Potentially inappropriate medication in older participants of the Berlin Aging Study II (BASE-II) - Sex differences and associations with morbidity and medication use

INTRODUCTION: Multimorbidity in advanced age and the need for drug treatment may lead to polypharmacy, while pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic changes may increase the risk of adverse drug events (ADEs). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the proportion of subjects using potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) in a cohort of older and predominantly healthy adults in relation to polypharmacy and morbidity. METHODS: Cross-sectional data were available from 1,382 study participants (median age 69 years, IQR 67-71, 51.3% females) of the Berlin Aging Study II (BASE-II). PIM was classified according to the EU(7)-PIM and German PRISCUS (representing a subset of the former) list. Polypharmacy was defined as the concomitant use of at least five drugs. A morbidity index (MI) largely based on the Charlson Index was applied to evaluate the morbidity burden. RESULTS: Overall, 24.1% of the participants were affected by polypharmacy. On average, men used 2 (IQR 1-4) and women 3 drugs (IQR 1-5). According to PRISCUS and EU(7)-PIM, 5.9% and 22.6% of participants received at least one PIM, while use was significantly more prevalent in females (25.5%) compared to males (19.6%) considering EU(7)-PIM (p = 0.01). In addition, morbidity in males receiving PIM according to EU(7)-PIM was higher (median MI 1, IQR 1-3) compared to males without PIM use (median MI 1, IQR 0-2, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: PIM use occurred more frequently in women than in men, while it was associated with higher morbidity in males. As expected, EU(7)-PIM identifies more subjects as PIM users than the PRISCUS list but further studies are needed to investigate the differential impact of both lists on ADEs and outcome. KEY POINTS: We found PIM use to be associated with a higher number of regular medications and with increased morbidity. Additionally, we detected a higher prevalence of PIM use in females compared to males, suggesting that women and people needing intensive drug treatment are patient groups, who are particularly affected by PIM use

Antidepressant-Warfarin Interaction and Associated Gastrointestinal Bleeding Risk in a Case-Control Study

Bleeding is the most common and worrisome adverse effect of warfarin therapy. One of the factors that might increase bleeding risk is initiation of interacting drugs that potentiate warfarin. We sought to evaluate whether initiation of an antidepressant increases the risk of hospitalization for gastrointestinal bleeding in warfarin users.Medicaid claims data (1999-2005) were used to perform an observational case-control study nested within person-time exposed to warfarin in those ≥18 years. In total, 430,455 warfarin users contributed 407,370 person-years of warfarin use. The incidence rate of hospitalization for GI bleeding among warfarin users was 4.48 per 100 person-years (95% CI, 4.42-4.55). Each gastrointestinal bleeding cases was matched to 50 controls based on index date and state. Warfarin users had an increased odds ratio of gastrointestinal bleeding upon initiation of citalopram (OR = 1.73 [95% CI, 1.25-2.38]), fluoxetine (OR = 1.63 [95% CI, 1.11-2.38]), paroxetine (OR = 1.64 [95% CI, 1.27-2.12]), amitriptyline (OR = 1.47 [95% CI, 1.02-2.11]). Also mirtazapine, which is not believed to interact with warfarin, increased the risk of GI bleeding (OR = 1.75 [95% CI, 1.30-2.35]).Warfarin users who initiated citalopram, fluoxetine, paroxetine, amitriptyline, or mirtazapine had an increased risk of hospitalization for gastrointestinal bleeding. However, the elevated risk with mirtazapine suggests that a drug-drug interaction may not have been responsible for all of the observed increased risk

Suicidal Behavior and Depression in Smoking Cessation Treatments

BACKGROUND: Two treatments for smoking cessation--varenicline and bupropion--carry Boxed Warnings from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) about suicidal/self-injurious behavior and depression. However, some epidemiological studies report an increased risk in smoking or smoking cessation independent of treatment, and differences between drugs are unknown. METHODOLOGY: From the FDA's Adverse Event Reporting System (AERS) database from 1998 through September 2010 we selected domestic, serious case reports for varenicline (n = 9,575), bupropion for smoking cessation (n = 1,751), and nicotine replacement products (n = 1,917). A composite endpoint of suicidal/self-injurious behavior or depression was defined as a case with one or more Preferred Terms in Standardized MedDRA Query (SMQ) for those adverse effects. The main outcome measure was the ratio of reported suicide/self-injury or depression cases for each drug compared to all other serious events for that drug. RESULTS: Overall we identified 3,249 reported cases of suicidal/self-injurious behavior or depression, 2,925 (90%) for varenicline, 229 (7%) for bupropion, and 95 (3%) for nicotine replacement. Compared to nicotine replacement, the disproportionality results (OR (95% CI)) were varenicline 8.4 (6.8-10.4), and bupropion 2.9 (2.3-3.7). The disproportionality persisted after excluding reports indicating concomitant therapy with any of 58 drugs with suicidal behavior warnings or precautions in the prescribing information. An additional antibiotic comparison group showed that adverse event reports of suicidal/self-injurious behavior or depression were otherwise rare in a healthy population receiving short-term drug treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Varenicline shows a substantial, statistically significant increased risk of reported depression and suicidal/self-injurious behavior. Bupropion for smoking cessation had smaller increased risks. The findings for varenicline, combined with other problems with its safety profile, render it unsuitable for first-line use in smoking cessation

NCCAM/NCI Phase 1 Study of Mistletoe Extract and Gemcitabine in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors

Purpose. European Mistletoe (Viscum album L.) extracts (mistletoe) are commonly used for cancer treatment in Europe. This phase I study of gemcitabine (GEM) and mistletoe in advanced solid cancers (ASC) evaluated: (1) safety, toxicity, and maximum tolerated dose (MTD), (2) absolute neutrophil count (ANC) recovery, (3) formation of mistletoe lectin antibodies (ML ab), (4) cytokine plasma concentrations, (5) clinical response, and (6) pharmacokinetics of GEM. Methods. Design: increasing mistletoe and fixed GEM dose in stage I and increasing doses of GEM with a fixed dose of mistletoe in stage II. Dose limiting toxicities (DLT) were grade (G) 3 nonhematologic and G4 hematologic events; MTD was reached with 2 DLTs in one dosage level. Response in stage IV ASC was assessed with descriptive statistics. Statistical analyses examined clinical response/survival and ANC recovery. Results. DLTs were G4 neutropenia, G4 thrombocytopenia, G4 acute renal failure, and G3 cellulitis, attributed to mistletoe. GEM 1380 mg/m2 and mistletoe 250 mg combined were the MTD. Of 44 patients, 24 developed nonneutropenic fever and flu-like syndrome. GEM pharmacokinetics were unaffected by mistletoe. All patients developed ML3 IgG antibodies. ANC showed a trend to increase between baseline and cycle 2 in stage I dose escalation. 6% of patients showed partial response, 42% stable disease. Median survival was 200 days. Compliance with mistletoe injections was high. Conclusion. GEM plus mistletoe is well tolerated. No botanical/drug interactions were observed. Clinical response is similar to GEM alone

Educational sessions in pharmacovigilance: What do the doctors think?

Background: The aim of this study was to determine physicians"opinion regarding pharmacovigilance feedback sessions. A survey was conducted in a teaching hospital, and the physicians who attended the sessions were invited to participate by filling out a structured questionnaire. All sessions included a review of adverse drug reactions identified at the hospital and information on pharmacovigilance issues (news on warnings released by regulatory agencies or drug toxicity problems identified by recently published studies in medical journals). The survey questions were related to the interest, satisfaction, and belief in the utility of the sessions. A Likert scale (0-10 points) was used to assess physicians" opinions. Findings: A total of 159 physicians attended the sessions and 115 (72.3%) participated in the survey. The mean (SD) age was 38.9 (12.1) years, and 72 (62.6%) were men. The mean (SD) scores of interest, satisfaction with the information provided, and belief in the utility of these sessions were 7.52 (1.61), 7.58 (1.46), and 8.05 (1.38) respectively. Significant differences were observed among physicians according to medical category and speciality in terms of interest, satisfaction, and belief in the utility of those sessions. Conclusions: Educational activities for physicians, such as feedback sessions, can be integrated into the pharmacovigilance activities. Doctors who attend the sessions are interested in and satisfied with the information provided and consider the sessions to be useful. Additional studies on the development and effectiveness of educational activities in pharmacovigilance are necessary