Search

Reports from spontaneous reporting systems (SRS) are hypothesis generating. Additional evidence such as more reports is required to determine whether the generated drug-event associations are in fact safety signals. However, underreporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) delays signal detection. Through the use of natural language processing, different sources of real-world data can be used to proactively collect additional evidence for potential safety signals. This study aims to explore the feasibility of using Electronic Health Records (EHRs) to identify additional cases based on initial indications from spontaneous ADR reports, with the goal of strengthening the evidence base for potential safety signals. For two confirmed and two potential signals generated by the SRS of the Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb, targeted searches in the EHR of the Leiden University Medical Centre were performed using a text-mining based tool, CTcue. The search for additional cases was done by constructing and running queries in the structured and free-text fields of the EHRs. We identified at least five additional cases for the confirmed signals and one additional case for each potential safety signal. The majority of the identified cases for the confirmed signals were documented in the EHRs before signal detection by the Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board. The identified cases for the potential signals were reported to Lareb as further evidence for signal detection. Our findings highlight the feasibility of performing targeted searches in the EHR based on an underlying hypothesis to provide further evidence for signal generation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Several studies described that COVID-19 vaccinations can cause menstrual disorders. Our study aimed to describe whether this also resulted in more general practitioner (GP) consultations for menstrual disorders after COVID-19 vaccination, based on a large cohort study., Methods: A retrospective self-controlled cohort study was performed including vaccinated women in 2021 aged 12-49 years from two large, representative GP databases in the Netherlands. Incidence rates and incidence rate ratio's (IRR) were calculated using Poisson regression, adjusting for SARS-CoV-2 infection as time-varying confounder. The exposed period was set at maximum six months after each COVID-19 vaccination and the non-exposed period was defined as all-time outside the exposed period., Results: The cohort included 631,802 women, of which 18,986 (3 %) consulted the GP for a menstrual disorder during 2021. Increased GP consultations were observed among 12-14 year olds for amenorrhea/hypomenorrhea/oligomenorrhea (IRR: 1.85, 95 % CI: 1.30-2.65) and irregular/frequent menstruation (IRR: 1.33, 95 % CI: 1.06-1.69) after COVID-19 vaccination in general, and after Pfizer/BioNTech vaccination (IRR: 1.87, 95 % CI: 1.31-2.67 for amenorrhea/hypomenorrhea/oligomenorrhea and IRR: 1.35, 95 % CI: 1.06-1.70 for irregular/frequent menstruation). Persons from this age group were in general also vaccinated with Pfizer/BioNTech. No increase in the frequency of GP consultations were observed for older age groups, other vaccine brands, and potential risk groups., Conclusion: For the majority of women, no increased GP consultations for menstrual disorders was found. Solely for the youngest age group (12-14 year olds) increased GP consultations for specific types of menstrual disorders was found after Pfizer/BioNTech vaccination., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Patient engagement in pharmacovigilance (PEP) has been shown to improve information on adverse drug reactions (ADRs), which may not be found in reports from healthcare professionals. This review shows that there is paucity of information on PEP in lower-middle-income countries (LMICs), particularly Africa. It provides insights into PEP in high-income countries (HICs) compared with Africa to help identify the disparities and system challenges in Africa., Areas Covered: We discussed the impact of PEP in HICs in comparison with Africa and incorporated two case studies: PEP in Ghana and medication error reporting in Africa using a scoping review. Recommendations were made to improve medication safety in Africa based on the identified disparities and system challenges., Expert Opinion: PEP is at an early stage in LMICs, particularly in Africa, with limited information available regarding patients' contributions to the safety of medicines. There should be further research into patients' roles in pharmacovigilance accompanied by advocacy efforts with policymakers, the development of sustainable funding strategies, benchmarking against experienced pharmacovigilance centers, and the use of technology to improve patient reporting.

Background: The safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines in immunocompromised patients has not been comprehensively evaluated., Aim: To measure the frequency of patient-reported adverse drug reactions (ADRs) related to the first/second/booster dose of COVID-19 vaccine in immunocompromised subject versus matched cohort. As a secondary objective, the time course, evaluated as time to onset (TTO) and time to recovery (TTR), of COVID-19 vaccine-related ADRs was explored., Methods: A prospective cohort study, based on electronic questionnaires filled by vaccinees from 11 European countries in the period February 2021 to February 2023 was conducted. All immunocompromised vaccinees who provided informed consent and registered to the project's web-app within 48 h after first/booster vaccine dose administration of any EMA-authorised COVID-19 vaccine were recruited. Participants filled baseline and up to six follow-up questionnaires (FU-Qs) over 6 months from vaccination, collecting information on suspected COVID-19 vaccine-related ADRs. As a control group, non-immunocompromised vaccinees from the same source population were 1:4 matched by sex, age, vaccine dose, and brand. A descriptive analysis of demographic/clinical characteristics of vaccinees was conducted. Heatmaps of the frequency of solicited ADRs, stratified by gender and vaccine brand, were generated. Median TTO/TTR of reported ADRs were visualised using violin/box-plots., Results: A total of 773 immunocompromised vaccines were included in the analyses. Most participants were females (F/M ratio: 2.1 and 1.6) with a median age of 56 (43-74) and 51 (41-60) years, at the first vaccination cycle and booster dose, respectively. Injection-site pain and fatigue were the most frequently reported ADRs in immunocompromised vaccinees with higher frequency than matched control, especially after the first dose (41.2% vs 37.8% and 38.2% vs 32.9%, respectively). For both cohorts, all solicited ADRs were more frequently reported in females than males, and in those who had received a first dose of the Vaxzevria vaccine. Dizziness was the most frequently reported unsolicited ADR after the first dose in both groups (immunocompromised subjects: 2.5% and matched controls: 2.1%). At the booster dose, lymphadenopathy (3.9%) and lymphadenitis (1.8%) were the most reported unsolicited ADRs for immunocompromised subjects and matched controls, respectively. A very low number of subjects reported adverse event of special interest (AESI) (2 immunocompromised, 3 matched controls) and serious ADRs (5 immunocompromised, 5 matched controls). A statistically significant difference among study cohorts was observed for median TTO after the booster dose, and for median TTR after the first vaccination cycle and booster dose (p < 0.001)., Conclusion: The overall safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines in immunocompromised people was favourable, with minor differences as compared to non-immunocompromised vaccinees. Participants mostly experienced mild ADRs, mainly reported after the first dose of Vaxzevria and Jcovden vaccines. Serious ADRs and AESI were rare., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Conventional vaccines rarely cause severe allergic reactions. However, the rapid development and approval of COVID-19 vaccines left limited initial data on their adverse reactions, particularly in individuals with a history of allergy. The aim of this study was to assess and compare the safety profile of different doses and brands of COVID-19 vaccines in subjects with a history of allergy vs. those without a history of allergy. Methods: From February 2021 to February 2023, a web-based prospective study gathered vaccinee-reported outcomes using electronic questionnaires across eleven European countries. Baseline and up to six follow-up questionnaires captured data on vaccinee demographics, as well as both solicited and unsolicited adverse reactions. Results: Overall, 3476 vaccinees with a history of allergy were matched with 13,872 vaccinees from the general population at the first vaccination cycle and were included in the analysis. A total of 825 vaccinees with a history of allergy who had received a booster dose, matched to 3297 vaccinees from the general population, were included in the analysis. Higher rates of ADRs occurred after the first vaccination cycle compared to after the booster dose (64-91% vs. 56-79%). However, most reported ADRs were solicited and not serious, and no case of anaphylaxis was reported. Women and vaccinees with a history of allergy reported ADRs more frequently than men and the matched controls, respectively. Compared to other COVID-19 vaccines, a higher proportion of vaccinees experiencing at least one ADR following their first vaccination cycle was observed with Comirnaty and Vaxzevria. Statistically significant differences were observed among the study cohorts for median TTO after the second dose, and for median TTR following the first vaccination cycle and booster dose ( p < 0.001). Conclusions: Typically, any drug or vaccine use carries a risk of severe allergic reactions, yet the benefits of vaccination generally outweigh these potential risks, as shown with the COVID-19 vaccines.

Background and Objective: The use of herbal products globally is substantial, but varying definitions and regulatory frameworks have led to differences in their status as medicinal products and in approaches to monitoring their safety. This article explores the current landscape of herbal pharmacovigilance, drawing insights from interviews with global experts in the field, and offers recommendations for best practices to enhance the safety and benefit-to-harm balance of herbal products., Methods: This study comprised semi-structured interviews with members of the International Society of Pharmacovigilance-Herbal and Traditional Medicines Special Interest Group and the Nutrivigilance Information Exchange Network, recruited using purposive sampling. Data were stored and coded using NVIVO ® and analysed thematically using a qualitative inductive approach., Results: Sixteen participants from 11 countries were interviewed, revealing diverse regulatory approaches and challenges in herbal pharmacovigilance. Key themes included legal status, awareness, identification and coding of herbal products, pre-/post-marketing product control, reporting of adverse drug reactions, causality assessment and signals of herbal products. This study yielded five general recommendations to further improve herbal pharmacovigilance worldwide., Conclusions: This study offers an overview of the global landscape of herbal pharmacovigilance, highlighting challenges in monitoring herbal products and presenting universal recommendations. These recommendations encompass increasing awareness, enhancing education and improving legislative frameworks. Given the growing use of herbal products, the implementation of strong pharmacovigilance practices is crucial to ensure consumer safety., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

Objective : Migraine attacks are common in women of reproductive age. Although attacks are often less severe and less frequent during pregnancy, they regularly reoccur shortly after delivery. When first-line analgesic treatment is insufficient, triptans may be used for acute treatment of migraine attacks. Milk levels of occasional triptan use have shown to be low, and no adverse effects in breastfed infants have been reported. However, the available knowledge on the safety of triptans during breastfeeding is still limited. Methods: Four (inter)national pharmacovigilance databases were searched for breastfeeding related adverse drug reactions of triptans. These included the Dutch Pregnancy Drug Register and three databases of spontaneous reports (Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb, the European Medicines Agency [EudraVigilance], and the World Health Organization [VigiBase]). Results: A total of 26 reports on 27 breastfeeding related adverse drug reactions were identified (one report involved two separate adverse drug reactions). These involve three main complaints: painful breasts and/or nipples, painful milk ejection reflex, and a decrease in milk production. Discussion and Conclusion: The hypothesized pharmacological mechanism relates to the serotonin-receptor agonistic properties of triptans. These may lead to vasoconstriction in the breasts and nipples, including the vasculature surrounding the milk ducts and alveoli, and may also influence the hormonal function and levels of prolactin. The reported adverse drug reactions do not negatively impact the overall compatibility of triptans with breastfeeding. However, breastfeeding women may experience them as unsettling. Awareness of these potential adverse drug reactions is essential and should be weighed against the potential adverse effects of (untreated) symptoms of migraine attacks.

Opioids are the strongest analgesics available and are crucial in the treatment of acute and chronic pain. The line between these critical medications and how they are used beyond standard therapeutics in cases such as abuse, misuse, and medication errors needs to be understood, as it affects their safety, efficacy, and manner of use. The aim of this systematic review was to identify what is known about the adverse events resulting from the abuse, misuse, and medication errors associated with opioid use. A systematic search was conducted in the PubMed ® , Scopus ® and, EBSCO ® databases to retrieve studies from the inception to December 2023 reporting abuse, misuse, and medication errors associated with medicinal opioid use. Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts and full text according to eligibility using Covidence ® software. Full articles were examined by two independent reviewers, and disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer. The risk of bias was assessed by the JBI's critical appraisal tools. A total of 934 articles were screened by their title and abstract. Then, 151 articles were selected for full text screening. Of these, 34 studies were eligible for inclusion in this review. The included studies varied significantly in their population sizes, ranging from 9 individuals to 298,433 patients, and encompassed a diverse demographic, including all ages and both sexes. The studies consistently reported a range of adverse events associated with opioid use. Fentanyl, morphine, oxycodone, tramadol, and hydrocodone were frequently implicated. The data heterogeneity in this field resulted in challenges in drawing conclusions. The review highlights that some opioids, particularly fentanyl, morphine, and oxycodone, are frequently associated with preventable adverse drug reactions, abuse, and medication errors, underscoring the need for robust preventative measures and ongoing research to mitigate opioid-related harm.

Purpose: In 2019, the International Working Group (IWG), focusing on New Developments in Pharmacovigilance, was established. This group is coordinated by the Drug Safety Research Unit in the United Kingdom, and the mission of the IWG is to progress pharmacovigilance methodologies and promote the safe and effective use of medicines and vaccines, thereby further protecting patients. Novel therapeutics are continuously being developed to alleviate medical conditions, but with advancing technologies, innovative pharmacovigilance methodologies need to be developed to effectively monitor the use and safety of these products. With reduced timelines proposed for premarketing clinical trials and increased application of real-world evidence supporting regulatory approvals, products may be used in real-world clinical practice in shorter timeframes than before. Therefore, the need for effective methods of monitoring medicines and collecting safety data in real-time is of paramount importance to public health., Methods: The IWG aims to advance existing methodologies used in the detection, monitoring, and analysis of safety data in pharmacovigilance and to communicate best practice proposals to support decision making in health care. The IWG will identify areas requiring review of current processes or methodologic research and will communicate the output of the IWG through peer-reviewed publications, reports, and presentation of findings at relevant conferences and scientific meetings., Findings: The IWG is currently reviewing two areas in pharmacovigilance; case-level causality assessment and the strengths and limitations of data sources. The IWG is advancing these areas by producing two scoping reviews which will be easily accessible to regulatory agencies, industry, academia, and interested persons or organizations., Implications: The scoping reviews comply with the IWGs mission to progress pharmacovigilance methodologies and promote the safe and effective use of medicines and vaccines. The present article shares details of the objectives of the IWG and provides an overview on the status of IWG activities., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Dr Platt received consulting fees from Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Pfizer; and payment for expert testimony from Merck and Nant Pharma all unrelated to this work. Professor Shakir is a member of Drug Safety Monitoring Committee Diurnal and The Global Safety Advisory Group for Moderna, all unrelated to this work. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

In pharmacovigilance, disproportionality analyses based on individual case safety reports are widely used to detect safety signals. Unfortunately, publishing disproportionality analyses lacks specific guidelines, often leading to incomplete and ambiguous reporting, and carries the risk of incorrect conclusions when data are not placed in the correct context. The REporting of A Disproportionality analysis for drUg Safety signal detection using individual case safety reports in PharmacoVigilance (READUS-PV) statement was developed to address this issue by promoting transparent and comprehensive reporting of disproportionality studies. While the statement paper explains in greater detail the procedure followed to develop these guidelines, with this explanation paper we present the 14 items retained for READUS-PV guidelines, together with an in-depth explanation of their rationale and bullet points to illustrate their practical implementation. Our primary objective is to foster the adoption of the READUS-PV guidelines among authors, editors, peer reviewers, and readers of disproportionality analyses. Enhancing transparency, completeness, and accuracy of reporting, as well as proper interpretation of their results, READUS-PV guidelines will ultimately facilitate evidence-based decision making in pharmacovigilance., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background and Aim: Disproportionality analyses using reports of suspected adverse drug reactions are the most commonly used quantitative methods for detecting safety signals in pharmacovigilance. However, their methods and results are generally poorly reported in published articles and existing guidelines do not capture the specific features of disproportionality analyses. We here describe the development of a guideline (REporting of A Disproportionality analysis for drUg Safety signal detection using individual case safety reports in PharmacoVigilance [READUS-PV]) for reporting the results of disproportionality analyses in articles and abstracts., Methods: We established a group of 34 international experts from universities, the pharmaceutical industry, and regulatory agencies, with expertise in pharmacovigilance, disproportionality analyses, and assessment of safety signals. We followed a three-step process to develop the checklist: (1) an open-text survey to generate a first list of items; (2) an online Delphi method to select and rephrase the most important items; (3) a final online consensus meeting., Results: Among the panel members, 33 experts responded to round 1 and 30 to round 2 of the Delphi and 25 participated to the consensus meeting. Overall, 60 recommendations for the main body of the manuscript and 13 recommendations for the abstracts were retained by participants after the Delphi method. After merging of some items together and the online consensus meeting, the READUS-PV guidelines comprise a checklist of 32 recommendations, in 14 items, for the reporting of disproportionality analyses in the main body text and four items, comprising 12 recommendations, for abstracts., Conclusions: The READUS-PV guidelines will support authors, editors, peer-reviewers, and users of disproportionality analyses using individual case safety report databases. Adopting these guidelines will lead to more transparent, comprehensive, and accurate reporting and interpretation of disproportionality analyses, facilitating the integration with other sources of evidence., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Introduction: During the COVID-19 pandemic, EMA set-up a large-scale cohort event monitoring (CEM) system to estimate incidence rates of patient-reported adverse drug reactions (ADRs) of different COVID-19 vaccines across the participating countries. This study aims to give an up to date and in-depth analysis of the frequency of patient-reported ADRs after the 1st, 2nd, and booster vaccination, to identify potential predictors in developing ADRs and to describe time-to-onset (TTO) and time-to-recovery (TTR) of ADRs., Methods: A CEM study was rolled out in a period ranging from February 2021 to February 2023 across multiple European countries; The Netherlands, Belgium, France, the United Kingdom, Italy, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Spain. Analysis consisted of a descriptive analyses of frequencies of COVID-19 vaccine-related ADRs for 1st, 2nd and booster vaccination, analysis of potential predictors in developing ADRs with a generalized linear mixed-effects model, analysis of TTO and TTR of ADRs and a sensitivity analysis for loss to follow-up (L2FU)., Results: A total of 29,837 participants completed at least the baseline and the first follow-up questionnaire for 1st and 2nd vaccination and 7,250 participants for the booster. The percentage of participants who reported at least one ADR is 74.32% (95%CI 73.82-74.81). Solicited ADRs, including injection site reactions, are very common across vaccination moments. Potential predictors for these reactions are the brand of vaccine used, the patient's age, sex and prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. The percentage of serious ADRs in the study is low for 1st and 2nd vaccination (0.24%, 95%CI 0.19--0.31) and booster (0.26%, 95%CI 0.15, 0.41). The TTO was 14 h (median) for dose 1 and slightly longer for dose 2 and booster dose. TTR is generally also within a few days. The effect of L2FU on estimations of frequency is limited., Conclusion: Despite some limitations due to study design and study-roll out, CEM studies can allow prompt and almost real-time observations of the safety of medications directly from a patient-centered perspective, which can play a crucial role for regulatory bodies during an emergency setting such as the COVID-19 pandemic., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: The effect of a preexisting comorbidity on the occurrence of adverse events after immunization (AEFIs) has been studied poorly. In this longitudinal cohort study, we assess the association between co-morbidities and the occurrence of AEFIs after COVID-19 vaccination. Also, we described the occurrence of flare-ups and their manifestation after COVID-19 vaccination in people with rheumatic diseases., Research Design and Methods: We performed multivariable logistic regression to investigate the association between the occurrence of AEFIs and 10 common comorbidities using patient-reported data from people vaccinated with the AstraZeneca, Johnson&Johnson, Moderna, or Pfizer vaccine., Results: Occurrence of any AEFI, injection site reactions, headache, fatigue, and/or malaise was significantly associated with presence of comorbidities, including psychological disorders, musculoskeletal disorders, and endocrine disorders after the first and second doses (OR ranges 1.23-1.77). One participant with rheumatoid arthritis experienced a flare-up after receiving the first dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine., Discussion/conclusion: The results showed that the odds of reporting an AEFI after COVID-19 vaccination is significantly higher in the presence of some comorbidities whilst flare-ups are uncommon after receiving COVID-19 vaccination in people with rheumatic disease. In-depth research is needed to validate our results and unravel the observed associations from a mechanistic perspective.

In all pivotal trials of COVID-19 vaccines, the history of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection was mentioned as one of the main exclusion criteria. In the absence of clinical trials, observational studies are the primary source for evidence generation. This study aims to describe the patient-reported adverse drug reactions (ADRs) following the first COVID-19 vaccination cycle, as well as the administration of booster doses of different vaccine brands, in people with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, as compared to prior infection-free matched cohorts of vaccinees. A web-based prospective study was conducted collecting vaccinee-reported outcomes through electronic questionnaires from eleven European countries in the period February 2021-February 2023. A baseline questionnaire and up to six follow-up questionnaires collected data on the vaccinee's characteristics, as well as solicited and unsolicited adverse reactions. Overall, 3886 and 902 vaccinees with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and having received the first dose or a booster dose, respectively, were included in the analysis. After the first dose or booster dose, vaccinees with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection reported at least one ADR at a higher frequency than those matched without prior infection (3470 [89.6%] vs. 2916 [75.3%], and 614 [68.2%] vs. 546 [60.6%], respectively). On the contrary side, after the second dose, vaccinees with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection reported at least one ADR at a lower frequency, compared to matched controls (1443 [85.0%] vs. 1543 [90.9%]). The median time to onset and the median time to recovery were similar across all doses and cohorts. The frequency of adverse reactions was higher in individuals with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection who received Vaxzevria as the first dose and Spikevax as the second and booster doses. The frequency of serious ADRs was low for all doses and cohorts. Data from this large-scale prospective study of COVID-19 vaccinees could be used to inform people as to the likelihood of adverse effects based on their history of SARS-CoV-2 infection, age, sex, and the type of vaccine administered. In line with pivotal trials, the safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines was also confirmed in people with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Background: Medication errors (MEs) by caregivers at home are a cause of morbidity and mortality, shortly after discharge from the hospital., Objectives: The objective of this study was to determine the rate and types of MEs at the homes of children discharged from a hospital in Ghana and to explore the factors associated with these errors., Design: This was a cross-sectional study of infants and children discharged from the hospital to review medication administration practices., Methods: Caregivers of children discharged from the hospital after at least 24 hours of admission were interviewed at their homes about medication administration practices. The study assessed potential harm associated with MEs made by caregivers using the Harm Associated with Medication Error Classification tool. The Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator regression were used to identify the variables associated with MEs., Results: A total of 95 children (mean age: 28.6 months, 52.6% female) and their caregivers were included. Overall, 65 (68.4%) children experienced one or more MEs. Out of a total of 232 medications reviewed, 102 (44.0%) (95% CI: 37.6-50.4) were associated with a ME. The top two errors, wrong time errors and errors in the frequency of dosing were, 45.1% and 21.6%, respectively. Understanding the information on the disease condition being treated and the medicines dispensed was associated with committing fewer MEs. The number of medicines prescribed was associated with a higher likelihood of MEs. Out of 102 MEs, 48 (47.1%) were assessed as posing potentially no harm, 26 (25.5%) minor harm, 15 (14.7%) moderate harm, and 13 (12.8%) serious harm to the patients. Importantly, none of the MEs were assessed as posing potentially severe or life-threatening harm to the patients., Conclusion: MEs in children following discharge are high, and systems should be developed to prevent these errors., Competing Interests: The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest., (© The Author(s), 2024.)