Search

Background: The aim of this study was to obtain a better insight into the adverse effects profiles of the new direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs)., Material and Method: A review was undertaken of all reports of adverse effects for warfarin, dabigatran, rivaroxaban and apixaban reported to the regional medicines information and pharmacovigilance centres (RELIS) in the period June 2013-May 2015., Results: Approximately 65 000 persons used direct-acting oral anticoagulants and 80 000 used warfarin in the period of the study. A total of 409 reports of adverse effects were included. Altogether 55 % of the reports applied to men. In 76 % of the reports for direct-acting oral anticoagulants and 85 % for warfarin, the patients were more than 70 years of age. The most common adverse effects were haemorrhages (48 % for direct-acting oral anticoagulants and 75 % for warfarin), most of which were cerebral haemorrhages (91 for direct-acting oral anticoagulants and 92 for warfarin). Blood clots (therapeutic failure), cognitive effects, headache and hair loss were some of the other adverse effects. The highest comorbidity was among the patients who died. The number of reported deaths was highest for rivaroxaban (1.1 deaths/1000 users) with a declining incidence for apixaban (0.9 ‰), dabigatran (0.7 ‰) and warfarin (0.6 ‰). There were different degrees of reporting for these medications, and the spontaneous reporting system cannot therefore be used to compare the incidence of adverse effects for the drugs., Interpretation: Adverse effects, including serious effects, may occur when using all anticoagulants. Factors that may increase the risk of adverse effects are advanced age, high comorbidity, reduced renal function, and polypharmacy.

BACKGROUND In 2011, following a period with delivery problems, the only registered digitoxin drug in Norway was replaced with digoxin. As a result, approximately 21 000 patients had to replace digitoxin with digoxin. There are important pharmacokinetic differences between digitoxin and digoxin (the general term for both drugs is digitalis), which must be taken into account when changing therapy. The aim of this study was to investigate compliance of drug security, during the transition from digitoxin to digoxin in Norway.MATERIAL AND METHOD Enquiries addressed to the Norwegian Poison Information Centre and reports of fatal adverse effects to the Regional Drug Information Centres (RELIS) regarding intake of digitalis were analysed. Serum concentrations of digitoxin and digoxin analyzed at Oslo University Hospital were reviewed. All data sources were reviewed for the years 2010-2014 and patients > 20 years were included.RESULTS The total number of enquiries addressed to the Norwegian Poison Information Centre, fatal adverse drug reactions reported to RELIS, and patient samples in the toxic range analyzed at Oslo University Hospital increased from 2012, timewise related to the transition to digoxin.INTERPRETATION Despite extensive information from the Norwegian Medicines Agency, a small, transient increase was observed in the number of overdoses and reported deaths from digitalis related to change in therapy. The cause of the overdose was in many cases unknown. This study revealed several cases of incorrect dosage, simultaneous use of digitoxin and digoxin, and washout time that was insufficient or lacking before initiation of digoxin.

Background: The Norwegian Medicines Agency has since 2003 encouraged health professionals to report adverse events (AEs) related to generic substitution through the spontaneous reporting system. Goals of this study were to evaluate the quality of these reported AEs and to assess whether there were signals of altered efficacy or AEs related to substitution of such products., Material and Methods: The World Health Organisation's (WHO) tool for documentation grading was used to evaluate the AE reports. Signals of AEs were identified based on WHO's signal definition., Results: 423 spontaneous reports concerning substitution of generic products were identified; 232 (55 %) of these reached documentation grade 1?-?3 and could be used to detect signals of AEs. The AEs were mostly common symptoms that also appear in the general population not treated with drugs. Only two of the 423 reports were classified as serious AEs. Signals of dizziness and muscle pain were identified after substitution of the original product Norvasc with the generic product Amlodipin Ratiopharm. Amlodipine was the substance associated with most AE reports; i.e. 79 (19 %) reports., Interpretation: About half the spontaneous reports regarding substitution of generic products could be used for signal detection. The substitution of generics does not seem to represent a safety problem.

Purpose: To evaluate the characteristics and quality of adverse drug reaction (ADR) reports submitted by pharmacists, and thereby assess the possible contribution of pharmacists to the spontaneous reporting system for ADRs in Norway., Methods: An open, prospective study was conducted where dispensing pharmacists from 39 pharmacies were encouraged to report ADRs over a 3-month period. The submitted ADR reports were compared to reports by physicians from the same time period. All reports were evaluated for selected characteristics, that is distribution of Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification codes of suspected drugs, distribution of ADRs according to system-organ classes and the quality of the reports., Results: A total of 118 reports covering 274 ADRs received from the pharmacists were compared to 109 ADR reports with 304 ADRs submitted by physicians. Pharmacists more often reported ADRs related to cardiovascular drugs, alimentary tract and metabolism drugs and respiratory drugs, whereas physicians more frequently reported ADRs related to musculoskeletal drugs and antineoplastic and immunomodulating agents. ADRs reported by pharmacists more frequently described gastrointestinal reactions while physicians reported more ADRs in relation to the cardiovascular and blood system. Whereas 68% of the physicians' reports were classified as serious, only 5% of the pharmacists' reports were serious. More than 50% of the reports submitted by pharmacists concerned ADRs following a generic substitution, in contrast to only 2% of the physicians' reports. The pharmacists' reports were found to be of a lower documentation grade. However, there was no substantial difference in a subjective assessment of the quality of information in the reports submitted by the two categories of health professionals., Conclusions: Pharmacists submit valuable ADR reports which provide information complimentary to physicians' reports. This emphasises that pharmacist ADR reporting might constitute an important addition to the spontaneous reporting system., (Copyright (c) 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: In Scandinavian countries, pharmacists have not reported adverse drug reactions (ADRs), either due to legislative restrictions or because of lack of tradition. From 1 January 2005, Norwegian pharmacists have been encouraged by the Norwegian Medicines Agency to take a larger role in the reporting of ADRs., Objective: To explore pharmacists' attitudes towards pharmacovigilance and their experiences with ADR reporting, to evaluate the effect of an educational programme and to compare these findings to the attitudes in a control group., Methods: From September 2004, pharmacies in two of Norway's five health regions were invited to attend a 3-month ADR reporting study, and 39 pharmacies were recruited. One pharmacist from each pharmacy participated in a 1 day pre-study educational programme and a 1 day post-study evaluation meeting. Pharmacists involved in the study answered a questionnaire (A) regarding their attitudes to ADR reporting (active group). A control group answered the same questionnaire. One reminder was sent. The active group evaluated the study by answering questionnaire A once more and an evaluation questionnaire (B). Qualitative aspects of ADR reporting were discussed with the active group post-study., Results: The response rate for questionnaire A was 97% (n = 158) in the active group, 74% (n = 184) in the control group and the response rate for questionnaire A and B post-study was 68% (n = 105) in the active group. Pharmacists in the active group had more positive attitudes to ADR reporting after taking part in the study than the control group (p < 0.001). Lack of time, confidence and knowledge of reporting rules could potentially prevent them from reporting ADRs., Conclusions: The pharmacists had positive attitudes towards pharmacovigilance, but very little experience with reporting. The educational programme clarified their role and increased their knowledge about the reporting requirements.