Risk of developing life-threatening ventricular arrhythmia associated with tefenadine in comparison with over-the-counter antihistamines, ibuprofen and clemastine

An observational, historical cohort evaluation was performed to examine the hypothesis that terfenadine (Seldane) exposure increases the risk of developing life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias. The study population consisted of Medicaid recipients from 4 states that were included in the Computerized On-Line Medical Pharmaceutical Analysis and Surveillance System (COMPASS). The drug exposure period was defined prospectively as 30 days in all treatment cohorts. The primary end point was the development of life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias (ventricular tachycardia, fibrillation and flutter, and cardiac arrest and sudden death). The comparison cohorts included terfenadine (n = 181,672), over-the-counter antihistamines (n = 150,689), ibuprofen (n = 181,672) and clemastine (Tavist; n = 83,156). Over the exposure period, a total of 317 life-threatening ventricular arrhythmic events occurred, 244 of which were cardiac arrests. The incidence of total life-threatening ventricular arrhythmic events and cardiac arrests were more frequent in patients receiving over-the-counter antihistamines (relative risk 0.36) than in those receiving terfenadine, a finding that was consistent across all subgroups. There was no increased risk of life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias in the terfenadine cohort as compared with the ibuprofen cohort (relative risk 0.62), and in some analyses, the ibuprofen cohort had a significantly higher arrhythmic event rate. In all comparisons with the clemastine cohort, the terfenadine cohort had a statistically indistinguishable relative risk (1.08). Age, race, sex and cardiovascular risk were all considered in the adjusted relative-risk analyses. No baseline historical characteristic or imbalance of baseline medications explained the differences between groups.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Repeal of the Massachusetts seat belt law

In November 1986, the Massachusetts mandatory seat belt use law repealed in a referendum by a 53 per cent to 47 per cent vote. In an anonymous random digit telephone survey of 1,046 adults in Massachusetts in summer 1986, while the law was in effect, 61 per cent of respondents had said they would vote in favor of the law. A post-repeal follow-up of 80 per cent of these persons revealed initial supporters and opponents of the law were equally likely to vote, but 15 per cent of the summer supporters switched their opinions and voted for repeal, compared to only 4 per cent of summer opponents who switched. In addition, a separate survey of 167 households that had refused to answer the summer survey indicated that survey nonrespondents were more likely to vote against the law than for it. Those opposing the law saw it as an infringement on personal liberty and believed it was not effective in reducing injury and death.

Risk factors for occupational hand injury

A case-control study of occupational hand injury was conducted in an effort to identify risk factors for disabling injury. Case employees in this study were municipal employees who had sustained restricted activity or lost work time as a result of hand injuries while at work. Each case employee was individually matched to a control employee of the same sex who held the same job and was at work on the same date and shift that the case employee's injury occurred. A conditional logistic regression model was used to adjust for confounding variables. Performing a task that was not a usual job requirement, using defective materials, presence of cardiovascular disease, sleeping nine or more hours per night, and being less than 25 years of age were identified to be risk factors after adjustment.