Drug safety of rosiglitazone and pioglitazone in France: a study using the French PharmacoVigilance database

International audienceBackgroundThiazolidinediones (TZDs), rosiglitazone (RGZ) and pioglitazone (PGZ) are widely used as hypoglycemic drugs in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. The aim of our study was to investigate the profile of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) related to TZDs and to investigate potential risk factors of these ADRs.MethodsType 2 diabetic patients were identified from the French Database of PharmacoVigilance (FPVD) between 2002 and 2006. We investigated ADR related to TZD, focusing on 4 ADR: edema, heart failure, myocardial infarction and hepatitis corresponding to specific WHO-ART terms.ResultsAmong a total of 99,284 adult patients in the FPVD, 2295 reports concerned type 2 diabetic patients (2.3% of the whole database), with 161 (7%) exposed to TZDs. The frequency of edema and cardiac failure was significantly higher with TZDs than in other patients (18% and 7.4% versus 0.8% and 0.1% respectively, p ConclusionsThiazolidinediones exposure is associated with an increased risk of edema and heart failure in patients with type 2 diabetes even when recommendations for use are respected. In contrast, the risk of hepatic reactions and myocardial infarction with this class of drugs seems to be similar to other hypoglycemic agents

Medical device assessment: scientific evidence examined by the French national agency for health – a descriptive study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Scientific evidence supports decision-making on the use of implantable medical devices (IMDs) in clinical practice, but IMDs are thought to be far less investigated than drugs. In the USA, studies have shown that approval process of high-risk medical devices was often based on insufficiently robust studies, suggesting that evidence prior to marketing may not be adequate. This study aimed to ascertain level of evidence available for IMDs access to reimbursement in France.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The objective was to examine the scientific evidence used for IMDs assessment by the French National Authority for Health. We collected all public documents summarising supportive clinical data and opinions concerning IMDs issued in 2008. An opinion qualifies the expected benefit (EB) of the IMD assessed as sufficient or insufficient, and if sufficient, the level of improvement of the expected benefit (IEB) on a scale from major (level I) to no improvement (level V). For each opinion, the study with the highest level of evidence of efficacy data, and its design were collected, or, where no studies were available, any other data sources used to establish the opinion.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>One hundred and two opinions were analysed, with 72 reporting at least one study used for assessment (70.6%). When considering the study with the highest level of evidence: 34 were clinical non-comparative studies (47.2%); 29 were clinical comparative studies of which 25 randomised controlled trials (40.3%); 5 were meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials (6.9%); and 4 were systematic literature reviews (5.6%). The opinions were significantly different according to the study design (p < 0.001). The most frequent design for insufficient EB, IEB level V and IEB level IV was a non-comparative study (10/19, 52.6%; 15/24, 62.5%; and 8/15, 53.3%; respectively). For the 30 opinions with no supporting clinical study, 16 (53.3%) were based on an expert-based process, 9 (30.0%) were based on the conclusions of a previous opinion (all concluding IEB level V), and 5 (16.7%) reported no data (concluding insufficient EB for 4 and IEB level V for 1).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This study confirmed that level of evidence of clinical evaluation of IMDs is low and needs to be improved.</p