Search

In pharmacoepidemiology, comparison studies can provide a useful estimate of the level of increased or decreased risk of specific events with a medication (through a measure of effect). A key focus of pharmacoepidemiological studies is the safety and effectiveness of medicines in their real-world use, and adequate comparisons of effect estimates are critical. However, consideration of guidelines, pharmacoeconomic assessments, and policies for reimbursement have made comparisons in pharmacoepidemiological studies far more difficult to conduct in recent years. Where certain subject characteristics influence the probability of being exposed to a treatment, this can introduce issues of selection bias and confounding. Methodologies are available to minimise selection bias (through case-only and randomised study designs) and deal with confounding (such as regression modelling or propensity score matching methods), however these each have their own limitations. Where prescribing guidelines are present, conducting comparisons in pharmacoepidemiology produces many challenges and not all of these can be easily overcome. Patient channelling can be more frequent with adherence to clinical guidelines compared with when prescribing decisions by doctors are based predominantly on their clinical judgement. Use of a contextual cohort could be considered as an option to characterise the adoption of new medications into clinical practice and describe the prevalence of clinical characteristics and risk factors in the two cohorts, rather than compare event rates and produce an estimate of effect.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Opioid use is prevalent in the United Kingdom and prior to the COVID-19 pandemic it had been recognized that the safety of opioids was an important issue to be monitored by the UK medicines regulatory agency. With the emergence of COVID-19, this requirement has been even greater. This review was undertaken to determine the impact of the pandemic on safety and surveillance of opioids in the United Kingdom. RECENT FINDINGS: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the surveillance of opioids in the United Kingdom continued, although primary research was often conducted with data prior to the pandemic. Of those studies that were conducted while the pandemic was ongoing, access to opioids (or opioid substitution therapy) and the subsequent effect on patient safety was the main theme. SUMMARY: In the United Kingdom, changes in accessibility to the healthcare system and how healthcare providers operated during the COVID-19 pandemic may have had unintended consequences on use and safety of opioids, due to the shift in focus to preventing COVID-19 from overwhelming the healthcare system. The findings from this review support the need to continue surveillance in the United Kingdom, including the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on opioid utilization and safety.

PurposeThis study examined how youth would mitigate non-medical use of prescription medication among their peers.Design/methodology/approachThe National Monitoring of Adolescent Prescription Stimulants Study (N-MAPSS) was conducted as an interview comprising 11,048 youth of 10–18 years of age between 2008 and 2011 from entertainment venues of 10 US urban, suburban, and rural areas. Using a mixed-methods approach, participants completed a survey culminating in open-ended questions asking: (1) How should kids your age be informed about prescription drugs and their effects? (2) If you ran the world, how would you stop kids from taking other people’s prescription medicines? (3) Why do people use prescription stimulants without a prescription? Responses from a random sample of 900 children were analyzed using qualitative thematic analyses.FindingsThe random sample of 900 youth (52 percent female, 40 percent white, with a mean age of 15.1 years) believed they should be educated about prescription drugs and their negative effects at schools, at home by parents, through the media, and health professionals. Youth would stop kids from using other people’s prescription drugs through more stringent laws that restricted use, and providing education about negative consequences of use. Peer pressure was the most common reason the youth gave for using other’s pills, though some reported taking them out of curiosity.Originality/valueThe importance of considering youth’s opinions on non-medical use of prescription medications is often overlooked. This evidence, from a peer perspective, could end the illicit use of prescription drugs among today’s youth.

BackgroundPrior to approval in the European Union, a systematic benefit-risk assessment was required to compare buprenorphine implant to sublingual buprenorphine as part of the license application to the European Medicines Agency.ObjectiveThe Benefit-Risk Action Team framework was used to describe the overall benefit-risk of buprenorphine implant in comparison to sublingual buprenorphine.Study selection/methodsA value tree of key benefits and risks related to the implant formulation of buprenorphine was constructed. Risk differences (RD) or reporting ORs (ROR) and corresponding 95% CIs were calculated for each outcome, along with the number needed to treat and number needed to harm. Swing weighting was assigned to outcomes and the weighted net clinical benefit (wNCB) was calculated.FindingsKey benefits assessed: reduced risk of illicit opioid use (RD=0.09, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.17), reduced risk of misuse and diversion (ROR=0.13, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.94), improved compliance and convenience (RD=0.20) and quality of life measures (RD=0.03). Key risks assessed: clinically significant implant breakage (RD=0.01, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.01), migration/missing implant (RD=0.01, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.02), infection at insertion/removal site (RD=0.08, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.12) and implant-related allergic reaction (RD=0.07, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.11). The wNCB for buprenorphine implant was 4.96, which suggests a favourable benefit-risk profile.ConclusionsThe benefit-risk profile of buprenorphine implant is considered favourable in comparison to sublingual buprenorphine, based on this semiquantitative analysis using available data. Further data from real-world use on benefits and risks should be used for ongoing monitoring of the benefit-risk profile of buprenorphine implants in the postmarketing setting.

In the current era of the COVID-19 pandemic, the world has never been more interested in the process of vaccine development. While researchers across the globe race to find an effective yet safe vaccine to protect populations from the newly emergent SARS-CoV-2 virus, more than one-third of the world has been subjected to either full or partial lockdown measures. With communities having felt the burden of prolonged isolation, finding a safe and efficacious vaccine will yield direct beneficial effects on protecting against COVID-19 morbidity and mortality and help relieve the psychological and economic load on communities living with COVID-19. There is hope that with the extraordinary efforts of scientists a vaccine will become available. However, given the global public health crisis, development of a COVID-19 vaccine will need to be fast tracked through the usual prelicensing development stages and introduced with limited clinical trial data compared with those vaccines that are developed conventionally over more than a decade. In this scenario, surveillance of the vaccine in the real world becomes even more paramount. This responsibility falls to observational researchers who can provide an essential safety net by continuing to monitor the effectiveness and safety of a COVID-19 vaccine after licensing. Postauthorisation observational studies for safety and effectiveness are complementary to prelaunch clinical trials and not a replacement. In this paper, we highlight the importance of postmarketing studies for future newly licensed COVID-19 vaccines and the key epidemiological considerations.

IntroductionAlthough the direct oral anticoagulant rivaroxaban is recommended for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation based on Phase III clinical trials, there is still a need for additional safety data from everyday clinical practice. The ROSE study was initiated to collect further information on the safety and utilisation of rivaroxaban in a broader range of patient groups in routine clinical practice.Methods and resultsThe ROSE study was conducted in hospitals in England and Wales. Consenting adults with non-valvular atrial fibrillation newly started on rivaroxaban were eligible and followed up for 12 weeks. Data was derived through secondary use of medical records. The primary outcome was major bleeding within gastrointestinal, urogenital and intracranial sites. A total of 4846 patients were enrolled in the study September 2013 to January 2016, 965 of which were treated with rivaroxaban for non-valvular atrial fibrillation. The median age in the rivaroxaban non-valvular atrial fibrillation cohort was 76 years, 53.6% were male. The median HAS-BLED score was 2 and the median CHA2DS2-VASc score was 4. The risk of major bleeding within each of the primary sites of gastrointestinal, urogenital and intracranial during the 12 week observation period was low (0.2%; n = 2). The risk of major bleeding in all sites was 1.0% (n = 10) at a rate of 5.5 events per 100 patient years.ConclusionIn terms of the primary outcome risk of major bleeding within gastrointestinal, urogenital and intracranial sites during the 12 week observation period, the risk estimates in the non-valvular atrial fibrillation rivaroxaban user population were low (

Background: This study was designed to monitor the short-term (up to 12 weeks) use and safety of quetiapine (Seroquel) extended release (XL) and quetiapine immediate release (IR) prescribed to patients with a clinical diagnosis of schizophrenia, and/or manic episodes associated with bipolar disorder by psychiatrists under normal conditions of use. Methods: A Specialist Cohort Event Monitoring (SCEM) study was conducted in England February 2010–April 2013. This observational cohort study recruited patients prescribed quetiapine XL within the secondary care setting by psychiatrists. A reference cohort of quetiapine IR users was also recruited. Baseline and 12 week observational data were collected from psychiatrists who abstracted information from medical records onto bespoke questionnaires. Data were collected on demographics, indication, past medical history, prescribing information and events of interest. Summary descriptive statistics were calculated. Results: The final cohort consisted of 869 eligible patients; 646 XL users and 223 IR users. The majority of XL and IR users were female (56.2% and 55.6%, respectively), with a median age of 40 (interquartile range [IQR]: 29, 49) and 39 (IQR: 28, 50) years, respectively. The most frequent indication for treatment was Manic episodes associated with Bipolar Affective disorder (53.4% XL and 49.8% IR). Median index dose was 200 mg/day (IQR: 100, 300) for XL users and 50 mg/day (IQR: 50, 100) for IR users, while median final maintenance dose was 400mg/day (IQR: 250, 600) and 300 mg/day (IQR: 100, 400), respectively. The most frequently reported event of interest in both cohorts was sedation ( n = 151, 23.9% XL cohort and n = 49, 23.0% IR cohort). Conclusion: Utilisation of quetiapine XL appeared to be in line with prescribing guidelines in terms of dose, and commonly reported events of interest were in concordance with the known safety profile. Overall, this SCEM study provided important information on the safety and utilisation of quetiapine XL in the secondary care setting in England.

ObjectivesWe aimed to review the evidence for a living systematic benefit risk assessment for convalescent plasma use amongst patients with severe COVID-19 disease, based on currently available data.MethodsThe assessment used the Benefit-Risk Action Team (BRAT) framework. Convalescent plasma treatment in severe COVID-19 was compared to standard of care, placebo or other treatments. A literature search was conducted to identify published papers from January 1st, 2019 until July 8th, 2020. A value tree was constructed which included ranked key benefits and risks.ResultsWe screened 396 papers from PubMed and 127 papers from Embase. Four studies were eligible for inclusion as they contained comparative data. Results from a randomised controlled trial revealed a non-statistically significant shortening of time to clinical improvement of 2.15 days (95% CI, −5.28 to 0.99 days) in the intervention group compared with the control group, with a possible signal of increased efficacy amongst a small subset of patients with severe disease (but not life threatening disease), however this study may have been underpowered. Interpretation of findings amongst the three controlled non-randomised studies were limited by small patient numbers, lack of randomisation, and confounding by co-administration of other treatments. Limited data availability at the current time precluded construction of a data summary table and further quantitative analysis.ConclusionsThere was insufficient evidence from controlled studies to complete a data summary table for a systematic benefit-risk assessment of the use of CP for severe COVID-19 disease at the current time, and as such a benefit-risk conclusion could not be made. Whilst uncontrolled case series have suggested positive findings with CP, results from these studies are very difficult to interpret. We provide a framework which can be updated when further data that have an impact on the benefit-risk become available.Article SummaryStrengths and limitations of this studyprovides a living systematic benefit risk assessment based on currently available data for the use of convalescent plasma in patients with severe COVID-19 diseaseestablishes a framework inclusive of ranked key benefits and risks for convalescent plasma in severe COVID-19 disease, into which additional data can be added as this becomes available facilitating re-assessment of the benefit risk profileuses a transparent framework (BRAT framework) which can be applied to other potential treatment options in this disease contextinsufficient data available at the current time from comparative studies to form a benefit risk conclusion

Introduction and Objective: COVID-19 is an ongoing, global public health crisis for which safe and effective treatments need to be identified. The benefit-risk balance for the use of lopinavir-ritonavir in COVID-19 needs to be monitored on an ongoing basis, therefore a systematic benefit-risk assessment was designed and conducted. A key objective of this study was to provide a platform for a dynamic systematic benefit-risk evaluation; although initially this evaluation is likely to contain limited information, it is required because of the urgent unmet public need. Importantly, it allows additional data to be incorporated as they become available, and re-evaluation of the benefit-risk profile.Methods: A systematic benefit-risk assessment was conducted using the Benefit-Risk Action Team (BRAT) framework. The exposure of interest was lopinavir-ritonavir treatment in severe COVID-19 compared to standard of care, placebo or other treatments. A literature search was conducted in PubMed and Embase to identify peer-reviewed papers reporting clinical outcomes. Two clinicians constructed a value tree and ranked key benefits and risks in order of considered clinical importance.Results: We screened 143 papers from PubMed and 264 papers from Embase for lopinavir-ritonavir; seven papers were included in the final benefit-risk assessment. In comparison to standard of care, data for several key benefits and risks were identified for lopinavir-ritonavir. Time to clinical improvement was not significantly different for lopinavir-ritonavir in comparison to standard of care (hazard ratio 1.31, 95% confidence interval 0.95–1.80). From one study, there were fewer cases of acute respiratory distress syndrome with lopinavir-ritonavir compared with standard of care (13% vs 27%). There also appeared to be fewer serious adverse events with lopinavir-ritonavir (20%) vs standard of care (32%). Limited data were available for comparison of lopinavir-ritonavir to other treatments.Conclusions: Based on currently available data, there was no clear benefit for the use of lopinavir-ritonavir compared to standard of care in severe COVID-19. Risk data suggested a possible decrease in serious adverse events. There was a reduction in acute respiratory distress syndrome with lopinavir-ritonavir in one study. Overall, the benefit-risk profile for lopinavir-ritonavir in severe COVID-19 cannot be considered positive until further efficacy and effectiveness data become available.

BackgroundCOVID-19 is an ongoing, global public health crisis for which safe and effective treatments need to be identified. The benefit-risk balance for use of lopinavir-ritonavir in COVID-19 needs to be monitored on an ongoing basis, therefore a systematic benefit-risk assessment was designed and conducted. A key objective of this study was to provide a platform for a dynamic systematic benefit-risk evaluation; although initially this evaluation is likely to contain limited information, it is required due to the urgent unmet public need. Importantly it allows additional data to be incorporated as it becomes available, and re-evaluation of the benefit-risk profile.MethodsA systematic benefit-risk assessment was conducted using the Benefit-Risk Action team (BRAT) framework. The exposure of interest was lopinavir-ritonavir treatment in COVID-19 compared to standard of care, placebo or other treatments. A literature search was conducted in PubMed and EmBase to identify peer-reviewed papers reporting clinical outcomes. Two clinicians constructed a value tree and ranked key benefits and risks in order of considered clinical importance.ResultsIn comparison to standard of care, data for several key benefits and risks were identified for lopinavir-ritonavir. Time to clinical improvement was not significantly different for lopinavir-ritonavir in comparison to standard of care (HR=1.31, 95% CI:0.95, 1.80). There appeared to be fewer serious adverse events with lopinavir-ritonavir (20%) vs standard of care (32%). In particular, there were fewer cases of acute respiratory distress syndrome with lopinavir-ritonavir compared to standard of care (13% vs 27%). Limited data were available for comparison of lopinavir-ritonavir to other treatments.ConclusionsBased on currently available data, there was no clear benefit for use of lopinavir-ritonavir compared to standard of care in severe COVID-19. Risk data suggested a possible decrease in serious adverse events, including acute respiratory distress syndrome. Overall, the benefit-risk profile for lopinavir-ritonavir in severe COVID-19 cannot be considered positive until further efficacy and effectiveness data become available.

Introduction There is a need to identify effective, safe treatments for COVID-19 (coronavirus disease) rapidly, given the current, ongoing pandemic. A systematic benefit–risk assessment was designed and conducted to examine the benefit–risk profile of remdesivir in COVID-19 patients compared with standard of care, placebo or other treatments. A key objective of this study was to provide a platform for a dynamic systematic benefit–risk evaluation, which starts with inevitably limited information (to meet the urgent unmet public health need worldwide), then update the benefit–risk evaluation as more data become available. Methods The Benefit–Risk Action Team (BRAT) framework was used to assess the overall benefit–risk of the use of remdesivir as a treatment for COVID-19 compared with standard of care, placebo or other treatments. We searched PubMed, Google Scholar and government agency websites to identify literature reporting clinical outcomes in patients taking remdesivir for COVID-19. A value tree was constructed and key benefits and risks were ranked by two clinicians in order of considered importance. Results Using the BRAT method, several key benefits and risks for use of remdesivir in COVID-19 compared with placebo have been identified. In one trial, the benefit of time to clinical improvement was not statistically significant (21 vs 23 days, HR 1.23, 95% CI 0.87–1.75), although the study was underpowered. In another trial, a shorter time to recovery in patients treated with remdesivir was observed (11 vs 15 days), with non-significant reduced mortality risk (8% vs 12%). Risk data were only available from one trial. This trial reported fewer serious adverse events in patients taking remdesivir (18%) compared with the placebo group (26%); however, more patients in the remdesivir group discontinued treatment as a result of an adverse event compared with those patients receiving placebo (12% vs 5%). Conclusions Preliminary clinical trial results suggest that there may be a favourable benefit–risk profile for remdesivir compared with placebo in severe COVID-19 infection and further data on benefits would strengthen this evaluation. There is limited safety data for remdesivir, which should be obtained in further studies. The current framework summarises the key anticipated benefits and risks for which further data are needed. Ongoing clinical trial data can be incorporated into the framework when available to provide an updated benefit–risk assessment.

BackgroundThere is a need to identify effective, safe treatments for COVID-19 (coronavirus disease) rapidly, given the current, ongoing pandemic. A systematic benefit-risk assessment was designed and conducted to strengthen the ongoing understanding of the benefit-risk balance for remdesivir in COVID-19 treatment by using a structured method which uses all available data.MethodsThe Benefit-Risk Action Team (BRAT) framework was used to assess the overall benefit-risk of the use of remdesivir as a treatment for COVID-19 compared to standard of care, placebo or other treatments. We searched PubMed,Google Scholar and government agency websites to identify literature reporting clinical outcomes in patients taking remdesivir for COVID-19. A value tree was constructed and key benefits and risks were ranked by two clinicians in order of considered importance.ResultsSeveral key benefits and risks for use of remdesivir in COVID-19 compared to placebo have been identified. In one trial, the benefit of time to clinical improvement was not statistically significant (21 vs 23 days, HR=1.23, 95% CI: 0.87, 1.75), although the study was underpowered. In another trial, a shorter time to recovery in patients treated with remdesivir was observed (11 vs 15 days), with non-significant reduced mortality risk (8% vs 12%). Risk data were only available from one trial. This trial reported fewer serious adverse events in patients taking remdesivir (18%) comparted to the placebo group (26%), however more patients in the remdesivir group discontinued treatment as a result of an adverse event compared to those patients receiving placebo (12% vs 5%).ConclusionsPreliminary clinical trial results suggest a favourable benefit-risk profile for remdesivir compared to placebo, however there is limited safety data available at the current time. The current framework summarises the key anticipated benefits and risks for which further data are needed. Ongoing clinical trial data can be incorporated into the framework when available to provide an updated benefit-risk assessment.

ObjectivesGiven the current pandemic, there is an urgent need to identify effective, safe treatments for COVID-19 (coronavirus disease). A systematic benefit-risk assessment was designed and conducted to strengthen the ongoing monitoring of the benefit-risk balance for chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in COVID-19 treatment.MethodsThe overall benefit-risk of the use of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID-19 compared to standard of care, placebo or other treatments was assessed using the Benefit-Risk Action Team (BRAT) framework. We searched PubMed and Google Scholar to identify literature reporting clinical outcomes in patients taking chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19. A value tree was constructed and key benefits and risks were ranked by two clinicians in order of considered importance.ResultsSeveral potential key benefits and risks were identified for use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine in COVID-19 treatment. Currently available results did not show an improvement in mortality risk; Cox proportional hazard ratio (HR) for death between patients who received HCQ alone vs. neither hydroxychloroquine or azithromycin was 1.08 (95% CI 0.63-1.85). A further study compared the incidence of intubation or death (composite outcome) in a time to event analysis between patients who received HCQ vs. those patients who did not (adjusted Cox proportional HR 1.00 (95% CI 0.76-1.32)). Risk of cardiac arrest, abnormal electrocardiogram (ECG) and QT prolongation was greater among patients taking HCQ (with or without azithromycin) compared to standard of care in the same study.ConclusionsOverall, based on the available data there does not appear to be a favourable benefit-risk profile for chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine compared to standard of care in treatment of severe COVID-19. As further data from clinical trials and real world use on these benefits and risks becomes available, this can be incorporated into the framework for an ongoing benefit-risk assessment.

The aim of this analysis is to identify latent subgroups of women based on substance use, exposure to violence, and risky sexual behaviors and quantify discrete stages of behavior change over time. Data comes from 317 women recruited from a Municipal Drug Court System in the Midwest. All participants were interviewed regarding their substance use and sexual behaviors, as well as their exposure to violence at baseline, a 4th-month follow-up, and an 8th-month follow-up. A latent transitional analysis (LTA), a longitudinal extension of a latent class analysis (LCA), was used to quantify discrete stages of behavior change. The results of our analyses revealed 4 distinct behavioral profiles in our sample: 1) women with high probabilities of risky sexual behaviors, exposure to violence, and crack/cocaine use, 2) women with a high probability of exposure to violence, and moderate sexual risk taking, 3) women characterized solely by a high probability of crack/cocaine use, 4) women with low probabilities of all factors. The proportion of women in latent statuses characterized by a high probability of crack/cocaine use did not substantially decrease over time. Women who experienced child sexual abuse, had a greater number of lifetime arrests, were older, and believed they had risky drug using behavior that needed changing at baseline were significantly more likely to be in higher-risk latent statuses. Targeted interventions tailored to crack/cocaine users, as well as a wide-spread need for trauma-informed interventions among females involved in the criminal justice system, are needed.

Objectives The aim of the study was to identify any unexpected clinical events associated with starting the new CFC-free formulation of Atrovent® MDI in general practice in England. Methods An active surveillance cohort study was conducted with a focus on selected clinical events, including respiratory symptoms, in past users of Atrovent® CFC MDI (‘switchers’) and Atrovent® naïve users. Incidence density rate ratios (with 99% confidence intervals) for events occurring in the first 3 months of exposure (risk period-ID1-3) compared to 3 months prior to starting treatment (reference period-IDR) were calculated. Results The cohort consisted of 13 211 patients (median age 70 years, 50.1% female; 63.5% prior users of Atrovent® CFC MDI (‘switchers’)). Common respiratory events occurred at higher rates after starting treatment than before for switchers, for example lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) [ID1/IDR = 1.45 (99% CI: 1.17, 1.81)] and worsening asthma [ID1/IDR = 1.58 (99% CI: 1.00, 2.51)]. Of these events only LRTI was significant for Atrovent® naïve patients [ID1/IDR = 1.42 (99% CI: 1.04, 1.95)]. Conclusions The results of this study suggest effect modification of risk as a result of prior Atrovent® CFC MDI use. Overall, Atrovent® CFC-free MDI appeared to be reasonably well tolerated in the immediate postmarketing period and the safety profile appeared similar to that of the CFC formulation.

Objective The current analysis examines whether opioid use is associated with insomnia in a community sample, as the consequences of the growing epidemic of prescription opioid use continue to cause public health concern. Study design A cross-sectional study including 8433 members in a community outreach program, HealthStreet, in Northeast Florida. Methods Community Health Workers (CHWs) assessed health information, including use of opioids (i.e., Vicodin®, Oxycodone, Codeine, Demerol®, Morphine, Percocet®, Darvon®, Hydrocodone) from community members during field outreach. Insomnia was determined based on self-report: “Have you ever been told you had, or have you ever had a problem with insomnia?” Summary descriptive statistics were calculated and logistic regression modeling was used to calculate adjusted odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals for insomnia, by opioid use status, after adjustment for demographics and other covariates. Results Among 8433 community members recruited (41% male; 61% Black), 2115 (25%) reported insomnia, and 4200 (50.3%) reported use of opioids. After adjusting for covariates, opioid users were significantly more likely to report insomnia than non-users (adjusted OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.25–1.61). Conclusion Insomnia was 42% more likely among those who reported using prescription opioids compared to those who did not. With one half of the sample reporting prescription opioid use, and a fourth reporting insomnia, it is important to further investigate the relationship between the two. Findings provide useful preliminary information from which to conduct further analyses.

This study examined risk factors of nonmedical prescription opioid use (NMPOU) among adolescents and how risk factors differ by gender. In the fall of 2017, adolescents attending 6(th) through 12(th) grades across 44 schools in 10 south central Kentucky counties were invited to participate in an anonymous, school-based survey. A total of 11,761 adolescents completed the survey. Logistic regression was conducted to examine the association between NMPOU and constructs of the Theory of Reasoned Action (i.e., attitudes and subjective norms), descriptive norms (i.e., peer use), and parental control of prescription medications in the home. There were 297 (2.7%) adolescents who reported NMPOU in the past 12 months. In the adjusted multivariate logistic regression model, for both males and females, adolescents who perceived that more of their peers engaged in NMPOU were significantly more likely to endorse NMPOU. Whereas, male and female adolescents who perceived their peers disapproved of use were significantly less likely to report NMPOU. Parent disapproval was significantly associated with decreased NMPOU for females only. Moderated regression analyses revealed that gender moderated the relationship between parental disapproval and NMPOU. We found that during adolescence, NMPOU is influenced by peer norms for both genders and parental norms for females. These results indicate that prevention efforts should focus on changing adolescents’ peer and parental norms related to NMPOU.

Using data from a randomized controlled trial of 319 women mainly recruited from a Municipal Drug Court System in St. Louis, MO, this study evaluates substance use, victimization, and HIV/AIDS risk behaviors over time. The results indicated that, for all participants, the likelihood of victimization, using drugs, and meeting the criteria for HIV/AIDS risk decreased by 46% by the eight-month follow-up; however, results did not differ significantly by intervention group. Women who were sexually abused as a child, had 4+ arrests, or believed they had sexual and drug-using behaviors that need changing at baseline were more likely to experience these issues over time.

Introduction Fluenz Tetra is an intranasal quadrivalent live attenuated influenza vaccine (QLAIV) and is recommended as the vaccine of choice for children in the 2014/2015 influenza season vaccination programme in the UK. Objective The primary objective of the study was to estimate the crude incidence rate of adverse events of interest (AEIs) following vaccination with the nasal QLAIV early in the 2014/2015 influenza season in children and adolescents in England. Methods A pilot non-interventional cohort post-authorisation safety study (PASS) was conducted during the 2014/2015 influenza season in England. Vaccinees were recruited via the mass vaccination programme in England. Participant outcomes, validated by a healthcare professional (general practitioner) where appropriate, were captured through questionnaires (surface mail, telephone, e-questionnaire). Data analysis comprised descriptive statistics and calculation of event risks and incidence rates, stratified by age group and selected co-morbidities. Results The final evaluable cohort consisted of 385 participants; the median (interquartile range) age was 4 (3–9) years with a range of 2–17 years, and 53.2 % were female. The most frequently reported AEI was nasal congestion (n = 167; 43.4 %; 312.3 per 1000 patient-weeks [95 % CI 267.3–364.8]). Further frequently reported AEIs were malaise (n = 87; 22.6 %; 123.4 per 1000 patient-weeks [95 % CI 98.9–154.1]) and cough (n = 80; 20.8 %; 118.5 per 1000 patient-weeks [95 % CI 95.1–147.8]). Five hypersensitivity-type reactions were reported, although on follow-up none were true hypersensitivity reactions or required hospitalisation. No serious adverse events (SAEs) were reported, with no hospitalisations or deaths. No significant change in reactogenicity or other apparent safety signals was detected as part of this study. Conclusion The pilot study showed no significant change in reactogenicity or other apparent safety signals from the data collected. Continued enhanced surveillance of seasonal influenza vaccines will ensure their ongoing safety for the prevention of serious illness from seasonal influenza outbreaks. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40264-015-0384-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundA post-authorisation safety study was carried out as part of the EU Risk Management Plan to examine the long-term (up to 12 months) use of quetiapine XL as prescribed in general practice in England.AimTo present a description of the drug utilisation characteristics of quetiapine XL.MethodsAn observational, population-based cohort design using the technique of Modified Prescription-Event Monitoring (M-PEM). Patients were identified from dispensed prescriptions issued by general practitioners (GPs) for quetiapine XL between September 2008 and February 2013. Questionnaires were sent to GPs 12 months following the 1st prescription for each individual patient, requesting drug utilisation information. Cohort accrual was extended to recruit additional elderly patients (special population of interest). Summary descriptive statistics were calculated.ResultsThe final M-PEM cohort consisted of 13,276 patients; median age 43 years (IQR: 33, 55) and 59.0% females. Indications for prescribing included bipolar disorder (n = 3820), MDD (n = 2844), schizophrenia (n = 2373) and other (non-licensed) indications (n = 3750). Where specified, 59.3% (7869/13,276) were reported to have used quetiapine IR (immediate release formulation) previously at any time. The median start dose was highest for patients with schizophrenia (300 mg/day [IQR 150, 450]). The final elderly cohort consisted of 3127 patients and 28.5% had indications associated with dementia. The median start dose for elderly patients was highest for patients with schizophrenia or BD (both 100 mg/day [IQR 50, 300]).ConclusionsThe prevalence of off-label prescribing in terms of indication and high doses was common, as was use in special populations such as the very elderly. Whilst off-label use may be unavoidable in certain situations, GPs may need to re-evaluate prescribing in circumstances where there may be safety concerns. This study demonstrates the ongoing importance of observational studies such as M-PEM to gather real-world clinical data to support the post-marketing benefit:risk management of new medications, or existing medications for which license extensions have been approved.

Non-medical use (NMU) of prescription opioids in youth is of concern since they may continue this pattern into adulthood and become addicted or divert medications to others. Research into risk factors for NMU can help target interventions to prevent non-medical use of opioids in youth.The National Monitoring of Adolescent Prescription Stimulants Study (N-MAPSS) was conducted from 2008 to 2011. Participants 10-18years of age were recruited from entertainment venues in urban, rural and suburban areas of 10 US cities. Participants completed a survey including questions on their use of prescription opioids. NMU was defined as a non-labeled route of administration or using someone else's prescription. Information on age, gender, alcohol, marijuana and tobacco use was also collected. Summary descriptive, chi-square statistics and logistic regression were conducted using SAS 9.4.Of the 10,965 youth who provided information about past 30day prescription opioid use, prevalence of reported opioid use was 4.8% with 3.2% reported as NMU (n=345) and 1.6% as medical use (MU) only (n=180). More males than females (55.7% vs. 44.4%) reported opioid NMU (p0.0001). Logistic regression revealed that among males (comparing NMU to MU only), current smokers were 4.4 times more likely to report opioid NMU than non-smokers (95% CI: 1.8, 10.7). Among females (comparing NMU to MU only), current smokers and alcohol users were more likely to report opioid NMU than those who had never smoked or used alcohol (OR=3.2, 95% CI: 1.4, 7.0 and OR=4.1, 95% CI: 1.7, 10.4, respectively).These results suggest that further research on gender differences in opioid NMU is needed; interventions for opioid NMU may need to be gender specific to obtain the best results.

Background Problematic prescription drug use is reflected by or associated with drug-seeking aberrant behaviours. Research gaps include lack of post-marketing evidence and instruments. As part of the pharmacovigilance requirements, a risk management plan was developed for fentanyl buccal tablets (FEBT) by the manufacturer, with an additional pharmacovigilance activity requested by the regulatory authority, to investigate the risks of misuse, abuse, criminal use, off-label use and accidental exposure to FEBT after the product became commercially available. A Modified Prescription-Event Monitoring (M-PEM), observational, post-authorisation safety surveillance (PASS) study was conducted, with an overall aim to examine the use of FEBT in relation to their safety as prescribed in primary care in England. One of the exploratory objectives included estimating the prevalence of aberrant behaviours during FEBT treatment. Objective To determine the feasibility of estimating the prevalence of risk factors associated with dependence on starting treatment and aberrant behaviours in patients during treatment with a prototypical abuse liable substance (fentanyl), as based on the application of an existing index (the Chabal criteria). Methods Data were collected as part of the M-PEM PASS study; exposure and outcome data (including risk factors for dependence and aberrant behaviours based on behavioural not clinical manifestations) were derived from questionnaires sent to primary care physicians in England during April 2008 to June 2011. For the exploratory objective of interest, descriptive statistics and simple (non-weighted) risk scores were constructed on aggregate counts (score ≥3 considered ‘high-risk’). Supplementary analyses explored the relationship between the two indices and the characteristics of patients with aberrant behaviours and those without (crude odds ratios plus 95 % confidence interval (CI) were calculated). Results In a cohort of 551 patients, the prevalence of at least one pre-existing risk factor for dependence was 26 % (n = 145), whilst the frequency of aberrant behaviours observed during treatment was 8 % (n = 46). Patients with aberrant behaviours had several different characteristics to patients without. The two indices were associated (χ2 df (20) = 58.72, p