PurposeCo‐prescription of paroxetine/fluoxetine (a strong CYP2D6 inhibitor) in metoprolol (a CYP2D6 substrate) users is common, but data on the clinical consequences of this drug‐drug interaction are limited and inconclusive. Therefore, we assessed the effect of paroxetine/fluoxetine initiation on the existing treatment with metoprolol on the discontinuation and dose adjustment of metoprolol among elderly.MethodsWe performed a cohort study using the University of Groningen IADB.nl prescription database (www.IADB.nl). We selected all elderly (≥60 years) who had ever been prescribed metoprolol and had a first co‐prescription of paroxetine/fluoxetine, citalopram (weak CYP2D6 inhibitor), or mirtazapine (negative control) from 1994 to 2015. The exposure group was metoprolol and paroxetine/fluoxetine co‐prescription, and the other groups acted as controls. The outcomes were early discontinuation and dose adjustment of metoprolol. Logistic regression was applied to estimate adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).ResultsCombinations of metoprolol‐paroxetine/fluoxetine, metoprolol‐citalopram, and metoprolol‐mirtazapine were started in 528, 673, and 625 patients, respectively. Compared with metoprolol‐citalopram, metoprolol‐paroxetine/fluoxetine was not significantly associated with the early discontinuation and dose adjustment of metoprolol (OR = 1.07, 95% CI:0.77‐1.48; OR = 0.87, 95% CI:0.57‐1.33, respectively). In comparison with metoprolol‐mirtazapine, metoprolol‐paroxetine/fluoxetine was associated with a significant 43% relative increase in early discontinuation of metoprolol (OR = 1.43, 95% CI:1.01‐2.02) but no difference in the risk of dose adjustment. Stratified analysis by gender showed that women have a significantly high risk of metoprolol early discontinuation (OR = 1.62, 95% CI:1.03‐2.53).ConclusionParoxetine/fluoxetine initiation in metoprolol prescriptions, especially for female older patients, is associated with the risk of early discontinuation of metoprolol.
BackgroundGuidelines advise the use of antibacterials (ABs) in the management of COPD exacerbations. COPD patients often have multiple comorbidities, such as diabetes mellitus and cardiac diseases, leading to polypharmacy. Consequently, drug–drug interactions (DDIs) may frequently occur, and may cause serious adverse events and treatment failure.Objectives(i) To review DDIs related to frequently prescribed ABs among COPD patients from observational and clinical studies. (ii) To improve AB prescribing safety in clinical practice by structuring DDIs according to comorbidities of COPD.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review by searching PubMed and Embase up to 8 February 2018 for clinical trials, cohort and case–control studies reporting DDIs of ABs used for COPD. Study design, subjects, sample size, pharmacological mechanism of DDI and effect of interaction were extracted. We evaluated levels of DDIs and quality of evidence according to established criteria and structured the data by possible comorbidities.ResultsIn all, 318 articles were eligible for review, describing a wide range of drugs used for comorbidities and their potential DDIs with ABs. DDIs between ABs and co-administered drugs could be subdivided into: (i) co-administered drugs altering the pharmacokinetics of ABs; and (ii) ABs interfering with the pharmacokinetics of co-administered drugs. The DDIs could lead to therapeutic failures or toxicities.ConclusionsDDIs related to ABs with clinical significance may involve a wide range of indicated drugs to treat comorbidities in COPD. The evidence presented can support (computer-supported) decision-making by health practitioners when prescribing ABs during COPD exacerbations in the case of co-medication.
Prescription sequence symmetry analysis (PSSA), a case-only design introduced in 1996, has been increasingly used to identify unintentional drug effects, and has potential applications as a hypothesis-testing and a hypothesis-generating method, due to its easy application and effective control of time-invariant confounders. The aim of this study is to systematically compare effect estimates from the PSSA to effect estimates from conventional observational parallel group study designs, to assess the validity and constraints of the PSSA study design. We reviewed the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases until February 2016 to identify studies that compared PSSA to a parallel group design. Data from the eligible articles was extracted and analyzed, including making a Bland-Altman plot and calculating the number of discrepancies between the designs. 63 comparisons (from two studies) were included in the review. There was a significant correlation (p < 0.001) between the effect estimates of the PSSA and the parallel group designs, but the bias indicated by the Bland-Altman plot (0.20) and the percentage of discrepancies (70–80%) showed that this correlation was not accompanied by a considerable similarity of the effect estimates. Overall, the effect estimates of the parallel group designs were higher than those of the PSSA, not necessarily further away from 1, and the parallel group designs also generated more significant signals. However, these results should be approached with caution, as the effect estimates were only retrieved from two separate studies. This review indicates that, even though PSSA has a lot of potential, the effect estimates generated by the PSSA are usually lower than the effect estimates generated by parallel group designs, and PSSA mostly has a lower power than the conventional study designs, but this is based on limited comparisons, and more comparisons are needed to make a proper conclusion.
Prophylactic antibiotics were effective in preventing COPD exacerbations and improving quality of life among stable patients with moderate to severe COPD. The choice of prophylactic antibiotics should be analysed and considered case by case, especially for long and continuous use.
IntroductionAlthough bacteria contribute significantly to acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD), the added value of antibiotics remains controversial, especially in outpatient settings. Age may affect antibiotic effectiveness, but real-world evidence is lacking. We aimed to assess the influence of age on the effectiveness of doxycycline for AECOPD.MethodsA retrospective cohort study among outpatients with the first recorded AECOPD treated with oral corticosteroids was conducted using a large pharmacy dispensing database. The primary outcome was treatment failure within 15–31 days after treatment start. Secondary outcome was time to second exacerbation. All analyses were stratified by age groups.ResultsWe identified 6300 outpatients with the first AECOPD. 2261 (36%) received doxycycline and 4039 (64%) did not receive any antibiotic (reference group). Overall, there was no difference in treatment failure (adjusted OR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.84 to 1.12) between two groups. Similarly, no difference in treatment failure was observed in younger groups. However, in patients with advanced age (≥75 years), treatment failure was significantly reduced by doxycycline compared with reference (16% vs 20%, adjusted OR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.62 to 0.97). Overall, median time to second exacerbation was 169 days (95% CI: 158 to 182 days) in doxycycline group compared with 180 days (95% CI: 169 to 191 days) in reference group (adjusted HR: 1.06, 95% CI: 0.99 to 1.12). Although in older patients there was a trend within 3 months towards longer time of next exacerbation by doxycycline, it did not achieve statistical significance.ConclusionsOur findings showed short-term treatment benefit of doxycycline added to oral corticosteroids for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients with advanced age. This value remains unclear for persons aged under 75 years in current primary care. Long-term preventive benefits of doxycycline for the next exacerbation were not observed, irrespective of age.
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.