The medical dictionary for regulatory activities (MedDRA)

Efficacy and safety of propafenone sustained release in the prophylaxis of symptomatic paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (The European Rythmol/Rytmonorm Atrial Fibrillation Trial [ERAFT] Study)

We report a double-blind, multicenter, multinational, placebo-controlled, and well-controlled trial to prove that the sustained-release (SR) formulation of propafenone is superior to placebo in preventing symptoms of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF). A total of 594 patients were enrolled in the qualifying period of the study and 293 patients were randomized at 53 centers. There were significant increases in the arrhythmia-free periods from day 5 of randomization to the first recurrence of symptomatic atrial arrhythmia in the propafenone SR 325 mg twice daily (p = 0.004) and propafenone SR 425 mg twice daily (p = 0.003) treatment groups compared with placebo. The median arrhythmia-free time was 9 days in the placebo group, 35 days in the propafenone SR 325 mg twice daily group, and 44 days in the propafenone SR 425 mg twice daily group. There was a significant reduction in average heart rate during the first recurrence of symptomatic arrhythmia after day 5 in the low-dose propafenone group compared with placebo. The median treatment failure time from day 5 (arrhythmia recurrence, adverse events, and withdrawals) was prolonged from 8 days in the placebo group to 19 days in the propafenone SR 325 mg twice daily group (p = 0.002) and to 24 days in the propafenone SR 425 mg twice daily group (p = 0.006). The percentage of patients with >/=1 serious adverse event was similar in the propafenone SR treatment groups (propafenone SR 325 mg twice daily, 10.0%; propafenone SR 425 mg twice daily, 11.2%) but lower in the placebo group (1.1%). In conclusion, the SR formulation of propafenone is superior to placebo, well-tolerated, and prevents symptoms of paroxysmal AF.

Therapeutic ineffectiveness: heads or tails?

Reporting of therapeutic ineffectiveness through adverse drug reaction spontaneous reporting systems has been proposed by some authors. In the WHO Adverse Reactions Terminology (WHO-ART) and Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) terminology, the term therapeutic ineffectiveness includes drug interactions, resistance, tolerance and tachyphylaxis, as well as pharmaceutical defects such as substandard, adulterated, and counterfeit drugs. Under certain circumstances, reporting therapeutic ineffectiveness may contribute to identifying pharmaceutical defects. However, the best approach to avoid their occurrence would be implementing good manufacturing practices and strengthening quality control activities. This would prevent the misuse of spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions (e.g. when reporting of therapeutic ineffectiveness is 'suggested' by interested parties, especially when a generic product has been substituted for a branded original product).

Renal failure associated with the use of celecoxib and rofecoxib

OBJECTIVE

Celecoxib and rofecoxib are two relatively new nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) that selectively inhibit the cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) isoenzyme at therapeutic concentrations. The nephrotoxic potential of selective COX-2 inhibitors has not been clearly established. This study was conducted in order to understand the association between acute renal failure and the two COX-2 inhibitors celecoxib and rofecoxib.

METHODS

A search was performed in the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System (AERS) to identify cases of renal failure submitted to the FDA. A MEDLINE search of the English language literature was also performed to identify published cases of renal failure associated with celecoxib and rofecoxib.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty-two and 142 domestic US cases of celecoxib and rofecoxib-associated renal failure, respectively, were identified in the AERS database. The literature search identified 19 cases of acute renal impairment in association with celecoxib and rofecoxib. In addition, drug regulatory authorities in the UK, Canada, and Australia have received about 50 reports of renal failure with celecoxib and rofecoxib. Descriptive statistics of the AERS cases have been summarised in this report.

CONCLUSIONS

Data from AERS and published case reports suggest that use of both these drugs is associated with renal effects similar to that of conventional nonselective NSAIDs. Physicians should be aware that serious or life-threatening renal failure has been reported in patients with normal or impaired renal function after short-term therapy with celecoxib and rofecoxib. Patients at greatest risk for renal injury are those with pre-existing renal impairment, heart failure, liver dysfunction, those taking diuretics and/or ACE inhibitors, and the elderly. Kidney function should be monitored closely for any signs of potential renal injuries soon after initiating treatment with these agents, especially in high-risk populations. In addition, healthcare practitioners should adequately warn patients of the signs and symptoms of serious renal toxicity, and of the need for them to see their physician promptly if they occur. Celecoxib and rofecoxib are not recommended for use in patients with advanced renal disease.

Effects of coding dictionary on signal generation: a consideration of use of MedDRA compared with WHO-ART

To support signal generation a terminology should facilitate recognition of medical conditions by using terms which represent unique concepts, providing appropriate, homogeneous grouping of related terms. It should allow intuitive or mathematical identification of adverse events reaching a threshold frequency or with disproportionate incidence, permit identification of important events which are commonly drug-related, and support recognition of new syndromes. It is probable that the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) preferred terms (PTs) or high level terms (HLTs) will be used to represent adverse events for the purposes of signal generation. A comparison with 315 WHO Adverse Reaction Terminology (WHO-ART) PTs showed that for about 72% of WHO-ART PTs, there were one or two corresponding MedDRA PTs. However, there were instances where there were many MedDRA PTs corresponding to single WHO-ART PTs. In many cases, MedDRA HLTs grouped large numbers of PTs and sometimes there could be problems when a single HLT comprises PTs which represent very different medical concepts, or conditions which differ greatly in their clinical importance. Further studies are needed to compare the way in which identical data sets coded with MedDRA and with other terminologies actually function in generating and exploring signals using the same methods of detection and evaluation.

A systematic review of the safety profile of levetiracetam: a new antiepileptic drug

PURPOSE

This report provides detailed review of safety information on levetiracetam (LEV) (Keppra), a new antiepileptic drug.

METHODS

The integrated summary of safety report submitted for regulatory review was examined to collate information about abnormal laboratory tests values and adverse event reports collected during the overall LEV development program. Analyses included 3347 patients exposed to LEV in clinical trials for epilepsy, cognition, and anxiety disorders.

RESULTS

Safety data from all studies depict a similar pattern of adverse effects, predominantly somnolence, asthenia, and dizziness that occurred most frequently during the first month of LEV treatment. Changes in laboratory test values from placebo-controlled trials that were statistically significant remained in the normal range (red blood cells, hematocrit, hemoglobin, white blood cells, and neutrophils). Reports of the coding term 'infection' (common cold, upper respiratory infection) were not preceded by low neutrophil counts that might suggest impaired immunological status. Selection of adverse event coding terms probably contributed to the high rate of adverse effects termed 'infection.' Higher incidences of adverse effects, particularly behavioral effects, were found among epilepsy patients than in elderly patients with cognitive disorders or patients with anxiety disorders given lower doses.

CONCLUSIONS

This review of patients evaluated during the clinical development program suggests that LEV was well tolerated and safe for patients with seizure, cognitive and anxiety disorders. Overall incidence of adverse effects in the LEV groups was little higher than reports from the placebo groups. Of course, this data was derived from clinical trials that are of relatively short duration, and provide data on only several thousand patients. Therefore, long-term side effects, and/or rare side effects cannot be ruled out on the basis of this analysis.

Review of treatment options for refractory epilepsy: new medications and vagal nerve stimulation

PURPOSE

the choices available for patients whose partial seizures are poorly controlled include seven new antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) or vagal nerve stimulation (VNS) as add-on therapy. Comparisons are needed to help physicians and patients select among the options for treatment.

METHODS

we compared efficacy and adverse events of new treatments from controlled clinical trials of patients with uncontrolled partial seizures. Response rates (> or =50% decrease in partial seizures) at doses recommended in product labeling for adjunct therapy were tabulated for overall success (placebo response rate subtracted from AED response rate). Adverse events listed in product labeling were tabulated as complaint rates (placebo events subtracted from AED events). VNS trials used low dose stimulation as a pseudo-placebo.

RESULTS

overall success rates fell into two general groups with ranges of 12-20% for gabapentin (GBP), lamotrigine (LTG), tiagabine (TGB), zonisamide and 27-29% for levetiracetam, oxcarbazepine, and topiramate (TPM). Summary Complaint Scores also fell into two general groups with ranges of -27 to -82 for GBP, levetiracetam, TGB, zonisamide and -113 to -205 for LTG, oxcarbazepine and TPM. VNS scores were in the lower or higher success and summary complaint categories depending on whether scores from the pseudo-placebo group were subtracted from the high dose group.

CONCLUSIONS

these data allow comparisons among AEDs and VNS using similar data from standard types of clinical trials.

Adverse effects of antiepileptic drugs

Because the efficacies of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are often equivalent, selection of an AED is often determined by adverse effects. Differences in methods for labeling adverse effects and in the adverse effect terms themselves, variations in the populations studied, and inconsistent classifications of adverse effects make it difficult to know how to use information on adverse effects to choose an AED. Effort is underway to develop more extensive and internationally acceptable descriptive terms for adverse effects. Comparison of adverse effects in patients taking AEDs with adverse events in control groups is helpful; however, data from controlled studies are often lacking for most AEDs. Because of these limitations, the clinician must adopt a preventative and early detection approach based on some general principles. This review outlines factors to consider for avoiding and detecting AED adverse effects. The occurrence of weight change with AEDs is reviewed extensively, serving to illustrate how the principle factors can be used to avoid and manage adverse effects and where there is need for better studies of the short- and long-term adverse effects of AEDs.