Reported adverse drug reactions during the use of inhaled steroids in children with asthma in the Netherlands

Objective: Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are widely used in the treatment of asthma. We studied the suspected adverse drug reactions (sADRs) reported during the use of ICS in the Netherlands. Methods: In the Netherlands, health professionals and patients can report suspected ADRs to the Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb. All reported sADRs on ICS were categorised and assessed as to whether these were likely to be associated with use of the steroid. Age and gender adjusted Reported Odds Ratios (RORs) and Naranjo Scores (NS) were computed for sADRs reported more than 3 times. Results: Since 1984, sADRs of ICS were reported in 89 children (mean age 6 years), 48 (54%) were boys. Suspected drugs were fluticasone in 46 children (52%), budesonide in 21 (24%), and beclomethasone in 22 cases (24%). Psychiatric symptoms were reported in 19 children (21%; ROR 3.8, NS 3.6), growth retardation in 6 children (7%; ROR 47.8, NS 3.0) and rashes in 6 cases (7%; ROR 0.7, NS 2.4). There were 7 reports (8%; ROR 2.1, NS 3.4) concerning abnormalities of the teeth, 4 reports of alopecia (4%; ROR 3.3, NS 3.5), and 3 reports of hirsutism and hypertrichosis (NS 4.0). Non-fatal adrenal insufficiency was reported once. Conclusion: Alteration of behaviour was the most frequently reported sADR. There are more indications that alterations of behaviour could be a real sADR of ICS. Non-fatal adrenal insufficiency was the only reported possible life threatening sADR. The association of hypertrichosis and teeth abnormalities after ICS in children has not been reported in the literature before

Use of double-blind placebo-controlled N-of-1 trials among stimulant-treated youths in The Netherlands: a descriptive study.

Objectives An N-of-1 trial is a double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trial to objectively and systematically evaluate the individual's response. This approach seems extraordinarily suitable for assessing the efficacy of stimulants in the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The aim is to examine the use of N-of-1 trials among youths in the Netherlands, the protocols used, and the continuation of stimulant treatment thereafter. Methods Physicians requesting N-of-1 trials with stimulants were interviewed about their rationale and protocol. Prevalence and continuation were investigated by extracting N-of-1 trials among youths <20 years of age from a large pharmacy dispensing database for 2000-2004. Results The main purpose of N-of-1 trials mentioned by physicians was the assessing of individuals' response and dose-finding. Trial length, dosing schedule and efficacy assessment differed per physician. Trials consisted of a maximum of two treatment periods per dose. The annual percentage of youths starting stimulant treatment with an N-of-1 trial fluctuated between 0.6% (3/462) and 3.3% (10/301). No statistical significant difference could be detected between the continuation of stimulant treatment with or without an N-of-1 trial (p=0.71). Conclusions N-of-1 trials with stimulants are infrequently and not optimally used in the Netherlands. The results of N-of-1 protocols described by physicians are of questionable value, due to the small number of treatment periods per dose. More uniformity in the protocols would make it easier to encompass the N-of-1 methodology in physicians' daily practice