Retrospective review of paediatric case reports of Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis with lamotrigine from an international pharmacovigilance database

Objectives This study aims to characterise paediatric reports with lamotrigine (LTG) and Stevens-Johnson syndrome or toxic epidermal necrolysis (SJS/TEN), and to explore whether potential risk factors can be identified. Design This is a retrospective review of suspected adverse drug reaction (ADR) reports. Reported time from LTG start to SJS/TEN onset, indication for use and dose was explored. To identify potential risk groups, report features (eg, ages, patient sex, co-reported drugs) for LTG and SJS/TEN were contrasted with two reference groups in the same database, using shrinkage logOR. Setting Reports were retrieved from VigiBase, the WHO global database of individual case safety reports, in January 2015. Patients Data for patients aged ≤17 years old were extracted. Results There were 486 reports of SJS/TEN in LTG-treated paediatric patients. Ninety-seven per cent of the cases with complete information on time to onset of SJS/ TEN occurred within 8 weeks of initiation of LTG therapy. The median time to onset was 15 days (IQR: 10–22 days). The proportion of SJS/TEN with LTG and valproic acid (VPA) co-reporting was significantly more than non-cutaneous ADRs (43% vs 19%, (logOR: 1.60 (99% CI: 1.33 to 1.84)). Conclusions The results suggest that VPA co-medication with LTG therapy is a risk factor for SJS/TEN in the paediatric population. Although this relationship has been identified from individual case reports, this is the first supportive study from a large compilation of cases. SJS/TEN risk is highest in first 8 weeks of treatment with LTG in children and clinicians should be aware of this risk during this period

Engaging the public in healthcare decision making: Results from a citizens’ jury on emergency care services

Background: Policies addressing ED crowding have failed to incorporate the public's perspectives; engaging the public in such policies is needed. Objective: This study aimed at determining the public's recommendations related to alternative models of care intended to reduce crowding, optimising access to and provision of emergency care. Methods: A Citizens' Jury was convened in Queensland, Australia, to consider priority setting and resource allocation to address ED crowding. Twenty-two jurors were recruited from the electoral roll, who were interested and available to attend the jury from 15 to 17 June 2012. Juror feedback was collected via a survey immediately following the end of the jury. Results: The jury considered that all patients attending the ED should be assessed with a minority of cases diverted for assistance elsewhere. Jurors strongly supported enabling ambulance staff to treat patients in their homes without transporting them to the ED, and allowing non-medical staff to treat some patients without seeing a doctor. Jurors supported (in principle) patient choice over aspects of their treatment (when, where and type of health professional) with some support for patients paying towards treatment but unanimous opposition for patients paying to be prioritised. Most of the jurors were satisfied with their experience of the Citizens' Jury process, but some jurors perceived the time allocated for deliberations as insufficient. Conclusions: These findings suggest that the general public may be open to flexible models of emergency care. The jury provided clear recommendations for direct public input to guide health policy to tackle ED crowding