Numbers of spontaneous reports: How to use and interpret?

Due to the high intensity of the COVID-19 vaccination campaigns and heightened attention for safety issues, the number of spontaneous reports has surged. In the Netherlands, pharmacovigilance centre Lareb has received more than 100 000 reports on adverse events following immunization (AEFI) associated with Covid-19 vaccination. It is tempting to interpret absolute numbers of reports of AEFIs in signal detection. Signal detection of spontaneously reported adverse drug reactions has its origin in case-by-case analysis, where all case reports are assessed by clinically qualified assessors. The concept of clinical review of cases-even if only a few per country-followed by sharing concerns of suspicions of potential adverse reactions again proved the strength of the system. Disproportionality analysis can be useful in signal identification, and comparing reported cases with expected based on background incidence can be useful to support signal detection. However, they cannot be used without an in-depth analysis of the underlying clinical data and pharmacological mechanism. This in-depth analysis has been performed, and is ongoing, for the signal of vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) in relation to the AstraZeneca and Janssen Covid-19 vaccines. Although not frequency or incidence rates, reporting rates can provide an impression of the occurrence of the event. But the unknown underreporting should also be part of this context. To quantify the incidence rates, follow-up epidemiological studies are needed.

Male Sexual Health and Reproduction in Cutaneous Immune-Mediated Diseases: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

Information about the possible effects of cutaneous immune-mediated diseases (cIMDs) on male sexual function and reproduction is scarce. Factors known to impair sexual health and reproduction, such as inflammation, medication use, and hypogonadism, can be present in a significant proportion of male patients with cIMD.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the literature for the influence of paternal cIMD on many aspects of male sexual and reproductive health, such as sexual function, reproductive hormones, fertility, and pregnancy and offspring outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed. The searches combined keywords regarding male sexual function and fertility, pregnancy outcomes, and offspring's health with a list of cIMDs.

RESULTS

The majority of the identified studies included patients with psoriasis (22 of 27), and sexual function was the most common outcome of interest (20 of 27). For patients diagnosed with psoriasis, the prevalence of male sexual dysfunction reported in these studies ranged from 34 to 81%. Hypogonadism in patients with psoriasis was reported in 2 of 3 studies. Sperm analysis abnormalities in patients with psoriasis were reported in 3 of 4 studies. No information about the effect of paternal disease on pregnancy and offspring outcomes was identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Disease activity in psoriasis might play an important role in the development of sexual dysfunction, hypogonadism, and abnormal sperm quality. For the other cIMD included in this review, there is insufficient information regarding male sexual and reproductive health to draw firm conclusions. More research is needed to understand the association between cIMD and impaired male sexual and reproductive health. Perez-Garcia LF, Dolhain R, te Winkel B, et al. Male Sexual Health and Reproduction in Cutaneous Immune-Mediated Diseases: A Systematic Review. Sex Med Rev 2021;9:423-433.

Evaluation of clarity of the STOPP/START criteria for clinical applicability in prescribing for older people: a quality appraisal study

OBJECTIVES

Appropriate prescribing in older people continues to be challenging. Studies still report a high prevalence of inappropriate prescribing in older people. To reduce the problem of underprescribing and overprescribing in this population, explicit drug optimisation tools like Screening Tool of Older Persons' potentially inappropriate Prescriptions/Screening Tool to Alert to Right Treatment (STOPP/START) have been developed. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical applicability of STOPP/START criteria in daily patient care by assessing the clarity of singular criteria.

DESIGN

Quality appraisal study.

METHODS

For each of the 114 STOPP/START criteria V.2, elements describing the action (what/how to do), condition (when to do) and explanation (why to do) were identified. Next, the clarity of these three elements was quantified on a 7-point Likert scale using tools provided by the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) Consortium.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES

The primary outcome measure was the clarity rating per element, categorised into high (>67.7%), moderate (33.3%-67.7%) or low (<33.3%). Secondary, factors that positively or negatively affected clarity most were identified. Additionally, the nature of the conditions was further classified into five descriptive components: disease, sign, symptom, laboratory finding and medication.

RESULTS

STOPP recommendations had an average clarity rating of 64%, 60% and 69% for actions, conditions and explanations, respectively. The average clarity rating in START recommendations was 60% and 57% for actions and conditions, respectively. There were no statements present to substantiate the prescription of potential omissions for the 34 START criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results show that the clarity of the STOPP/START criteria can be improved. For future development of explicit drug optimisation tools, such as STOPP/START, our findings identified facilitators (high clarity) and barriers (low clarity) that can be used to improve the clarity of clinical practice guidelines on a language level and therefore enhance clinical applicability.

Risks versus benefits of medication use during pregnancy: what do women perceive?

BACKGROUND

Understanding perception of risks and benefits is essential for informed patient choices regarding medical care. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the perception of risks and benefits of 9 drug classes during pregnancy and associations with women's characteristics.

METHODS

Questionnaires were distributed to pregnant women who attended a Dutch Obstetric Care facility (first- and second-line care). Mean perceived risk and benefit scores were computed for 9 different drug classes (paracetamol, antacids, antibiotics, antifungal medication, drugs against nausea and vomiting, histamine-2 receptor antagonists/proton pump inhibitors, antidepressants, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and sedatives/anxiolytics). For each participant, we computed weighted risk and benefit sum scores with principal component analysis. In addition, major concerns regarding medication use were evaluated.

RESULTS

The questionnaire was completed by 136 women (response rate 77%). Pregnant women were most concerned about having a child with a birth defect (35%), a miscarriage (35%), or their child developing an allergic disease (23%), respectively, as a result of drug use. The majority of studied drug classes were perceived relatively low in risk and high in benefit. Higher risk scores were reported if women were in their first trimesters of pregnancy (p=0.007). Lower benefit scores were reported if women were single (p=0.014), smoking (p=0.028), nulliparous (p=0.006), or did not have a family history of birth defects (p=0.005).

CONCLUSION

Pregnant women's concerns regarding potential drug adverse effects were not only focused on congenital birth defects but also included a wider range of adverse outcomes. This study showed that most of the studied drug classes were perceived relatively low in risk and high in benefit.

Guidelines for submitting adverse event reports for publication

Publication of case reports describing suspected adverse effects of drugs and medical products that include herbal and complementary medicines, vaccines, and other biologicals and devices is important for postmarketing surveillance. Publication lends credence to important signals raised in these adverse event reports. Unfortunately, deficiencies in vital information in published cases can often limit the value of such reports by failing to provide sufficient details for either (i) a differential diagnosis or provisional assessment of cause-effect association, or (ii) a reasonable pharmacological or biological explanation. Properly described, a published report of one or more adverse events can provide a useful signal of possible risks associated with the use of a drug or medical product which might warrant further exploration. A review conducted by the Task Force authors found that many major journals have minimal requirements for publishing adverse event reports, and some have none at all. Based on a literature review and our collective experience in reviewing adverse event case reports in regulatory, academic, and industry settings, we have identified information that we propose should always be considered for inclusion in a report submitted for publication. These guidelines have been endorsed by the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE) and the International Society of Pharmacovigilance (ISoP) and are freely available on the societies' web sites. Their widespread distribution is encouraged. ISPE and ISoP urge biomedical journals to adopt these guidelines and apply them to case reports submitted for publication. They also encourage schools of medicine, pharmacy, and nursing to incorporate them into the relevant curricula that address the detection, evaluation, and reporting of suspected drug or other medical product adverse events.

Guidelines for submitting adverse event reports for publication

Publication of case reports describing suspected adverse effects of drugs and medical products that include herbal and complementary medicines, vaccines, and other biologicals and devices is important for postmarketing surveillance. Publication lends credence to important signals raised in these adverse event reports. Unfortunately, deficiencies in vital information in published cases can often limit the value of such reports by failing to provide enough details for either (i) a differential diagnosis or provisional assessment of cause-effect association, or (ii) a reasonable pharmacological or biological explanation. Properly described, a published report of one or more adverse events can provide a useful signal of possible risks associated with the use of a drug or medical product which might warrant further exploration. A review conducted by the Task Force authors found that many major journals have minimal requirements for publishing adverse event reports, and some have none at all. Based on a literature review and our collective experience in reviewing adverse event case reports in regulatory, academic, and industry settings, we have identified information that we propose should always be considered for inclusion in a report submitted for publication. These guidelines have been endorsed by the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE) and the International Society of Pharmacovigilance (ISoP) and are freely available on the societies' websites. Their widespread distribution is encouraged. ISPE and ISoP urge biomedical journals to adopt these guidelines and apply them to case reports submitted for publication. They also encourage schools of medicine, pharmacy, and nursing to incorporate them into the relevant curricula that address the detection, evaluation, and reporting of suspected drug or other medical product adverse events.