursement claims for dispensed drugs, while history of past GI diseases was obtained from primary or secondary discharge diagnosis. Main outcome measure The consistency rates of PPI and misoprostol prescriptions with Italian regulatory rules in patients receiving chronic NSAIDs or LD-ASA. Results 6869 patients, receiving NSAIDs or LD-ASA during the observation period, were eligible for the analysis. For NSAIDs or LD-ASA, gastroprotection rates in patients without risk factors were: 8 and 6 % in 2008; 10 and 8 % in 2009; 9 and 6 % in 2010; while the proportions of patients with one or more risk factors not receiving gastroprotection were: 12 and 17 % in 2008; 25 and 22 % in 2009; 15 and 17 % in 2010. In patients discontinuing chronic NSAIDs, 62 % were maintained on protection with PPIs, but only 28 % continued the PPI treatment for an adequate time (60 ± 7 days). Conclusions The present analysis, although restricted to prescription patterns in a single health district, suggests scarce levels of consistency with Italian regulatory resolution on the prophylaxis of GI adverse events associated with chronic NSAIDs or LDASA.

Safety Profile of Certolizumab Pegol in Patients with Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Certolizumab pegol (CZP), an anti-tumor necrosis factor PEGylated Fab' fragment of a humanized monoclonal antibody, is currently approved for treatment of some immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs). To our knowledge, no systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the overall safety profile of CZP has been performed. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic review was to assess the adverse event (AE) patterns of CZP versus a control in patients with IMIDs. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and the FDA database for clinical trials up to March 2014. Eligible studies were those that compared the safety profile of CZP to a control group in patients with IMIDs. The following data were extracted: number of patients experiencing AEs, serious AEs (SAEs), adverse drug reactions (ADRs), withdrawals due to AEs, fatal AEs, infectious AEs and SAEs, upper respiratory tract infections, injection-site reactions, neoplasms, and tuberculosis. RESULTS: A total of 2023 references were identified and 18 randomized controlled trials were included. The main pooled risk ratios of CZP-treated versus control patients were as follows: AEs 1.09 (95% confidence interval, CI 1.04-1.14), SAEs 1.50 (95% CI 1.21-1.86), ADRs 1.20 (95% CI 1.03-1.39), infectious AEs 1.28 (95% CI 1.13-1.45), infectious SAEs 2.17 (95% CI 1.36-3.47), and upper respiratory tract infections 1.34 (95% CI 1.15-1.57). CONCLUSION: Safety data on CZP suggest an overall favorable tolerability profile, with infections being the most common AE. However, CZP-treated patients had a twofold higher risk of infectious SAEs than control patients. Large observational studies and data from national registries are needed to detect rare AEs, which might occur after long-term exposures to CZP.

Drug-induced taste and smell alterations: a case/non-case evaluation of an italian database of spontaneous adverse drug reaction reporting.

BACKGROUND: The frequency and clinical features of drug-related taste and/or smell impairments are currently unclear. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify major drug classes associated with taste and smell alterations reported to the Italian spontaneous adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting database. METHODS: The association between drug and altered taste or smell was investigated by case/non-case methodology. The reporting odds ratio (ROR) was used as a measure of disproportionality. Cases were defined as patients with at least one ADR related to taste or smell impairments. The non-cases included all patients without any ADRs related to taste or smell alterations. RESULTS: According to the selection criteria, 52 166 reports were included in the analysis. Overall, 182 cases of drug-related taste and/or smell dysfunctions were identified. Statistically significant unadjusted RORs were reported for macrolides (n = 31; 7.1; 95% CI 4.8, 10.5), terbinafine (the only drug reported within the group of antimycotics belonging to the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical class D01AE) [n = 17; 76.4; 95% CI 44.0, 132.6], fluoroquinolones (n = 15; 1.7; 95% CI 1.0, 2.8) and protein kinase inhibitors (n = 10; 4.0; 95% CI 2.1, 7.7). When RORs were adjusted for sex and age category, the disproportion remained statistically significant for all of the previously mentioned drug classes. CONCLUSIONS: Taste and/or smell abnormalities are common, sometimes unexpected and often persistent complaints of patients during pharmacological treatments. Physicians should be aware of the impact of these ADRs on patients' quality of life.

Use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors during pregnancy and risk of major and cardiovascular malformations: an update.

General consensus exists about the need to avoid drug intake as much as possible during pregnancy due to the lack of thorough evidence about the safety of pharmacologic treatments during gestation for both mothers and fetuses. In this respect, the overall safety profile of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in pregnancy remains unclear. This article reviews current evidence about the safety of each SSRI during pregnancy in order to describe their specific teratogenic potential, with a particular focus on major and cardiovascular malformations, and to verify whether such toxicity can be considered as a class effect. The literature review included controlled studies and meta-analyses (retrieved using PsychINFO, EMBASE, and Medline from January 1966 to May 2010) from which the risk of major and/or cardiovascular malformations associated with a specific SSRI (ie, fluoxetine, paroxetine, sertraline, citalopram, escitalopram, and fluvoxamine) could be estimated. Although there is evidence to support the association between birth defects and first-trimester exposure to paroxetine, findings from the studies reviewed suggest a teratogenic potential of the whole SSRI class, consistent with preclinical evidence. These teratogenic effects are mainly in the heart region, and they are often described as septal defects. It may be suggested that the higher frequency of teratogenic effects reported for paroxetine might depend on specific pharmacologic features of this drug compared with other SSRIs, although it is difficult to test this hypothesis. It is noteworthy that current evidence on SSRI teratogenicity stems from studies affected by several methodological weaknesses (ie, lack of investigations using control groups of untreated depressed mothers, confounding by indication, and recall bias). Accordingly, we are not yet able to rule out the possibility that positive associations, as determined in some studies, result from analyses of poor quality.

Safety concerns associated with the use of serotonin reuptake inhibitors and other serotonergic/noradrenergic antidepressants during pregnancy: a review.

BACKGROUND: There is ongoing debate about the safety of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and other serotonergic/noradrenergic antidepressants when used during pregnancy. OBJECTIVE: This article reviews the available literature on the main safety concerns associated with the use of SSRIs and other serotonergic/noradrenergic antidepressants (serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, noradrenergic and specific serotonergic antidepressants) during pregnancy. METHODS: English-language reports of analytical and descriptive studies, including case reports, case series, and meta-analyses, were identified through searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO (1966-April 2009). The search terms were fluoxetine, paroxetine, sertraline, Citalopram, escitalopram, fluvoxamine, venlafaxine, mirtazapine, reboxetine, duloxetine, SSRI, SNRI, NaSSA, and NRI in association with depression, pregnancy, prenatal exposure, miscarriage, spontaneous abortion, malformation, in utero exposure, and neonatal complications. RESULTS: Paroxetine has been associated with significant risks of major malformation, particularly cardiac defects, when used during pregnancy. Significant associations between maternal exposure to SSRIs and both persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn and a self-limiting neonatal behavioral syndrome have been reported in a number of recent original studies and meta-analyses. Some studies have suggested a relationship between the use of SSRIs or other serotonergic/noradrenergic antidepressants and the occurrence of miscarriage, although these studies had methodologic limitations that affected the strength of the data. Evidence for a possible association between in utero exposure to SSRIs or other serotonergic/noradrenergic antidepressants and alterations in neurobehavioral development, bleeding, and QTc-interval prolongation is currently weak. CONCLUSION: The available evidence suggests that SSRIs and other serotonergic/noradrenergic antidepressants should be used with caution during pregnancy, with careful follow-up of infants exposed to these agents in utero.