Estuarine fish passes in the northern Netherlands provide contrasting windows of opportunity for migrating fish species

The Wadden Sea in north-western Europe is the largest system of connected intertidal sand and mud flats in the world and is included in the UNESCO World Heritage list. Notwithstanding its ecological value, almost all rivers flowing towards the Wadden Sea are heavily modified with inter-tidal barriers, hampering the migration of diadromous fishes. To mitigate the negative effects of such barriers, fish passes were constructed, but their effectiveness is poorly understood. Since most fish passes are only functional during part of the tidal cycle, migration activity should match this operation window to secure effective migration. In this study we focused on the upstream-migrating behaviour of glass eel (the juvenile stage of catadromous eel, Anguilla anguilla) and three-spined stickleback (anadromous Gasterosteus aculeatus) at nine fish passes along the Dutch Wadden Sea coast. We investigated the presence of sticklebacks and glass eel at the downstream side of intertidal barriers in relation to fluctuations in their environment. Fish were collected with 1x1-m lift nets, with a 2-mm mesh size. In 168 sample days between February and May 2014, 4558 samples were taken and a total of 107,349 sticklebacks and 23,082 glass eel were caught. At all locations, glass eel were most abundant in the hour before high tide, while sticklebacks did not show a significant pattern with environmental variables at all locations, but when they did catches were highest at the start of flood tide. This means that the window of opportunity for migration is different for both fish species and that optimisation of the operation window of a fish pass for glass eel could mean a mismatch for stickleback and vice versa. Knowledge of temporal migration dynamics of fish species is therefore essential for the design of effective fish passes

Validity of hospital ICD-10-GM codes to identify anaphylaxis

PURPOSE: Anaphylaxis (ANA) is an important adverse drug reaction. We examined positive predictive values (PPV) and other test characteristics of ICD-10-GM code algorithms for detecting ANA as used in a multinational safety study (PASS). METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study on routine data from a German academic hospital (2004–2019, age ≥ 18). Chart review was used for case verification. Potential cases were identified from the hospital administration system. The main outcome required at least one of the following: any type of specific in-hospital code (T78.2, T88.6, and T80.5) OR specific outpatient code in combination with a symptom code OR in-hospital non-specific code (T78.4, T88.7, and Y57.9) in combination with two symptom codes. PPV were calculated with 95% confidence interval. Sensitivity analyses modified type of codes, unit of analysis, verification criteria and time period. The most specific algorithm used only primary codes for ANA (numbers added in brackets). RESULTS: Four hundred and sixteen eligible cases were evaluated, and 78 (37) potential ANA cases were identified. PPV were 62.8% (95% CI 51.1–73.5) (main) and 77.4% (58.9–90.4) (most specific). PPV from all modifications ranged from 12.9% to 80.6%. The sensitivity of the main algorithm was 66.2%, specificity 91.5%, and negative predictive value 92.6%. Corresponding figures for the most specific algorithm were 32.4%, 98.0%, and 87.0%. CONCLUSIONS: The PPV of the main algorithm seems of acceptable validity for use in comparative safety research but will underestimate absolute risks by about a third. Restriction to primary discharge codes markedly improves PPV to the expense of reducing sensitivity

Risk of Acute Liver Injury in Agomelatine and Other Antidepressant Users in Four European Countries: A Cohort and Nested Case–Control Study Using Automated Health Data Sources

BACKGROUND: Agomelatine is a melatonin receptor agonist and serotonin 5-HT2C receptor antagonist indicated for depression in adults. Hepatotoxic reactions like acute liver injury (ALI) are an identified risk in the European risk management plan for agomelatine. Hepatotoxic reactions have been reported for other antidepressants, but population studies quantifying these risks are scarce. Antidepressants are widely prescribed, and users often have risk factors for ALI (e.g. metabolic syndrome). OBJECTIVE: The goal was to estimate the risk of ALI associated with agomelatine and other antidepressants (fluoxetine, paroxetine, sertraline, escitalopram, mirtazapine, venlafaxine, duloxetine, and amitriptyline) when compared with citalopram in routine clinical practice. METHOD: A nested case–control study was conducted using data sources in Denmark, Germany, Spain, and Sweden (study period 2009–2014). Three ALI endpoints were defined using International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes: primary (specific codes) and secondary (all codes) endpoints used only hospital discharge codes; the tertiary endpoint included both inpatient and outpatient settings (all codes). Validation of endpoints was implemented. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for current use were estimated for each data source and combined. RESULTS: We evaluated 3,238,495 new antidepressant and 74,440 agomelatine users. For the primary endpoint, the OR for agomelatine versus citalopram was 0.48 (CI 0.13–1.71). Results were also < 1 when no exclusion criteria were applied (OR 0.37; CI 0.19–0.74), when all exclusion criteria except alcohol and drug abuse were applied (OR 0.47; CI 0.20–1.07), and for the secondary (OR 0.40; CI 0.05–3.11) and tertiary (OR 0.79; CI 0.50–1.25) endpoints. Regarding other antidepressants versus citalopram, most OR point estimates were also below one, although with varying widths of the 95% CIs. The result of the tertiary endpoint and the sensitivity analyses of the primary endpoint were the most precise. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, using citalopram as a comparator, agomelatine was not associated with an increased risk of ALI hospitalisation. The results for agomelatine should be interpreted in the context of the European risk minimisation measures in place. Those measures may have induced selective prescribing and could explain the lower risk of ALI for agomelatine when compared with citalopram. Most other antidepressants evaluated had ORs suggesting a lower risk than citalopram, but additional studies are required to confirm or refute these results

Risk of Acute Liver Injury in Agomelatine and Other Antidepressant Users in Four European Countries: A Cohort and Nested Case-Control Study Using Automated Health Data Sources

BACKGROUND: Agomelatine is a melatonin receptor agonist and serotonin 5-HT2C receptor antagonist indicated for depression in adults. Hepatotoxic reactions like acute liver injury (ALI) are an identified risk in the European risk management plan for agomelatine. Hepatotoxic reactions have been reported for other antidepressants, but population studies quantifying these risks are scarce. Antidepressants are widely prescribed, and users often have risk factors for ALI (e.g. metabolic syndrome). OBJECTIVE: The goal was to estimate the risk of ALI associated with agomelatine and other antidepressants (fluoxetine, paroxetine, sertraline, escitalopram, mirtazapine, venlafaxine, duloxetine, and amitriptyline) when compared with citalopram in routine clinical practice. METHOD: A nested case-control study was conducted using data sources in Denmark, Germany, Spain, and Sweden (study period 2009-2014). Three ALI endpoints were defined using International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes: primary (specific codes) and secondary (all codes) endpoints used only hospital discharge codes; the tertiary endpoint included both inpatient and outpatient settings (all codes). Validation of endpoints was implemented. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for current use were estimated for each data source and combined. RESULTS: We evaluated 3,238,495 new antidepressant and 74,440 agomelatine users. For the primary endpoint, the OR for agomelatine versus citalopram was 0.48 (CI 0.13-1.71). Results were also \u3c 1 when no exclusion criteria were applied (OR 0.37; CI 0.19-0.74), when all exclusion criteria except alcohol and drug abuse were applied (OR 0.47; CI 0.20-1.07), and for the secondary (OR 0.40; CI 0.05-3.11) and tertiary (OR 0.79; CI 0.50-1.25) endpoints. Regarding other antidepressants versus citalopram, most OR point estimates were also below one, although with varying widths of the 95% CIs. The result of the tertiary endpoint and the sensitivity analyses of the primary endpoint were the most precise. CONCLUSION: In this study, using citalopram as a comparator, agomelatine was not associated with an increased risk of ALI hospitalisation. The results for agomelatine should be interpreted in the context of the European risk minimisation measures in place. Those measures may have induced selective prescribing and could explain the lower risk of ALI for agomelatine when compared with citalopram. Most other antidepressants evaluated had ORs suggesting a lower risk than citalopram, but additional studies are required to confirm or refute these results

Risk of Acute Liver Injury in agomelatine and other antidepressant users in four european countries: a cohort and nested case–control study using automated health data sources

Background Agomelatine is a melatonin receptor agonist and serotonin 5-HT2C receptor antagonist indicated for depression in adults. Hepatotoxic reactions like acute liver injury (ALI) are an identified risk in the European risk management plan for agomelatine. Hepatotoxic reactions have been reported for other antidepressants, but population studies quantifying these risks are scarce. Antidepressants are widely prescribed, and users often have risk factors for ALI (e.g. metabolic syndrome). Objective The goal was to estimate the risk of ALI associated with agomelatine and other antidepressants (fluoxetine, paroxetine, sertraline, escitalopram, mirtazapine, venlafaxine, duloxetine, and amitriptyline) when compared with citalopram in routine clinical practice. Method A nested case–control study was conducted using data sources in Denmark, Germany, Spain, and Sweden (study period 2009–2014). Three ALI endpoints were defined using International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes: primary (specific codes) and secondary (all codes) endpoints used only hospital discharge codes; the tertiary endpoint included both inpatient and outpatient settings (all codes). Validation of endpoints was implemented. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for current use were estimated for each data source and combined. Results We evaluated 3,238,495 new antidepressant and 74,440 agomelatine users. For the primary endpoint, the OR for agomelatine versus citalopram was 0.48 (CI 0.13–1.71). Results were also¿<¿1 when no exclusion criteria were applied (OR 0.37; CI 0.19–0.74), when all exclusion criteria except alcohol and drug abuse were applied (OR 0.47; CI 0.20–1.07), and for the secondary (OR 0.40; CI 0.05–3.11) and tertiary (OR 0.79; CI 0.50–1.25) endpoints. Regarding other antidepressants versus citalopram, most OR point estimates were also below one, although with varying widths of the 95% CIs. The result of the tertiary endpoint and the sensitivity analyses of the primary endpoint were the most precise. Conclusion In this study, using citalopram as a comparator, agomelatine was not associated with an increased risk of ALI hospitalisation. The results for agomelatine should be interpreted in the context of the European risk minimisation measures in place. Those measures may have induced selective prescribing and could explain the lower risk of ALI for agomelatine when compared with citalopram. Most other antidepressants evaluated had ORs suggesting a lower risk than citalopram, but additional studies are required to confirm or refute these results.Peer Reviewe

Risk of acute liver injury in agomelatine and other antidepressant users in four european countries: a cohort and nested case–control study using automated health data sources

Acute liver injury; Antidepressants; Case-controlLesió hepàtica aguda; Antidepressius; Control de casosLesión hepática aguda; Antidepresivos; Control de casosBackground Agomelatine is a melatonin receptor agonist and serotonin 5-HT2C receptor antagonist indicated for depression in adults. Hepatotoxic reactions like acute liver injury (ALI) are an identified risk in the European risk management plan for agomelatine. Hepatotoxic reactions have been reported for other antidepressants, but population studies quantifying these risks are scarce. Antidepressants are widely prescribed, and users often have risk factors for ALI (e.g. metabolic syndrome). Objective The goal was to estimate the risk of ALI associated with agomelatine and other antidepressants (fluoxetine, paroxetine, sertraline, escitalopram, mirtazapine, venlafaxine, duloxetine, and amitriptyline) when compared with citalopram in routine clinical practice. Method A nested case–control study was conducted using data sources in Denmark, Germany, Spain, and Sweden (study period 2009–2014). Three ALI endpoints were defined using International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes: primary (specific codes) and secondary (all codes) endpoints used only hospital discharge codes; the tertiary endpoint included both inpatient and outpatient settings (all codes). Validation of endpoints was implemented. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for current use were estimated for each data source and combined. Results We evaluated 3,238,495 new antidepressant and 74,440 agomelatine users. For the primary endpoint, the OR for agomelatine versus citalopram was 0.48 (CI 0.13–1.71). Results were also < 1 when no exclusion criteria were applied (OR 0.37; CI 0.19–0.74), when all exclusion criteria except alcohol and drug abuse were applied (OR 0.47; CI 0.20–1.07), and for the secondary (OR 0.40; CI 0.05–3.11) and tertiary (OR 0.79; CI 0.50–1.25) endpoints. Regarding other antidepressants versus citalopram, most OR point estimates were also below one, although with varying widths of the 95% CIs. The result of the tertiary endpoint and the sensitivity analyses of the primary endpoint were the most precise. Conclusion In this study, using citalopram as a comparator, agomelatine was not associated with an increased risk of ALI hospitalisation. The results for agomelatine should be interpreted in the context of the European risk minimisation measures in place. Those measures may have induced selective prescribing and could explain the lower risk of ALI for agomelatine when compared with citalopram. Most other antidepressants evaluated had ORs suggesting a lower risk than citalopram, but additional studies are required to confirm or refute these results

Use of IV Iron and Risk of Anaphylaxis: A Multinational Observational Post-Authorisation Safety Study in Europe

PURPOSE: This post-authorisation safety study estimated the risk of anaphylaxis in patients receiving intravenous (IV) iron in Europe, with interest in iron dextran and iron non-dextrans. Studies conducted in the United States have reported risk of anaphylaxis to IV iron ranging from 2.0 to 6.8 per 10 000 first treatments. METHODS: Cohort study of IV iron new users, captured mostly through pharmacy ambulatory dispensing, from populations covered by health and administrative data sources in five European countries from 1999 to 2017. Anaphylaxis events were identified through an algorithm that used parenteral penicillin as a positive control. RESULTS: A total of 304 210 patients with a first IV iron treatment (6367 iron dextran), among whom 13–16 anaphylaxis cases were identified and reported as a range to comply with data protection regulations. The pooled unadjusted incidence proportion (IP) ranged from 0.4 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.2–0.9) to 0.5 (95% CI, 0.3–1.0) per 10 000 first treatments. No events were identified at first dextran treatments. There were 231 294 first penicillin treatments with 30 potential cases of anaphylaxis (IP = 1.2; 95% CI, 0.8–1.7 per 10 000 treatments). CONCLUSION: We found an IP of anaphylaxis from 0.4 to 0.5 per 10 000 first IV iron treatments. The study captured only a fraction of IV iron treatments administered in hospitals, where most first treatments are likely to happen. Due to this limitation, the study could not exclude a differential risk of anaphylaxis between iron dextran and iron non-dextrans. The IP of anaphylaxis in users of penicillin was consistent with incidences reported in the literature