IntroductionThe growing evidence of the increased frequency and severity of adverse drug events (ADEs), besides the negative impact on patient’s health status, indicates that costs due to ADEs may be steadily rising. Observational studies are an important tool in pharmacovigilance. Despite these studies being more susceptible to bias than experimental designs, they are more competent in assessing ADEs and their associated costs.ObjectiveTo identify and characterize the best available evidence on ADE-associated costs.MethodsMEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Embase were searched from 1995 to 2015. Observational studies were included. The methodological quality of selected studies was assessed by Cochrane Collaboration tool for experimental and observational studies. Studies were classified according to the setting analyzed in “ambulatory”, “hospital”, or both. Costs were classified as “direct” and “indirect”. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. The total incremental cost per patient with ADE was estimated.ResultsTwenty-nine (94%) longitudinal observational studies and two (7%) cross-sectional studies were included. Twenty-three (74%) studies were assessed with the highest methodological quality score. The studies were mainly conducted in the US (61%). Twenty (65%) studies evaluated any therapeutic group. Twenty (65%) studies estimated costs of ADEs leading to or prolonging hospitalization. The “direct costs” were evaluated in all studies, whereas only two (7%) also estimated the “indirect costs”. The “direct costs” in ambulatory ranged from €702.21 to €40,273.08, and the in hospital from €943.40 to €7,192.36.DiscussionMethodological heterogeneities were identified among the included studies, such as design, type of ADEs, suspected drugs, and type and structure of costs. Despite such discrepancies, the financial burden associated with ADE costs was found to be high. In the light of the present findings, validated methods to measure ADE-associated costs need future research efforts.

Background/Objective: The Janus kinases (JAKs) are cytoplasmic tyrosine kinases associated with membrane cytokine receptors that mediate signaling of multiple cytokines and growth factors, contributing to the pathogenesis of multiple autoimmune disorders. The JAK inhibitors are a new class of targeted therapies with proven efficacy in treating rheumatoid arthritis but are associated with an increased risk of infections. This study is aimed at comparing the relative safety of the different JAK inhibitors with regard to the risk of serious infections in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched to identify randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of JAK inhibitors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. The outcomes assessed were the risk of total and serious infections, tuberculosis, and herpes zoster. Sensitivity analysis disaggregated the results according to background therapy and licensed doses of JAK inhibitors.Results: Thirty-seven randomized controlled trials that were included met the inclusion criteria.

Ocular adverse events, newly identified during this decade, come mostly from systemic drugs, some of them marketed for several years. Physicians should be aware of drug-induced adverse events in the eye to avoid, as soon as possible, their progression, which can lead to visual impairment.

ABSTRACT.Purpose: Several pharmacoepidemiologic studies have been carried out evaluating the risk of retinal detachment associated with systemic fluoroquinolones. This meta-analysis aims to investigate such association, in the light of the best scientific evidence available. Methods: A literature search was conducted to identify relevant studies evaluating the risk for retinal detachment associated with systemic fluoroquinolones. A metaanalysis was performed to pool rate ratios (RRs). Meta-regressions were conducted aiming to evaluate the influence of time interval between fluoroquinolones use and retinal detachment diagnosis or treatment risk estimates. Results: Ten observational studies from seven publications were included. Overall, fluoroquinolones were not associated with an increased risk for retinal detachment [RR 1.47 (95% CI 0.95-2.27): p = 0.09; I 2 = 92.8%]. When the analysis was stratified according to different study designs, the result was statistically significant for retrospective cohort studies [RR 1.87 (95% CI 1.36-2.58); p < 0.001; I 2 = 0.0%] and for past users of fluoroquinolones, based on data from case-control studies [RR 1.07 (95% CI 1.01-1.12); p = 0.01; I 2 = 0.0%]. According to meta-regressions, the risk for retinal detachment did not vary due to different time intervals between fluoroquinolones prescription and retinal detachment occurrence. No statistically significant results were identified among studies evaluating only rhegmatogenous retinal detachments, as well as among studies that evaluated patients not requiring a prior ophthalmologist visit to be included. Conclusions:In light of the current available evidence, systemic fluoroquinolones do not seem to be associated with retinal detachment.

It was not found any safety signal issued by drug regulatory agencies exclusively generated by DA. More research devoted to this issue is needed, since the value of these methods on drug safety signaling and their impact on drug regulation actions remains to be established.