The periodic e-mail update on the safety of drugs represents an effective and inexpensive way to raise the awareness of GPs on the importance of spontaneous ADR reporting. Since the outcome of the intervention seemed to disappear after the intervention was stopped, there appears to be a need to adopt a policy of regular updates and educational strategies for health professionals.
AimDrug‐induced liver injury is one of the most serious adverse drug reactions and the most frequent reason for restriction of indications or withdrawal of drugs. Some nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) were withdrawn from the market because of serious hepatotoxicity. We estimated the risk of acute and serious liver injury associated with the use of nimesulide and other NSAIDs, with a prevalence of use greater than or equal to 5%.MethodsThis is a multicentre case–control study carried out in nine Italian hospitals from October 2010 to January 2014. Cases were adults, with a diagnosis of acute liver injury. Controls presented acute clinical disorders not related to chronic conditions, not involving the liver. Adjusted odds ratio (ORs) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated initially with a bivariate and then multivariate analysis.ResultsWe included 179 cases matched to 1770 controls. Adjusted OR for acute serious liver injury associated with all NSAIDs was 1.69, 95% CI 1.21–2.37. Thirty cases were exposed to nimesulide (adjusted OR 2.10, 95% CI 1.28–3.47); the risk increased according to the length of exposure (OR > 30 days: 12.55, 95% CI 1.73–90.88) and to higher doses (OR 10.69, 95% CI 4.02–28.44). Risk of hepatotoxicity was increased also for ibuprofen, used both at recommended dosages (OR 1.92, 95% CI 1.13–3.26) and at higher doses (OR 3.73, 95% CI 1.11–12.46) and for ketoprofen ≥ 150 mg (OR 4.65, 95% CI 1.33–10.00).ConclusionAmong all NSAIDs, nimesulide is associated with the higher risk, ibuprofen and high doses of ketoprofen are also associated with a modestly increased risk of hepatotoxicity.
This study was conducted to determine the prevalence and profile of use of benzodiazepines in the Italian population and risk factors for use. Between November 1992 and February 1993, 62 general practitioners submitted a validated self-administered questionnaire on health status and drug use to a randomised sample of 3100 subjects ( > or = 18 years of age, stratified by sex and age), of whom 2803 responded (response, rate 90.4%). Main outcome measures were point estimate (past-week) of all the drugs taken by each individual, dosage and length of use and source of the prescription. The overall past-week prevalence of use of benzodiazepines was 8.6% (5.0% males and 11.8% females). In the elderly ( > or = 65 years) 18.8% reported current use (9.0% males and 24.7% females). Fifty-six per cent of the persons exposed to a benzodiazepine were chronic users (daily, for more than 6 months), and 70.1% in subjects > or = 65 years. The average daily dose taken was relatively low: 61% of short-term users and 51% of chronic users used less than half a defined daily dose (DDD). Female sex, older age, unemployment and retirement were independently associated with the use of benzodiazepines. Benzodiazepine use in Italy appeared to be relatively high (about 9% of subjects reported current use 57% of whom were chronic users). Women were prescribed a benzodiazepine twice as often as men and one out of four elderly women was on treatment. Although the average dosage used was rather low, the high prevalence and the elevated proportion of chronic users should encourage drug information campaigns and educational interventions to promote a more conservative use of these drugs especially in the elderly.
Our study confirms that NSAIDs are widely used in the Italian general population and that, in most cases, they are used in accordance with their approved indications. However, their large and often chronic use in the elderly, as well as the high frequency of self-treatment, recommends a higher awareness by all physicians.
Aims The objective was to explore differences in lipid‐lowering drug (LLD) prescribing in Italy and Denmark. Methods We used two geographical areas with computerized drug prescription records in defined populations, one in Funen, Denmark with 500 000 inhabitants, the other in Bologna, Italy with 400 000 inhabitants. Prescriptions for patients who had purchased a LLD from 1994 until 1996 were retrieved as well as coprescriptions of antidiabetic and cardiovascular drugs as markers for diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Only patients surviving and remaining in the area were included. Compliance was defined as percentage of DDDs purchased divided by the number of days within the time window. The limit between good and poor compliance was set at 82%. Results In Bologna, LLD consumption measured in DDD increased by 41% and in Funen by 129%. Annual prevalence increased from 36.9 to 46.3 users/1000 inhabitants from 1994 to 1996 and from 3.2 to 6.6 users/1000 inhabitants in Bologna and Funen, respectively. From 1995 to 1996, the incidence of use decreased slightly in Bologna from 19.3 to 18.8/1000 inhabitants/year, whereas in Funen the incidence increased from 1.8 to 2.3/1000 inhabitants/year. In Bologna 48% and in Funen 91% of users persisted with treatment for 2 years or longer. In Bologna, 7% and in Funen 45% were good compliers. In Bologna, 61% and in Funen, 72% received other drugs indicating cardiovascular or diabetic comorbidity. Conclusions Patterns of use differed substantially between the two areas. In contrast with Funen, where long‐term use was common, Bologna LLD use was sporadic. Based on a higher rate of coprescription, LLDs seemed to be used for secondary prevention to a higher extent in Funen than in Bologna. In Funen it appeared that the correct patients, but an insufficient number of them, were being treated adequately according to guidelines. The higher discontinuation rate of lipid lowering drugs in the Bologna area indicates that a large proportion of patients use these drugs for too short a period of time to benefit from treatment. Since society’s health care resources are limited it is difficult to justify public funding of these medications without at the same time giving appropriate attention to these problems.
As well as premarketing authorization clinical trial studies, we found a reduced risk of intracranial haemorrhage, but an increased risk of gastrointestinal haemorrhage in patients treated with DOACs compared to warfarin. We provide new data and we highlight several differences between the three novel oral anticoagulants, in the rate and type of ADRs occurred.
Large variations in the utilisation of lipid-lowering drugs exist between countries, with Australia and Italy much higher than others. Of the drugs in the ATC category B04, the use of statins predominates in all countries, but to varying degrees. The large difference in the degree of drug utilisation with respect to age and gender between Italy and Sweden suggests major deviations from evidence-based medicine.
What is already known about this subject We recently proposed an algorithm to assess the degree of therapeutic innovation of new therapeutic agents. It was based on the disease seriousness, the availability of previous treatments and the extent of the therapeutic effect, and was applied to all therapeutic agents approved by the EMEA in the period 1995–2003. A low percentage (32%) of important therapeutic innovation was found. This figure may be an underestimate of the actual level of innovation, because common biotechnological products, such as recombinant human insulins, must follow the centralized procedure. What this study adds Details for each agent, focusing on the comparison of the degree of therapeutic innovation between biotechnological and nonbiotechnological therapeutic agents approved by EMEA during the its first decade of activity (1995–2004). The underlying hypothesis was that the latter have a higher degree of innovation because they followed the centralized procedure on the assumption that they are innovative. The percentage of important therapeutic innovation was low not only for biotechnological products (25%), as expected because they include many already known products such as insulins, but also for nonbiotechnological therapeutic agents (29%). Aims In a previous paper, we proposed an algorithm to assess the degree of therapeutic innovation of the agents approved by the European centralized procedure, which must be followed by biotechnological products and is optional for drugs claimed as innovative. A low overall degree of therapeutic innovation (about 30%) was found. This figure may be an underestimate of the actual level of innovation, because common biotechnological products, such as recombinant human insulins, must follow this procedure. To test the hypothesis that therapeutic innovation prevails among nonbiotechnological products, we evaluated separately the degree of therapeutic innovation of biotechnological vs. nonbiotechnological agents in the first decade of European Medicines Agency activity, also studying a possible time trend. Methods We assessed, for each drug: (i) the seriousness of the target disease, (ii) the availability of previous treatments, and (iii) the extent of therapeutic effect according to the previously proposed algorithm. Results Our analysis considered 251 medicinal products corresponding to 198 active substances, classified according to four main areas as therapeutic agents (88.9%), diagnostics (5.5%), vaccines (5.1%) and life‐style drugs (0.5%). Among all therapeutic agents, 49 out of 176 agents (28%) were classified as having an important degree of therapeutic innovation. Fifteen out of 60 biotechnological therapeutic agents were considered important therapeutic innovations (25%), whereas this figure was 29% for nonbiotechnological agents. Conclusions Among active substances claimed as innovative by the manufacturers, only a minority deserve this definition according to our algorithm.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.