Dataset Information

Targeted therapies and adverse drug reactions in oncology: the role of clinical pharmacist in pharmacovigilance.

ABSTRACT: Background The majority of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) reported in the summary of product characteristics (SPCs) are based on pivotal clinical trials, performed under controlled conditions and with selected patients. Objectives (1) to observe ADRs in the real-world setting and to evaluate if the supervision of the pharmacist impacts on the management of ADRs and on the satisfaction of patients; (2) to sensitise health professionals and patients on the need to increase the reporting of ADRs, in compliance with Pharmacovigilance. Setting CRO Aviano, Italian National Cancer Institute. Method From February 2013 to April 2015, we conducted an observational study enrolling 154 patients (≥ 18 years) undergoing treatment with at least one of ten targeted-therapies included in the study. Main outcome ADR reporting in the real-world setting. Patient satisfaction with clinical pharmacist support. Results Reported ADRs in the real setting do not always correspond with data described in the respective SPCs. Unknown ADRs were also identified such as hyperglycaemia with lenalidomide and sorafenib; and hypomagnesaemia with bevacizumab. We also observed a 124.3% increase in spontaneous reports. Conclusion This study shows the high value of active pharmacovigilance programs, and our results might be a starting point for developing a randomised trial which should aim to demonstrate the impact of the pharmacist on improving patient's adherence and in measuring the difference in ADRs reports in the different arms followed or not by the pharmacist.

SUBMITTER: Fornasier G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6132980 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Key to pharmacovigilance is spontaneously reporting all Adverse Drug Reactions (ADR) during post-market surveillance. This facilitates the identification and evaluation of previously unreported ADR's, acknowledging the trade-off between benefits and potential harm of medications. Only 41% Antiretroviral (ARV) ADR's documented in Harare city clinical records for January to December 2016 were reported to Medicines Control Authority of Zimbabwe (MCAZ). We investigated reasons contributing to underreporting of ARV ADR's in Harare city. METHODS:A descriptive cross-sectional study and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) guided surveillance evaluation was conducted. Two hospitals were purposively included. Seventeen health facilities and 52 health workers were randomly selected. Interviewer-administered questionnaires, key informant interviews and WHO pharmacovigilance checklists were used to collect data. Likert scales were applied to draw inferences and Epi info 7 used to generate frequencies and proportions. RESULTS:Of the 52 participants, 32 (61.5%) distinguished the ARV ADR defining criteria. Twenty-nine (55.8%) knew system's purpose whilst 28 (53.8%) knew the reporting process. Knowledge scored average on the 5-point-Likert scale. Thirty-eight (73.1%) participants identified ARV ADR's following client complaints and nine (1.3%) enquired clients' medication response. Forty-six (88.5%) cited non-feedback from MCAZ for underreporting. Inadequate ARV ADR identification skills were cited by 21 (40.4%) participants. Reporting forms were available in five (26.3%) facilities and reports were generated from hospitals only. Forty-two (90.6%) clinicians made therapeutic decisions from ARV ADR's. Averaged usefulness score was 4, on the 5-point-Likert scale. All 642 generated signals were committed to Vigiflow by MCAZ, reflecting a case detection rate of 4/ 100 000. Data quality was 0.75-1.0 (WHO) and all reports were causally assessed. CONCLUSION:The pharmacovigilance system was useful, simple, and acceptable despite being unstable, not representative and not sensitive. It was threatened by suboptimal health worker knowledge, weak detection strategies and referral policy preventing ARV ADR identification by person place and time. Revisiting local policy, advocacy, communication and health worker orientation might improve pharmacovigilance performance in Harare city.

Project description:BackgroundThe introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in clinical practice has brought significant benefits for patients. Seven ICIs are available in Europe: nivolumab, pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, avelumab, durvalumab, cemiplimab, and ipilimumab. Despite their proven clinical efficacy, these innovative drugs may cause serious immune-related adverse drugs reactions (irADRs). Given the significance of these ADRs for patients' health, we analyzed individual case safety reports (ICSRs) related to ICIs, focusing on those reporting irADRs, collected in the Italian spontaneous reporting database.MethodsWe analyzed ICI-induced irADRs collected in the Italian Pharmacovigilance database (Rete Nazionale di Farmacovigilanza [RNF]) from January 1, 2002, to February 28, 2019, focusing on those reported in the Campania Region. We retrieved from an open-access Italian pharmacovigilance system, the RAM system (for national safety data), and from the RNF (for Campania safety data) all ICSRs reporting ADRs related to ICIs authorized until the analysis date. Focusing on irADRs, we performed descriptive and disproportionality analyses through the reporting odds ratio (ROR) with 95% confidence interval.ResultsNational results. Among 2,088 ICI-related ICSRs, 801 reported irADRs. The majority of such ADRs occurred in male patients reporting gastrointestinal and skin toxicities. Nivolumab and pembrolizumab were drugs most commonly reported as suspect drugs. Compared to other ICIs, ROR was statistically significant for pembrolizumab and ipilimumab.Campania Region results. Out of 253 ICI-related ICSRs sent to Regional Pharmacovigilance Center of Campania Region, 121 reported at least one ICI-induced irADR. These were serious in 37.2% of cases and had an unfavorable outcome in 32.2% of cases. Overall, out of 8 ICSRs reported ADR with a fatal outcome, four reported irADRs. From disproportionality analyses on Campania Region ICSRs, statistically significant ROR emerged only for ipilimumab.ConclusionsOur results showed that during the study period several serious irADRs were reported, some of which had fatal outcome. Given the clinical relevance of irADRs, further investigations in real-life context are necessary for a better characterization of ICIs safety profiles. Oncologists should be trained to early recognize and adequately manage irADRs. Patients should also be educated to immediately report any new symptom or worsening of pre-existed ones during the ICI treatment.

Project description:Introduction and objectiveSignals of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) can be supported by reports of ADRs and by interventional and non-interventional studies. The evidence base and features of ADR reports that are used to support signals remain to be comprehensively described. To this end, we have undertaken a scoping review.MethodsWe searched the following databases: PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Google Scholar, without language or time restrictions. We also hand searched the bibliographies of relevant studies. We included studies of any design if the results were described as signals. We assessed the levels of evidence using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) criteria and coded features of reports of ADRs using the Bradford Hill guidelines.ResultsOverall, 1974 publications reported 2421 studies of signals; 1683/2421 were clinical assessments of anecdotal reports of ADRs, but only 225 (13%) of these included explicit judgments on which features of the ADR reports were supportive of a signal. These 225 studies yielded 228 signals; these were supported by features, which were: 'experimental evidence' (i.e., positive dechallenge or rechallenge, 154 instances [68%]), 'temporality' (i.e., time to onset, 130 [57%]), 'exclusion of competing causes' (49 [21%]), and others (40 [17%]). Positive dechallenge/rechallenge often co-occurred with temporality (77/228). OCEBM 4 (i.e., case series and case-control studies) was the most frequent level of evidence (2078 studies). Between 2013 and 2019, there was a three-fold increase in clinical assessments of reports of ADRs compared with a less than two-fold increase in studies supported by higher levels of evidence (i.e., OCEBM 1-3). We identified an increased rate between 2013 and 2019 in disproportionality analyses (about 15 studies per year), mostly from academia.ConclusionsMost signals were supported by temporality and dechallenge/rechallenge, but clear reporting of judgments on causality remains infrequent. The number of studies supported only by anecdotal reports of ADRs increased from year to year. The impact of a growing number of signals of disproportionate reporting communicated without an accompanying clinical assessment should be evaluated.

Dataset Information

Targeted therapies and adverse drug reactions in oncology: the role of clinical pharmacist in pharmacovigilance.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets