A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z  

        1 2 3 | Last   [Sort alphabetically]   [Restore default list]

  Subjects -> PHARMACY AND PHARMACOLOGY (Total: 575 journals)
Showing 1 - 200 of 253 Journals sorted by number of followers
Nature Reviews Drug Discovery     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 331)
International Journal of Drug Policy     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 254)
Journal of Clinical Oncology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 242)
Journal of Medicinal Chemistry     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 158)
Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 155)
Drugs     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 146)
Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 98)
Pharmaceutical Research     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 94)
European Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 86)
Drug Safety     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 83)
Annals of Pharmacotherapy     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 56)
Biomaterials     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 54)
Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 44)
Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 42)
Journal of Controlled Release     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 38)
Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 38)
International Journal of Pharmaceutics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 37)
Clinical Therapeutics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 34)
European Journal of Pharmaceutics and Biopharmaceutics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 34)
Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 33)
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 32)
Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 31)
Drug Development and Industrial Pharmacy     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 29)
PharmacoEconomics     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 27)
Clinical Pharmacokinetics     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 27)
AAPS Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 26)
Critical Reviews in Toxicology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 25)
Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 24)
International Journal of Pharmacy Practice     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 24)
Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 24)
Chemical Research in Toxicology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 22)
Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 22)
Journal of Pain & Palliative Care Pharmacotherapy     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 21)
Trends in Pharmacological Sciences     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 20)
Journal of Applied Toxicology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 19)
Journal of Clinical Pharmacology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 19)
Pharmaceutical Development and Technology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 19)
American Journal of Cardiovascular Drugs     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 19)
Clinical Trials     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 18)
Toxicology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 18)
Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 18)
Clinical Toxicology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 18)
International Journal of Toxicology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 17)
Critical Reviews in Clinical Laboratory Sciences     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 16)
Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 16)
Journal of Natural Products     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 16)
Pharmaceutical Statistics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 15)
Toxicology Letters     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 15)
Journal of Pharmacy Practice     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 15)
Psychopharmacology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 15)
Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 14)
Cardiovascular Drugs and Therapy     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 14)
European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 14)
Current Medicinal Chemistry     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 13)
American Journal of Therapeutics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 13)
Drug and Chemical Toxicology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 13)
Journal of the American Pharmacists Association     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 13)
Clinical Research and Regulatory Affairs     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 12)
Seminars in Hematology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 12)
Drug Discovery Today: Technologies     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 12)
Current Pharmaceutical Design     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 12)
Journal of Oncology Pharmacy Practice     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 12)
Journal of Psychopharmacology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 11)
Biopharmaceutics and Drug Disposition     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 11)
Toxicology in Vitro     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 11)
Drug Development Research     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 11)
Drug Metabolism and Disposition     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 11)
Seminars in Oncology Nursing     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 10)
Biochemical Pharmacology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 10)
Journal of Separation Science     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 10)
CNS Drugs     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 10)
Current Pharmaceutical Biotechnology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 10)
Journal of Medical Marketing     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 10)
Drugs & Aging     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 10)
European Neuropsychopharmacology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9)
Food Additives & Contaminants Part A     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9)
Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9)
Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9)
Medicinal Chemistry     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9)
Biometrical Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9)
Drugs & Therapy Perspectives     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 9)
Prescriber     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9)
ChemMedChem     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9)
Current Opinion in Pharmacology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9)
European Journal of Pharmacology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8)
Inhalation Toxicology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8)
Antiviral Research     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8)
Drug Metabolism Reviews     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8)
Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8)
Human & Experimental Toxicology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8)
Drug Delivery     Open Access   (Followers: 8)
BioDrugs     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 8)
Frontiers in Drug Design & Discovery     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8)
Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 8)
Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 7)
Toxicology Mechanisms and Methods     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 7)
Journal of Pharmacological and Toxicological Methods     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 7)
Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology and Physiology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 7)
Scandinavian Journal of Clinical and Laboratory Investigation     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 7)
Epilepsy Research     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 7)
Clinical Drug Investigation     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 7)
Journal of Veterinary Pharmacology and Therapeutics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 6)
Toxicology and Industrial Health     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 6)
Skin Pharmacology and Physiology     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 6)
Journal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 6)
AAPS PharmSciTech     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 6)
Current Drug Discovery Technologies     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 6)
Anti-Inflammatory & Anti-Allergy Agents in Medicinal Chemistry     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 6)
Current Therapeutic Research     Open Access   (Followers: 6)
Expert Review of Cardiovascular Therapy     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 6)
Current Drug Delivery     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 6)
Expert Review of Anti-infective Therapy     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 5)
Neuropharmacology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5)
Current Drug Metabolism     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5)
Fitoterapia     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5)
Expert Review of Molecular Diagnostics     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 5)
Anti-Infective Agents     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5)
Toxicon     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5)
Medicinal Research Reviews     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5)
Investigational New Drugs     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5)
Current Cancer Therapy Reviews     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5)
Reviews of Physiology, Biochemistry and Pharmacology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4)
Planta Medica     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4)
Current Vascular Pharmacology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4)
Pharmaceutical Medicine     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 4)
Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4)
CNS Drug Reviews     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Inpharma Weekly     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 4)
Journal of Labelled Compounds and Radiopharmaceuticals     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4)
Immunopharmacology and Immunotoxicology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4)
International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Marketing     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4)
Inflammation Research     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4)
Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4)
International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Pharmacology & Therapeutics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3)
Physiology International     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 3)
Cardiovascular Therapeutics     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
ASSAY and Drug Development Technologies     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3)
Pharmacopsychiatry     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3)
Chemotherapy     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 3)
Therapeutic Drug Monitoring     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3)
Current Drug Therapy     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3)
Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3)
PharmacoEconomics & Outcomes News     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 3)
Journal of Aerosol Medicine and Pulmonary Drug Delivery     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3)
Journal of Ethnopharmacology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3)
Drug Resistance Updates     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3)
Journal of Pain Management & Medicine     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Journal of Infection and Chemotherapy     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3)
Journal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology and Therapeutics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3)
Current Pharmacogenomics and Personalized Medicine     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3)
Acta Pharmacologica Sinica     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3)
Microbial Drug Resistance     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3)
Frontiers in Medicinal Chemistry     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3)
Human Psychopharmacology Clinical and Experimental     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3)
BMC Pharmacology     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
The Brown University Psychopharmacology Update     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2)
International Clinical Psychopharmacology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2)
Canadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2)
Journal of Drug Targeting     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2)
Inflammopharmacology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2)
Journal of Inflammation     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Fundamental & Clinical Pharmacology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2)
Behavioural Pharmacology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2)
Vascular Pharmacology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2)
Pulmonary Pharmacology & Therapeutics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2)
Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 2)
Clinical Neuropharmacology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2)
Drugs in R & D     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 2)
International Immunopharmacology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2)
Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2)
Letters in Drug Design & Discovery     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2)
Archiv der Pharmazie     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2)
Pharmacological Reviews     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2)
Molecular Pharmacology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2)
Journal of Microencapsulation: Microcapsules, Liposomes, Nanoparticles, Microcells, Microspheres     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2)
Toxicological & Environmental Chemistry     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2)
Particulate Science and Technology: An International Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1)
Pharmacological Research     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1)
Current Enzyme Inhibition     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1)
Journal of Neuroimmune Pharmacology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1)
Current Pharmaceutical Analysis     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1)
Current Neuropharmacology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1)
Pharmacogenetics and Genomics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1)
Journal of Texture Studies     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1)
Pharmaceutical Biology     Open Access  
Journal of Liposome Research     Hybrid Journal  
Toxin Reviews     Hybrid Journal  
Kaohsiung Journal of Medical Sciences     Open Access  
Redox Report     Open Access  
Pharmacology     Full-text available via subscription  
Pharmaceutical Chemistry Journal     Hybrid Journal  
NeuroMolecular Medicine     Hybrid Journal  
Journal of Ocular Pharmacology and Therapeutics     Hybrid Journal  
Harm Reduction Journal     Open Access  
Current Nanoscience     Hybrid Journal  
Infectious Disorders - Drug Targets     Hybrid Journal  
Current Bioactive Compounds     Hybrid Journal  
Cancer Biotherapy & Radiopharmaceuticals     Hybrid Journal  
Autonomic & Autacoid Pharmacology     Hybrid Journal  

        1 2 3 | Last   [Sort alphabetically]   [Restore default list]

Similar Journals
Journal Cover
Drug Safety
Journal Prestige (SJR): 1.447
Citation Impact (citeScore): 3
Number of Followers: 83  
 
  Full-text available via subscription Subscription journal
ISSN (Print) 0114-5916 - ISSN (Online) 1179-1942
Published by Adis Homepage  [21 journals]
  • Authors’ Response to Yoshihiro Noguchi’s Comment on: “A
           Disproportionality Analysis of Drug-Drug Interactions of Tizanidine and
           CYP1A2 Inhibitors from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS)”

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      PubDate: 2022-12-01
       
  • Acknowledgement to Referees

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      PubDate: 2022-12-01
       
  • Comment on: "A Disproportionality Analysis of Drug–Drug
           Interactions of Tizanidine and CYP1A2 Inhibitors from the FDA Adverse
           Event Reporting System (FAERS)"

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      PubDate: 2022-12-01
       
  • Gastrointestinal Bleeding on Oral Anticoagulation: What is Currently Known

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: Abstract Gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is the most common type of bleeding occurring in patients on oral anticoagulation. A meta-analysis of the landmark randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for patients with atrial fibrillation demonstrated that direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) were associated with higher GIB rates compared to warfarin. However, significant heterogeneity existed between studies. While rivaroxaban, high-dose dabigatran, and high-dose edoxaban were associated with higher GIB rates than warfarin, GIB rates were similar between warfarin users and both apixaban and low-dose dabigatran users. Additionally, previous observational studies have yielded conflicting reports on whether GIB rates differ between warfarin and DOACs. Meta-analyses of observational studies demonstrated that warfarin is associated with lower rates of GIB compared to rivaroxaban, similar or lower rates compared to dabigatran, and higher rates compared to apixaban. Importantly, no RCT has compared individual DOACs directly and due to the different selection criteria of the initial RCTs, indirect comparisons between DOACs using these studies are unreliable. The best available information of comparisons between individual DOACs is therefore limited to observational studies. There is mounting evidence that suggests that rivaroxaban is associated with a higher risk of GIB compared to other DOACs. Finally, GIB induced by oral anticoagulation may have some positive aspects. Interestingly, there are studies that indicate oral anticoagulation facilitates colorectal cancer detection. Furthermore, results from RCTs and observational studies suggest that warfarin may even decrease the incidence of cancer.
      PubDate: 2022-12-01
       
  • mRNA (BNT162b2) and Inactivated (CoronaVac) COVID-19 Vaccination and Risk
           of Adverse Events and Acute Diabetic Complications in Patients with Type 2
           Diabetes Mellitus: A Population-Based Study

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: Introduction In Hong Kong, CoronaVac and BNT162b2 have been approved for emergency use owing to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Reactions towards the vaccine and the risk of post-vaccination adverse events may be different between recipients with and without type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate the risk of adverse events of special interest (AESI) and acute diabetic complications in the T2DM population after COVID-19 vaccination in Hong Kong. Research Design and Methods Self-controlled case-series analysis was conducted. Patients with T2DM who received at least one dose of BNT162b2 or CoronaVac between 23 February 2021 and 31 January 2022 from electronic health records in Hong Kong were included. The incidence rates of 29 AESIs and acute diabetic complications (any of severe hypoglycemia, diabetic ketoacidosis or hyperosmolar hyperglycemic syndrome) requiring hospitalization within 21 days after the first or second dose of vaccination were reported. The risks of these outcomes were evaluated using conditional Poisson regression. Results Among 141,224 BNT162b2 recipients and 209,739 CoronaVac recipients with T2DM, the incidence per 100,000 doses and incidence per 100,000 person-years of individual AESIs and acute diabetic complications ranged from 0 to 24.4 and 0 to 438.6 in BNT162b2 group, and 0 to 19.5 and 0 to 351.6 in CoronaVac group. We did not observe any significantly increased risk of individual AESIs or acute diabetic complications after first or second doses of BNT162b2 or CoronaVac vaccine. Subgroup analysis based on HbA1c < 7% and ≥ 7% also did not show significantly excess risk after vaccination. Conclusions Patients with T2DM do not appear to have higher risks of AESI and acute diabetic complications after BNT162b2 or CoronaVac vaccination. Moreover, given the low incidence of AESIs and acute diabetic complications after vaccination, the absolute risk increment was likely minimal.
      PubDate: 2022-12-01
       
  • Comparison of the MOdified NARanjo Causality Scale (MONARCSi) for
           Individual Case Safety Reports vs. a Reference Standard

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: Introduction In 2018, we published the MONARCSi algorithmic decision support tool showing high inter-rater agreement, moderate sensitivity, and high specificity compared with drug-event pairs (DEPs) previously reviewed using current, industry-established approaches. Following publication, MONARCSi was implemented as a prototype system to facilitate medical review of individual case safety reports (ICSRs). This paper presents subsequent evaluation of MONARCSi-supported causality assessments against an independent, best achievable reference standard. Objective This paper describes the development of an independent reference standard (i.e., reference comparator) using a sample of DEPs evaluated by Roche subject matter experts (SMEs) and subsequent performance analysis for both the reference standard and MONARCSi. Methods Roche collected a random sample of 131 DEPs evaluated by an external vendor using the MONARCSi prototype during 2020, and collectively referred to as the VMON (Vendor using the MONARCSi system for medical review) dataset. An internal group of causality SMEs (aka CAUSMET) were recruited and trained to assess the same DEPs independently using the MONARCSi structure with Global Introspection to determine their individual assessments of causality. The CAUSMET final causality was determined using a majority voting rule. Results Binary comparison of the aggregate results showed substantial agreement (Gwet kappa = 0.81) between the VMON and reference standard CAUSMET assessments. Bayesian latent class modeling showed that both the reference standard and VMON assessments exhibited similar high posterior mean sensitivity and specificity (CAUSMET: 89 and 93%, respectively; VMON: 87 and 94%, respectively). Finally, comparison of the sensitivity and specificity suggested no obvious difference across groups. Conclusion Analysis of causality results from the assessments by independent internal SMEs using MONARCSi shows there is no obvious difference in performance between the aggregate CAUSMET and VMON assessments based on the comparison of specificity and sensitivity. These results further support use of MONARCSi as a decision support tool for evaluating drug-event causality in a consistent and documentable manner.
      PubDate: 2022-12-01
       
  • Prevalence, Causes and Severity of Medication Administration Errors in the
           Neonatal Intensive Care Unit: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: Introduction Neonates are at greater risk of preventable adverse drug events as compared to children and adults. Objective This study aimed to estimate and critically appraise the evidence on the prevalence, causes and severity of medication administration errors (MAEs) amongst neonates in Neonatal Intensive Care Units (NICUs). Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted by searching nine electronic databases and the grey literature for studies, without language and publication date restrictions. The pooled prevalence of MAEs was estimated using a random-effects model. Data on error causation were synthesised using Reason’s model of accident causation. Results Twenty unique studies were included. Amongst direct observation studies reporting total opportunity for errors as the denominator for MAEs, the pooled prevalence was 59.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 35.4–81.3, I2 = 99.5%). Whereas, the non-direct observation studies reporting medication error reports as the denominator yielded a pooled prevalence of 64.8% (95% CI 46.6–81.1, I2 = 98.2%). The common reported causes were error-provoking environments (five studies), while active failures were reported by three studies. Only three studies examined the severity of MAEs, and each utilised a different method of assessment. Conclusions This is the first comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis estimating the prevalence, causes and severity of MAEs amongst neonates. There is a need to improve the quality and reporting of studies to produce a better estimate of the prevalence of MAEs amongst neonates. Important targets such as wrong administration-technique, wrong drug-preparation and wrong time errors have been identified to guide the implementation of remedial measures.
      PubDate: 2022-12-01
       
  • Withdrawal Syndrome Following Discontinuation of 28 Antidepressants:
           Pharmacovigilance Analysis of 31,688 Reports from the WHO Spontaneous
           Reporting Database

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: Introduction Evidence is lacking on withdrawal syndrome related to individual antidepressants and relevant risk factors for severe reactions. Objective To ascertain whether antidepressants are associated with an increased reporting of withdrawal syndrome as compared with other medications, and to investigate risk factors for severe reactions. Methods This is a case/non-case pharmacovigilance study, based on the VigiBase®, the WHO global database of individual case safety reports of suspected adverse drug reactions. We performed a disproportionality analysis of reports of antidepressant-related withdrawal syndrome (calculating reporting odds ratio [ROR] and Bayesian information component [IC]). We compared antidepressants to all other drugs, to buprenorphine (positive control), and to each other within each class of antidepressants (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors [SSRIs], tricyclics and other antidepressants). Antidepressants with significant disproportionate reporting were ranked in terms of clinical priority. Serious versus non-serious reactions were compared. Results There were 31,688 reports of antidepressant-related withdrawal syndrome were found. A disproportionate reporting was detected for 23 antidepressants. The estimated ROR for antidepressants altogether, compared to all other drugs, was 14.26 (95% CI 14.08–14.45), 17.01 for other antidepressants (95% CI 16.73–17.29), 13.65 for SSRIs (95% CI 13.41–13.90) and 2.8 for tricyclics (95% CI 2.59–3.02). Based on clinical priority ranking, the strongest disproportionate reporting was found for paroxetine, duloxetine, venlafaxine and desvenlafaxine, being comparable to buprenorphine. Withdrawal syndrome was reported as severe more often in males, adolescents, persons in polypharmacy, and with a longer antidepressant treatment duration (p < 0.05). Conclusions Antidepressants are associated with an increased reporting of withdrawal syndrome compared with other drug classes. When prescribing and discontinuing antidepressants, clinicians should be aware of the potentially different proclivity of withdrawal syndrome across individual antidepressants, and the liability to experience more severe withdrawal symptoms in relation to specific patient characteristics.
      PubDate: 2022-11-18
       
  • Development and Evaluation of the Algorithm CErtaInty Tool (ACE-IT) to
           Assess Electronic Medical Record and Claims-based Algorithms’ Fit for
           Purpose for Safety Outcomes

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: Introduction Electronic health record (EHR) or medical claims-based algorithms (i.e., operational definitions) can be used to define safety outcomes using real-world data. However, existing tools do not allow researchers and decision-makers to adequately appraise whether a particular algorithm is fit for purpose (FFP) to support regulatory decisions on drug safety surveillance. Our objective was to develop a tool to enable regulatory decision-makers and other stakeholders to appraise whether a given algorithm is FFP for a specific decision context. Methods We drafted a set of 77 generic items informed by regulatory guidance documents, existing instruments, and publications. The outcome of ischemic stroke served as an exemplar to inform the development of draft items. The items were designed to be outcome independent. We conducted a three-round online Delphi panel to develop and refine the tool and achieve consensus on items (> 70% agreement) among panel participants composed of regulators, researchers from pharmaceutical organizations, academic clinicians, methodologists, pharmacoepidemiologists, and cardiologists. We conducted a qualitative analysis of panel responses. Five pairs of reviewers independently evaluated two ischemic stroke algorithm validation studies to test its application. We developed a user guide, with explanation and elaboration for each item, guidance on essential and additional elements for user responses, and an illustrative example of a complete assessment. Furthermore, we conducted a 2-h online stakeholder panel of 16 participants from regulatory agencies, academic institutions, and industry. We solicited input on key factors for an FFP assessment, their general reaction to the Algorithm CErtaInty Tool (ACE-IT), limitations of the tool, and its potential use. Results The expert panel reviewed and made changes to the initial list of 77 items. The panel achieved consensus on 38 items, and the final version of the ACE-IT includes 34 items after removal of duplicate items. Applying the tool to two ischemic stroke algorithms demonstrated challenges in its application and identified shared concepts addressed by more than one item. The ACE-IT was viewed positively by the majority of stakeholders. They identified that the tool could serve as an educational resource as well as an information-sharing platform. The time required to complete the assessment was identified as an important limitation. We consolidated items with shared concepts and added a preliminary screen section and a summary assessment box based on their input. The final version of the ACE-IT is a 34-item tool for assessing whether algorithm validation studies on safety outcomes are FFP. It comprises the domains of internal validity (24 items), external validity (seven items), and ethical conduct and reporting of the validation study (three items). The internal validity domain includes sections on objectives, data sources, population, outcomes, design and setting, statistical methods, reference standard, accuracy, and strengths and limitations. The external validity domain includes items that assess the generalizability to a proposed target study. The domain on ethics and transparency includes items on ethical conduct and reporting of the validation study. Conclusion The ACE-IT supports a structured, transparent, and flexible approach for decision-makers to appraise whether electronic health record or medical claims-based algorithms for safety outcomes are FFP for a specific decision context. Reliability and validity testing using a larger sample of participants in other therapeutic areas and further modifications to reduce the time needed to complete the assessment are needed to fully evaluate its utility for regulatory decision-making.
      PubDate: 2022-11-17
       
  • Potential Risk Factors of Drug-Related Problems in Hospital-Based Mental
           Health Units: A Systematic Review

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: Introduction Reducing the occurrence of drug-related problems is a global health concern. In mental health hospitals, drug-related problems are common, leading to patient harm, and therefore understanding their potential risk factors is key for guiding future interventions designed to minimise their frequency. Objective The aim of this systematic review was to explore the potential risk factors of drug-related problems in mental health inpatient units. Methods Six databases were searched between 2000 and 2021 to identify studies that investigated the potential risk factors of drug-related problems in adults hospitalised in mental health inpatient units. Data extraction was performed by two authors independently and Allan and Barker’s criteria were used for study quality assessment. Studies were categorised based on drug-related problem types and potential risk factors were stratified as patient, medication, and hospital related. Results A total of 22 studies were included. Studies mostly originated in Europe (n = 19/22, 86.4%), and used a multivariable logistic regression to identify potential risk factors (n = 13, 59%). Frequently investigated factors were patient age (n = 14/22), sex (n = 14/22) and the number of prescribed medications (n = 14/22). Of these, increasing the number of prescribed medications was the only factor consistently reported to be significantly associated with the occurrence of most types of drug-related problems (n = 11/14). Conclusions A variety of patient, medication and hospital-related potential risk factors of drug-related problems in mental health inpatient units were identified. These factors could guide the development of interventions to reduce drug-related problems such as pharmaceutical screening tools to identify high-risk patients for timely interventions. Future studies could test a wider range of possible factors associated with drug-related problems using standardised approaches. Clinical Trial Registration PROSPERO: CRD42021279946.
      PubDate: 2022-11-11
       
  • Fully Liquid MenACWY-CRM Vaccine: Results from an Integrated Safety
           Analysis

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: Introduction The currently licensed quadrivalent MenACWY-CRM conjugate vaccine presentation consists of two vials (lyophilized MenA and liquid MenCWY) to be reconstituted before injection. A new fully liquid, single-vial formulation has been developed to simplify administration and prevent reconstitution errors. We present pooled safety data from two randomized, controlled, observer-blind phase 2b clinical trials, in which the fully liquid presentation was compared with the licensed presentation. Methods This is a post hoc analysis of two studies, in which safety data from participants aged 10–40 years who received one dose of either liquid MenACWY-CRM (1337 participants; MenACWY liquid group) or licensed MenACWY-CRM (1332 participants; MenACWY licensed group) were pooled. Frequencies were calculated for solicited adverse events (AEs) during 7 days post-vaccination and unsolicited AEs, including medically attended AEs and serious AEs (SAEs), during the 6-month safety follow-up period. Analysis results are presented by vaccine group, overall and by age category (10–17 and 18–40 years). Results Overall, AEs solicited for collection during the first 7 days after vaccination were reported by similar percentages of participants (69.2%, MenACWY liquid; 68.2%, MenACWY licensed), and were generally mild/moderate in intensity. Solicited local AEs were reported by 46.0% of the MenACWY liquid group and 43.5% of the MenACWY licensed group and solicited systemic AEs by 55.2 and 54.1%, respectively. During the 6-month post-vaccination period, unsolicited AEs were reported by 32.2 and 31.2% of the MenACWY liquid group and MenACWY licensed group, respectively, and medically attended AEs by 18.6 and 17.3%, respectively. Overall, 14 participants in each group (1.0 and 1.1%, respectively) reported SAEs, none of which was considered vaccine-related by the investigator. The safety profiles of both MenACWY-CRM presentations were similar for each age group and overall. Conclusions This pooled analysis shows the safety profile of fully liquid MenACWY-CRM is comparable with that of the currently licensed vaccine presentation. Clinical Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT03652610 (August 29, 2018), NCT03433482 (14 February 2018). Graphical abstract
      PubDate: 2022-11-11
       
  • Optimizing Safety Surveillance for COVID-19 Vaccines at the National
           Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb: One Year of COVID-19 Vaccine Experience

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: Introduction Due to the COVID-19 vaccination campaign, national pharmacovigilance (PV) centres had to deal with high volumes of Individual Case Safety Reports (ICSRs) that needed to be processed and assessed in a short time span. This necessitated the development of a dedicated system to enable near real-time vaccine safety monitoring at the Dutch PV Centre Lareb. Objectives To describe infrastructure, processes and Adverse Events Following Immunisation (AEFIs) reported for vaccine safety monitoring of COVID-19 vaccines during a large-scale vaccination campaign in the Netherlands. Methods A COVID-19 tailored vaccine web-based reporting form collected information on the vaccine administered, AEFIs and other (medical) information. A fully automated process for ICSRs enabled the handling of the majority of common and known reported AEFIs. All other ICSRs were triaged daily and processed separately. There were daily signal detection meetings and weekly reports for batch analysis. Results In 2021, Lareb received 184,411 ICSRs, a reporting rate of 0.67% for vaccines given in the Netherlands. 887,954 AEFIs were reported, mostly well-known, nonserious AEFIs; 2.4% were serious and 0.3% were fatal. 33.1% of all ICSRs were processed fully automatically. Based on the daily triage, 4.2% were flagged as ‘high priority’; 62.7% as ‘low-priority’. Twenty-seven signals and news stories about the COVID-19 vaccines were disseminated. Conclusions Due to automatic processing of well-known AEFIs, daily triage and signal detection meetings, 99.9% of the ICSRs were processed within the compliance timeframe to Eudravigilance, and signal detection was performed during a large-scale vaccination campaign. These experiences may serve as a blueprint for future mass vaccination programs.
      PubDate: 2022-11-09
       
  • Detectability of Medication Errors With a STOPP/START-Based Medication
           Review in Older People Prior to a Potentially Preventable Drug-Related
           Hospital Admission

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: Introduction Multimorbidity and polypharmacy are risk factors for drug-related hospital admissions (DRAs) in the ageing population. DRAs caused by medication errors (MEs) are considered potentially preventable. The STOPP/START criteria were developed to detect potential MEs in older people. Objective The aim of this study was to assess the detectability of MEs with a STOPP/START-based in-hospital medication review in older people with polypharmacy and multimorbidity prior to a potentially preventable DRA. Methods Hospitalised older patients (n = 963) with polypharmacy and multimorbidity from the intervention arm of the OPERAM trial received a STOPP/START-based in-hospital medication review by a pharmacotherapy team. Readmissions within 1 year after the in-hospital medication review were adjudicated for drug-relatedness. A retrospective assessment was performed to determine whether MEs identified at the first DRA were detectable during the in-hospital medication review. Results In total, 84 of 963 OPERAM intervention patients (8.7%) were readmitted with a potentially preventable DRA, of which 72 patients (n = 77 MEs) were eligible for analysis. About half (48%, n = 37/77) of the MEs were not present during the in-hospital medication review and therefore were not detectable at that time. The pharmacotherapy team recommended a change in medication regimen in 50% (n = 20/40) of present MEs, which corresponds to 26% (n = 20/77) of the total identified MEs at readmission. However, these recommendations were not implemented. Conclusion MEs identified at readmission were not addressed by a prior single in-hospital medication review because either these MEs occurred after the medication review (~50%), or no recommendation was given during the medication review (~25%), or the recommendation was not implemented (~25%). Future research should focus on optimisation of the timing and frequency of medication review and the implementation of proposed medication recommendations. Registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02986425. December 8, 2016. Funding European Union HORIZON 2020, Swiss State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation (SERI), Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) Graphical abstract
      PubDate: 2022-11-01
       
  • Topiramate Utilization After Phentermine/Topiramate Approval for Obesity
           Management: Risk Minimization in the Era of Drug Repurposing

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: Introduction The US FDA required a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) for phentermine/topiramate, an anti-obesity medication, to prevent congenital malformations. No REMS is required for single-ingredient topiramate, which may be used off-label for the same purpose. Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of phentermine/topiramate approval in 2012 on subsequent topiramate use among patients with obesity. Methods We used a national insurance claims database to conduct an interrupted time-series study (2009–2015). Enrollees aged 18–65 years in each examined calendar quarter had full insurance benefits during that quarter and the preceding 6 months. We required patients to have an obesity diagnosis and no other conditions warranting topiramate use. We calculated topiramate or comparator drug (atorvastatin, metformin) initiation rates and evaluated changes in trends before and after 2012 (transition period). Results Among topiramate users, 80% were female, and demographic characteristics remained consistent during the study period. Between 2009 and 2011, the topiramate initiation rate (95% confidence interval) among patients with obesity was 0.85 (0.73–0.98) per 1000 patients, with no significant upward or downward trend. In the first quarter of 2013, this rate had increased more than 2.5-fold (change: + 1.36 [1.19–1.52]). Metformin and atorvastatin initiation rates did not change. Topiramate initiation rates were threefold higher than phentermine/topiramate rates during the post-approval period. Conclusion Phentermine/topiramate approval was associated with increased topiramate use among patients with obesity. Prescribers are encouraged to enhance patient education and monitoring in such clinical use since topiramate prescribing information, compared with REMS for phentermine/topiramate, has less emphasis on preventing prenatal exposure.
      PubDate: 2022-11-01
       
  • Correction to: Assessing Case Fatality on Cases of Thrombosis with
           Concurrent Thrombocytopenia Following COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca
           (Vaxzevria) in the United Kingdom: A Review of Spontaneously Reported Data
           

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      PubDate: 2022-11-01
       
  • Characterization of Serous Retinopathy Associated with Cobimetinib:
           Integrated Safety Analysis of Four Studies

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: Introduction and Objective Serous retinopathy can be associated with MEK inhibitors, including cobimetinib. We present results of an integrated safety analysis to further characterize ocular functional and structural changes due to serous retinopathy. Methods Four studies evaluating cobimetinib at the approved dose and schedule in combination with other oncology drugs were included. Study CO39721 incorporated standardized ophthalmologic assessments to fully characterize serous retinopathy events over time and was the primary study for analysis. Supporting information was provided by studies GO28141, WO29479, and GO30182. Results In total, 655 patients received one or more doses of cobimetinib and comprised the safety-evaluable population. Overall, 117 patients (17.9%) had one or more serous retinopathy events, 24 (3.7%) had two or more events, and four (0.6%) had three or more events. Grade 3 events occurred in < 2.5% of patients. In CO39721, the median time to onset was 15 days (range 7–111); median time to resolution of first occurrence was 26 days (range 6–591 + days). Twelve of 25 patients (48.0%) recovered without a dose modification and 4/25 (16.0%) were recovered/recovering following a dose modification. The most frequent presentation of serous retinopathy was focal subretinal fluid on optical coherence tomography (62.8% of cases); in some instances (25.7% of cases), subretinal fluid was multifocal. There was no loss of visual function or visual acuity at serous retinopathy onset or resolution. Conclusions Results from this integrated safety analysis indicate that cobimetinib-associated serous retinopathy can be managed with or without a dose modification of cobimetinib at the discretion of the treating physician. No visual loss or permanent retinal damage was identified on comprehensive ophthalmologic assessments. Clinical Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT03178851, NCT01689519, NCT02322814, and NCT02788279.
      PubDate: 2022-10-30
       
  • Network Analysis for Signal Detection in Spontaneous Adverse Event
           Reporting Database: Application of Network Weighting Normalization to
           Characterize Cardiovascular Drug Safety

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: Introduction Signal detection yields confirmed signals in only 2.1%, which imposes a heavy burden on the pharmacovigilance system in the European Union. Objectives We aimed to develop a network theoretical metric to increase the confirmed signal ratio of individual case safety report (ICSR) networks. Methods ICSRs of five cardiovascular adverse events were requested from EudraVigilance. We developed Vigilace™, a web-based application to build network representation of ICSRs. Three network-based signal scores, which we termed NEWS (normalized edge weight for signals) scores, were calculated by normalizing the weight of each edge in the report-based weighted network by the weight of the same edge in topological weighted networks. Depending on the third node in topological network edges, we defined full-, adverse event-, and drug-type NEWS scores. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROC) were analyzed to compare the reporting odds ratio (ROR) and NEWS scores. Results Overall, 72,475 ICSRs were accessed from EudraVigilance. Drug-type NEWS (NEWSD) score performed better (DeLong test, p-value <0.05) compared with the ROR in case of four adverse events: acute myocardial infarction (AUROC: 0.856 vs. 0.720), arrhythmia (0.657 vs. 0.614), pulmonary hypertension (0.861 vs. 0.720), and QT prolongation (0.830 vs. 0.749). Postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome was excluded due to the lack of reference data. Conclusion This is the first demonstration that report-based weighting normalized by topological weighting of co-reported drugs, which we termed as NEWSD score, can perform better compared with the ROR. An application was developed for ICSR network analysis that facilitates the calculation of this score.
      PubDate: 2022-10-06
       
  • Correction to: 21st ISoP Annual Meeting “A New Era of Pharmacovigilance:
           Challenges and Opportunities” 20–23 September 2022 Verona, Italy

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      PubDate: 2022-09-22
       
  • Lost in Translation: A Multilingual Survey of Interlinguistic Variations
           in Terms Used in Pharmacovigilance

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: Introduction Although English is the universal language of science, it is nevertheless the first language of only about 6% of the world’s population, and 75% of people do not speak English at all. It is therefore important that accurate translations of scientific information should be available, not only for professionals but also for the general public. This applies to pharmacovigilance as much as to any other discipline. Objective The aim of this study was to determine how pharmacovigilance terms are translated into other languages, in order to judge the extent to which differences between languages might impair communication in pharmacovigilance. Methods I surveyed the translation of 26 pharmacovigilance terms into 26 languages via a panel of 83 pharmacovigilance experts. Results Three types of terms emerged: Type 1—those that are similar in form across all, or almost all, of the languages surveyed (e.g. ‘signal’ and ‘risk’); Type 2—terms that are similar in form across some languages but not all (e.g. ‘pharmacovigilance’ and ‘surveillance’); Type 3—terms for which there are major differences across languages (e.g. ‘hazard’). Conclusion Misconceptions in the communication of pharmacovigilance information may arise through difficulties in translation. Metaphorical expressions are best avoided in serious scientific publications, in order to reduce the difficulties of translation. A multilingual glossary of terms and definitions, which could be used to program a dedicated machine translator, would be of value. Published guidelines offer guidance to methods of translation, but they are complex and time-consuming and are mostly used in translating instruments for eliciting patient-reported outcomes.
      PubDate: 2022-09-21
       
  • Pediatric Drug Safety Surveillance: A 10-Year Analysis of Adverse Drug
           Reaction Reporting Data in Calabria, Southern Italy

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: Introduction The paucity of pediatric clinical trials has led to many medicines frequently prescribed to children without a license for use in pediatrics, resulting in an increased risk of adverse drug reactions. Pharmacovigilance databases remain, among others, a valuable tool for evaluating pediatric drug safety in the real-life setting. Objective We aimed to characterize pediatric adverse drug reactions reported in the Italian Pharmacovigilance database coming from the Calabria region (Southern Italy) over 10 years. Methods All Individual Case Safety Reports (ICSRs) concerning individuals aged under 18 years were extracted from 2010 to 2019. Duplicate and vaccine ICSRs were excluded. The remaining ICSRs were analyzed with respect to patients’ demographic data, suspected drugs, and category of adverse drug reactions across different age groups. Results Among 6529 selected ICSRs, 395 pediatric ICSRs corresponding to 556 adverse drug reactions were analyzed. From 2010 to 2015, an increasing number of ICSRs were observed, but the reporting rate decreased after 2015. The highest proportion of ICSRs concerned children and adolescents. Around 52% of ICSRs involved boys: a trend observed in all age groups excluding newborns. Sixty ICSRs were serious and among them, 75% required hospitalization mainly in children and adolescents. Most of the ICSRs were issued by physicians (64.1%), followed by other healthcare professionals (22.5%) and pharmacists (9.9%). Anti-infective agents for systemic use and skin disorders were, respectively, the most frequently reported drug group and adverse drug reaction category. Conclusions This study provides an overview of adverse drug reactions reported in the pediatric population of the Calabria region and emphasizes the need for strengthening the surveillance in specific age subgroups and on given drugs in relation to their pattern of use.
      PubDate: 2022-09-16
       
 
JournalTOCs
School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences
Heriot-Watt University
Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, UK
Email: journaltocs@hw.ac.uk
Tel: +00 44 (0)131 4513762
 


Your IP address: 44.200.169.3
 
Home (Search)
API
About JournalTOCs
News (blog, publications)
JournalTOCs on Twitter   JournalTOCs on Facebook

JournalTOCs © 2009-