Statins, or 3-hydroxy-3-methyl-glutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors, such as lovastatin, atorvastatin, simvastatin, pravastatin, fluvastatin, rosuvastatin and pitavastatin, are cholesterol-lowering drugs used in clinical practice to prevent coronary heart disease. These drugs are generally well tolerated and have been rarely associated with severe adverse effects (e.g. rhabdomyolysis). Over the years, case series and data from national registries of spontaneous adverse drug reaction reports have demonstrated the occurrence of neuropsychiatric reactions associated with statin treatment. They include behavioural alterations (severe irritability, homicidal impulses, threats to others, road rage, depression and violence, paranoia, alienation, antisocial behaviour); cognitive and memory impairments; sleep disturbance (frequent awakenings, shorter sleep duration, early morning awakenings, nightmares, sleepwalking, night terrors); and sexual dysfunction (impotence and decreased libido). Studies designed to investigate specific neuropsychiatric endpoints have yielded conflicting results. Several mechanisms, mainly related to inhibition of cholesterol biosynthesis, have been proposed to explain the detrimental effects of statins on the central nervous system. Approaches to prevent and manage such adverse effects may include drug discontinuation and introduction of dietary restrictions; maintenance of statin treatment for some weeks with close patient monitoring; switching to a different statin; dose reduction; use of ω-3 fatty acids or coenzyme Q10 supplements; and treatment with psychotropic drugs. The available information suggests that neuropsychiatric effects associated with statins are rare events that likely occur in sensitive patients. Additional data are required, and further clinical studies are needed.

Adherence monitoring in patients with gout is pivotal to ensure the effectiveness of therapy. To gain a better patient adherence, the communication between physicians and patients should be improved.

Oncology is one of the areas of medicine with the most active research being conducted on new drugs. New pharmacological entities frequently enter the clinical arena, and therefore, the safety profile of anticancer products deserves continuous monitoring. However, only very severe and (unusual) suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are usually reported, since cancer patients develop ADRs very frequently and some practical selectivity must be used. Notably, a recent study was able to identify 76 serious ADRs reported in updated drug labels of oncologic drugs and 50% of them (n = 38) were potentially fatal. Of these, 49 and 58%, respectively, were not described in initial drug labels. The aims of this article are to provide an overview about spontaneous reporting of ADRs of oncologic drugs and to discuss the available methods to analyze the safety of anticancer drugs using databases of spontaneous ADR reporting.

More than one half of elderly patients admitted to ED presented at least one expected DDI at the time of ED presentation. However, 9% of the expected DDIs were identified as actual DDIs, based on the consistency of the expected event with the ED discharge diagnosis.

The evaluation of the relationship between the use of antidiabetic drug and the occurrence of cancer is extremely challenging, both from the clinical and pharmacoepidemiological standpoint. This narrative review described the current evidence supporting a relationship between the use of antidiabetic drugs and the incidence of solid cancers. Areas covered: Data from pharmacoepidemiological studies on cancer incidence were presented for the main antidiabetic drugs and drug classes, including human insulin and insulin analogues, metformin, sulfonylureas, glinides, alpha-glucosidase inhibitors, thiazolidinediones, incretin mimetics, and sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors. The relationship between the use of antidiabetics and the incidence of solid cancer was described in strata by any cancer and by organ-specific cancer and by drug and by drug classes. Information supporting biological evidence and putative mechanisms were also provided. Expert opinion: The history of exploration of the relationship between antidiabetic drugs and the risk of solid cancers has showed several issues. Unrecognized biases and misinterpretations of study results have had important consequences that delayed the identification of actual risk and benefits of the use of antidiabetic drugs associated with cancer occurrence or progression. The lesson learned from the past should address the future research in this area, since in the majority of cases findings are controversial and confirmatory studies are warranted.