Sensitivity of Quantitative Signal Detection in Regards to Pharmacological Neuroenhancement

Pharmacological neuroenhancement (PNE) is a form of abuse and has not yet been addressed by methods of pharmacovigilance. In the present study, we tested if quantitative signal detection may be sensitive in regards to PNE. We evaluated the risk of drug abuse and dependence (DAAD) related to substances that are known to be used for PNE and divided this group into agents with (methylphenidate) and without a known abuse potential outside the field of PNE (atomoxetine, modafinil, acetylcholine esterase inhibitors, and memantine). Reporting odds ratios (RORs) were calculated using a case/non-case approach based on global and country-specific drug safety data from the Uppsala Monitoring Centre (UMC). Both control substances (diazepam and lorazepam) and methylphenidate were statistically associated with DAAD in all datasets (except methylphenidate in Italy). Modafinil was associated with DAAD in the total dataset (ROR, 2.7 (95% confidence interval (CI), 2.2–3.3)), Germany (ROR, 4.6 (95% CI, 1.8–11.5)), and the USA (ROR, 2.0 (95% CI, 1.6–2.5)). Atomoxetine was associated with DAAD in the total dataset (ROR, 1.3 (95% CI, 1.2–1.5)) and in the UK (ROR, 3.3 (95% CI, 1.8–6.1)). Apart from memantine, which was associated with DAAD in Germany (ROR, 1.8 (95% CI, 1.0–3.2)), no other antidementia drug was associated with DAAD. Quantitative signal detection is suitable to detect agents with a risk for DAAD. Its sensitivity regarding PNE is limited, although atomoxetine and modafinil, which do not have a known abuse potential outside PNE, and no antidementia drugs, whose use in PNE is presumably low, were associated with DAAD in our analysis

Harmonization of summaries of product characteristics (SmPCs) of drugs with the same active ingredients: an evaluation of SmPCs of the most frequently prescribed active substances

Purpose!#!In aut-idem or generic substitution, discrepancies between summaries of product characteristics (SmPCs) referring to the same active substance (AS) may cause difficulties regarding informed consent and medical liability. The qualitative and quantitative characteristics of such discrepancies are insufficiently studied, impeding harmonization of same-substance SmPCs and compromising safe drug treatment.!##!Methods!#!SmPCs of the one hundred most frequently prescribed ASs in Germany were analyzed for discrepancies in the presentation of indications (Inds) and contraindications (CInds). Inclusion and exclusion criteria of drugs/SmPCs were chosen according to the standards of the aut-idem substitution in Germany.!##!Results!#!According to the study protocol, we identified 1486 drugs, of which 1426 SmPCs could be obtained. 41% respectively 65% of the ASs had same-substance SmPCs that differed from the respective reference SmPC in the number of listed Inds respectively CInds. The number of listed Inds/CInds varied considerably between same-substance SmPCs with maximum ranges in Inds of 7 in amoxicillin, and in CInds of 11 in lisinopril. Many ASs had large proportions (> 50%) of associated same-substance SmPCs that differed from the respective reference SmPC. A considerable proportion of ASs had same-substance SmPCs with formal and content-related differences other than the discrepancy in the number of Inds/CInds.!##!Conclusion!#!This evaluation of same-substance SmPCs shows a clear lack of harmonization of same-substance SmPCs. Considering that generic substitution has become the rule and that physicians usually do not know which drug the patient receives in the pharmacy, these discrepancies raise several questions, that require a separate legal evaluation

Intranasal Pregabalin Administration: A Review of the Literature and the Worldwide Spontaneous Reporting System of Adverse Drug Reactions

Background: It is repeatedly reported that pregabalin (PRG) and gabapentin feature a potential for abuse/misuse, predominantly in patients with former or active substance use disorder. The most common route of use is oral, though reports of sublingual, intravenous, rectal, and smoking administration also exist. A narrative review was performed to provide an overview of current knowledge about nasal PRG use. Methods: A narrative review of the currently available literature of nasal PRG use was performed by searching the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases. The abstracts and articles identified were reviewed and examined for relevance. Secondly, a request regarding reports of cases of nasal PRG administration was performed in the worldwide spontaneous reporting system of adverse drug reactions of the European Medicines Agency (EMA, EudraVigilance database). Results: The literature search resulted in two reported cases of nasal PRG use. In the analysis of the EMA-database, 13 reported cases of nasal PRG use (11 male (two not specified), mean age of users = 34.2 years (four not specified)) were found. In two cases fatalities occurred related to PRG nasal use. Conclusions: Even if only little evidence can be found in current literature, the potential for misuse/abuse of PRG via nasal route might be of particular importance in the near future in PRG users who misuse it. Physicians should be aware of these alternative routes of administration