Dataset Information

Safety and Persistence of Nalmefene Treatment for Alcohol Dependence. Results from Two Post-authorisation Safety Studies.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

Two post-authorisation studies assessed the safety and persistence of patients' use of nalmefene.

Methods

The START study (EUPAS5678) was a non-interventional, multi-country, prospective, 18-month (8 follow-up visits) cohort study including outpatients initiating nalmefene for the first time. The multi-database retrospective cohort study (MDRC, EUPAS14083) included baseline and follow-up data from German, Swedish and UK healthcare databases. Both studies permitted 'all comers' without explicit exclusion criteria; predefined subgroups of interest included the elderly (≥65 years) as well as patients with significant psychiatric and/or somatic comorbidities.

Results

START study: Overall, the mean duration of nalmefene treatment was 10.3 ± 7.3 months (N = 1348), with 49.0% of patients treated for ≥1 year; frequent reasons for treatment discontinuation were 'goal reached' and 'drug cost'. The most frequently reported adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were nausea (4.7%), dizziness (3.2%) and insomnia (2.0%). ADR rates appeared higher in the elderly subpopulation (18.6% reported ≥1 ADR vs. 12.0% in the total population) but were not higher in the other predefined subgroups.MDRC study: The database follow-up analysis followed 2892 patients over 18 months for whom the duration of nalmefene treatment was between 2 and 3 months and <5% of patients used nalmefene for ≥1 year.

Conclusions

Despite the inclusion of a wider patient population (e.g. elderly patients and those with relevant co-morbidities), the safety and tolerability profile of nalmefene given in routine practice was consistent with previous clinical studies. The differing rates of persistence beyond 1 year likely reflect the different methodologies and highlight the relevance of psychosocial support at follow-up visits.

SUBMITTER: Chick J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8406067 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLow-dose analgesic methoxyflurane (Penthrox®) was approved in Europe for emergency relief of moderate to severe pain in conscious adults with trauma in 2015. A comparative post-authorisation safety study (PASS) was conducted to assess the risk of hepatotoxicity and nephrotoxicity with methoxyflurane during routine clinical practice.MethodsThis was a comparative hybrid prospective-retrospective cohort study. The comparative cohorts consisted of adults who were given methoxyflurane (methoxyflurane cohort) or another analgesic (concurrent cohort) routinely used for moderate to severe trauma and associated pain in the emergency setting (ambulance and Emergency Department) in the UK between December 2016 and November 2018. Hepatic and renal events were captured in the ensuing 12 weeks. A blinded clinical adjudication committee assessed events. A historical comparator cohort (non-concurrent cohort) was identified from patients with fractures in the English Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) accident and emergency database from November 2013 and November 2015 (before commercial launch of methoxyflurane). Hepatic and renal events were captured in the ensuing 12 weeks via linkage with the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) and HES hospital admissions databases.ResultsOverall, 1,236, 1,101 and 45,112 patients were analysed in the methoxyflurane, concurrent and non-concurrent comparator cohorts respectively. There was no significant difference in hepatic events between the methoxyflurane and concurrent cohorts (1.9% vs. 3.0%, P = 0.079) or between the methoxyflurane and non-concurrent cohorts (1.9% vs. 2.5%, P = 0.192). Renal events were significantly less common in the methoxyflurane cohort than in the concurrent cohort (2.3% vs. 5.6%, P < 0.001). For methoxyflurane versus non-concurrent cohort the lower occurrence of renal events (2.3% vs. 3.2%, P = 0.070) was not statistically significant. Multivariable adjustment did not change these associations.ConclusionsMethoxyflurane administration was not associated with an increased risk of hepatotoxicity or nephrotoxicity compared with other routinely administered analgesics and was associated with a reduced risk of nephrotoxicity compared with other routinely administered analgesics.Trial registrationStudy registered in the EU PAS Register (ENCEPP/SDPP/13040).

Project description:BackgroundThe European post-authorisation study (EU PAS) register is a repository launched in 2010 by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). All EMA-requested PAS, commonly observational studies, must be recorded in this register. Multi-database studies (MDS) leveraging secondary data have become an important strategy to conduct PAS in recent years, as reflected by the type of studies registered in the EU PAS register.ObjectivesTo analyse and describe PAS in the EU PAS register, with focus on MDS.MethodsStudies in the EU PAS register from inception to 31st December 2018 were described concerning transparency, regulatory obligations, scope, study type (e.g., observational study, clinical trial, survey, systematic review/meta-analysis), study design, type of data collection and target population. MDS were defined as studies conducted through secondary use of >1 data source not linked at patient-level. Data extraction was carried out independently by 14 centres with expertise in pharmacoepidemiology, using publicly available information in the EU PAS register including study protocol, whenever available, using a standardised data collection form. For validation purposes, a second revision of key fields for a 15% random sample of studies was carried out by a different centre. The inter-rater reliability (IRR) was then calculated. Finally, to identify predictors of primary data collection-based studies/versus those based on secondary use of healthcare databases) or MDS (vs. non-MDS), odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated fitting univariate logistic regression models.ResultsOverall, 1426 studies were identified. Clinical trials (N = 30; 2%), systematic reviews/meta-analyses (N = 16; 1%) and miscellaneous study designs (N = 46; 3%) were much less common than observational studies (N = 1227; 86%). The protocol was available for 63% (N = 360) of 572 observational studies requested by a competent authority. Overall, 36% (N = 446) of observational studies were based fully or partially on primary data collection. Of 757 observational studies based on secondary use of data alone, 282 (37%) were MDS. Drug utilisation was significantly more common as a study scope in MDS compared to non-MDS studies. The overall percentage agreement among collaborating centres that collected the data concerning study variables was highest for study type (93.5%) and lowest for type of secondary data (67.8%).ConclusionsObservational studies were the most common type of studies in the EU PAS register, but 30% used primary data, which is more resource-intensive. Almost half of observational studies using secondary data were MDS. Data recording in the EU PAS register may be improved further, including more widespread availability of study protocols to improve transparency.