AIM We assessed the hepatic safety of novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) analyzing the publicly available US-FDA adverse event reporting system (FAERS). METHODS We extracted reports of drug-induced liver injury (DILI) associated with NOACs, including acute liver failure (ALF) events. Based on US marketing authorizations, we performed disproportionality analyses, calculating reporting odds ratios (RORs) with 95% confidence interval (CI), also to test for event-and drug-related competition bias, and case-by-case evaluation for concomitant medications. RESULTS DILI reports represented 3.7% (n = 146) and 1.7% (n = 222) of all reports for rivaroxaban and dabigatran, respectively. No statistically significant association was found for dabigatran, in primary and secondary analyses. Disproportionality signals emerged for rivaroxaban in primary analysis (ALF: n = 25, ROR = 2.08, 95% CI 1.34, 3.08). In a large proportion of DILI reports concomitant hepatotoxic and/or interacting drugs were recorded: 42% and 37% (rivaroxaban and dabigatran, respectively), especially statins, paracetamol and amiodarone. Among ALF reports, fatal outcome occurred in 49% of cases (44% and 51%, rivaroxaban and dabigatran, respectively), whereas rapid onset of the event (<1 week) was detected in 46% of patients (47% and 44%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS The disproportionality signal for rivaroxaban calls for further comparative population-based studies to characterize and quantify the actual DILI risk of NOACs, taking into account drug-and patient-related risk factors. As DILI is unpredictable, our findings strengthen the role of (a) timely pharmacovigilance to detect post-marketing signals of DILI through FAERS and other data sources, (b) clinicians to assess early, on a case-by-case basis, the potential responsibility of NOACs when they diagnose a liver injury. WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ABOUT THIS SUBJECT • Drug-induced liver injury (DILI) represents a serious clinical event unlikely to be predicted from clinical trials, thus making spontaneous reporting systems a valuable tool to detect post-marketing safety signals. • Novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have been on the market for 5 years, with only limited and partial post-marketing data in terms of DILI risk. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS • DILI reports in the US-FDA adverse event reporting system (FAERS) highlighted a disproportionality signal for rivaroxaban, with consistent findings against different reporting bias (i.e. drug-and event-competition bias). • Concomitant hepatotoxic and/or interacting agents were recorded in 39% of DILI reports, thus warranting clinical judgment on a case-by-case basis.

AIM: To inform clinicians on the level of hepatotoxic risk among antimycotics in the post-marketing setting, following the marketing suspension of oral ketoconazole for drug-induced liver injury (DILI). METHODS:The publicly available international FAERS database (2004)(2005)(2006)(2007)(2008)(2009)(2010)(2011) was used to extract DILI cases (including acute liver failure events), where antimycotics with systemic use or potential systemic absorption were reported as suspect or interacting agents. The reporting pattern was analyzed by calculating the reporting odds ratio and corresponding 95%CI, a measure of disproportionality, with time-trend analysis where appropriate. RESULTS:From 1687284 reports submitted over the 8-year period, 68115 regarded liver injury. Of these, 2.9% are related to antimycotics (1964 cases, of which 112 of acute liver failure). Eleven systemic antimycotics (including ketoconazole and the newer triazole derivatives voriconazole and posaconazole) and terbinafine (used systemically to treat onychomicosis) generated a significant disproportionality, indicating a post-marketing signal of risk. CONCLUSION:Virtually all antimycotics with systemic action or absorption are commonly reported in clinically significant cases of DILI. Clinicians must be aware of this aspect and monitor patients in case switch is considered, especially in critical poly-treated patients under chronic treatment.

BackgroundDrug-induced torsades de pointes (TdP) and related clinical entities represent a current regulatory and clinical burden.ObjectiveAs part of the FP7 ARITMO (Arrhythmogenic Potential of Drugs) project, we explored the publicly available US FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database to detect signals of torsadogenicity for antipsychotics (APs).MethodsFour groups of events in decreasing order of drug-attributable risk were identified: (1) TdP, (2) QT-interval abnormalities, (3) ventricular fibrillation/tachycardia, and (4) sudden cardiac death. The reporting odds ratio (ROR) with 95 % confidence interval (CI) was calculated through a cumulative analysis from group 1 to 4. For groups 1+2, ROR was adjusted for age, gender, and concomitant drugs (e.g., antiarrhythmics) and stratified for AZCERT drugs, lists I and II (http://www.azcert.org, as of June 2011). A potential signal of torsadogenicity was defined if a drug met all the following criteria: (a) four or more cases in group 1+2; (b) significant ROR in group 1+2 that persists through the cumulative approach; (c) significant adjusted ROR for group 1+2 in the stratum without AZCERT drugs; (d) not included in AZCERT lists (as of June 2011).ResultsOver the 7-year period, 37 APs were reported in 4,794 cases of arrhythmia: 140 (group 1), 883 (group 2), 1,651 (group 3), and 2,120 (group 4). Based on our criteria, the following potential signals of torsadogenicity were found: amisulpride (25 cases; adjusted ROR in the stratum without AZCERT drugs = 43.94, 95 % CI 22.82–84.60), cyamemazine (11; 15.48, 6.87–34.91), and olanzapine (189; 7.74, 6.45–9.30).ConclusionsThis pharmacovigilance analysis on the FAERS found 3 potential signals of torsadogenicity for drugs previously unknown for this risk.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40264-013-0032-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundAntipsychotics (APs) have been associated with risk of torsade de Pointes (TdP). This has important public health implications. Therefore, (a) we exploited the public FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) to characterize their torsadogenic profile; (b) we collected drug utilization data from 12 European Countries to assess the population exposure over the 2005-2010 period.MethodsFAERS data (2004-2010) were analyzed based on the following criteria: (1) ≥4 cases of TdP/QT abnormalities; (2) Significant Reporting Odds Ratio, ROR [Lower Limit of the 95% confidence interval>1], for TdP/QT abnormalities, adjusted and stratified (Arizona CERT drugs as effect modifiers); (3) ≥4 cases of ventricular arrhythmia/sudden cardiac death (VA/SCD); (4) Significant ROR for VA/SCD; (5) Significant ROR, combined by aggregating TdP/QT abnormalities with VA and SCD. Torsadogenic signals were characterized in terms of signal strength: from Group A (very strong torsadogenic signal: all criteria fulfilled) to group E (unclear/uncertain signal: only 2/5 criteria). Consumption data were retrieved from 12 European Countries and expressed as defined daily doses per 1,000 inhabitants per day (DID).Results Thirty-five antipsychotics met at least one criterium: 9 agents were classified in Group A (amisulpride, chlorpromazine, clozapine, cyamemazine, haloperidol, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, ziprasidone). In 2010, the overall exposure to antipsychotics varied from 5.94 DID (Estonia) to 13.99 (France, 2009). Considerable increment of Group A agents was found in several Countries (+3.47 in France): the exposure to olanzapine increased across all Countries (+1.84 in France) and peaked 2.96 in Norway; cyamemazine was typically used only in France (2.81 in 2009). Among Group B drugs, levomepromazine peaked 3.78 (Serbia); fluphenazine 1.61 (Slovenia).ConclusionsThis parallel approach through spontaneous reporting and drug utilization analyses highlighted drug- and Country-specific scenarios requiring potential regulatory consideration: levomepromazine (Serbia), fluphenazine (Slovenia), olanzapine (across Europe), cyamemazine (France). This synergy should be encouraged to support future pharmacovigilance activities.

BackgroundThere is appreciable utilisation of antihistamines (H1) in European countries, either prescribed by physician and purchased by patients for self-medication. Terfenadine and astemizole underwent regulatory restrictions in ’90 because of their cardiac toxicity, but only scarce clinical data are available on other antihistamines.AimTo investigate the pro-arrhythmic potential of antihistamines by combining safety reports of the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) with drug utilization data from 13 European Countries.MethodsWe identified signals of antihistamine arrhythmogenic potential by analyzing FAERS database for all cases of Torsades de Pointes (TdP), QT abnormalities (QTabn), ventricular arrhythmia (VA) and sudden cardiac death/cardiac arrest (SCD/CA). Number of cases ≥3 and disproportionality were used to define alert signals: TdP and QTabn identified stronger signals, whereas SCD/CA identified weaker signals. Drug utilization data from 2005 to 2010 were collected from administrative databases through health authorities and insurance.ResultsAntihistamines were reported in 109 cases of TdP/QT prolongation, 278 VA and 610 SCD/CA. Five agents resulted in stronger signals (cetirizine, desloratadine, diphenhydramine, fexofenadine, loratadine) and 6 in weaker signals (alimemazine, carbinoxamine, cyclizine, cyproeptadine, dexchlorpheniramine and doxylamine). Exposure to antihistamines with stronger signal was markedly different across European countries and was at least 40% in each Country. Cetirizine was >29 Defined Daily Doses per 1000 inhabitants per day (DID) in Norway, desloratadine >11 DID in France and loratadine >9 DID in Sweden and Croatia. Drugs with weaker signals accounted for no more than 10% (in Sweden) and in most European countries their use was negligible.ConclusionsSome second-generation antihistamines are associated with signal of torsadogenicity and largely used in most European countries. Although confirmation by analytical studies is required, regulators and clinicians should consider risk-minimisation activities. Also antihistamines without signal but with peculiar use in a few Countries (e.g., levocetirizine) or with increasing consumption (e.g., rupatadine) deserve careful surveillance.