Oral adverse effects of drugs:taste disorders

Objective: Oral healthcare professionals are frequently confronted with patients using drugs on a daily basis. These drugs can cause taste disorders as adverse effect. The literature that discusses drug-induced taste disorders is fragmented. This article aims to support oral healthcare professionals in their decision making whether a taste disorder can be due to use of drugs by providing a comprehensive overview of drugs with taste disorders as an adverse effect. Materials and methods: The national drug information database for Dutch pharmacists, based on scientific drug information, guidelines, and summaries of product characteristics, was analyzed for drug-induced taste disorders. “MedDRA classification” and “Anatomic Therapeutical Chemical codes” were used to categorize the results. Results: Of the 1,645 drugs registered in the database, 282 (17%) were documented with “dysgeusia” and 61 (3.7%) with “hypogeusia.” Drug-induced taste disorders are reported in all drug categories, but predominantly in “antineoplastic and immunomodulating agents,” “antiinfectives for systemic use,” and “nervous system.” In ~45%, “dry mouth” coincided as adverse effect with taste disorders. Conclusion: Healthcare professionals are frequently confronted with drugs reported to cause taste disorders. This article provides an overview of these drugs to support clinicians in their awareness, diagnosis, and treatment of drug-induced taste disorders

Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Long Term Safety, Immunogenicity and Efficacy of RTS,S/AS02(D) Malaria Vaccine in Infants Living in a Malaria-Endemic Region.

The RTS,S/AS malaria candidate vaccine is being developed with the intent to be delivered, if approved, through the Expanded Programme on Immunization (EPI) of the World Health Organization. Safety, immunogenicity and efficacy of the RTS,S/AS02(D) vaccine candidate when integrated into a standard EPI schedule for infants have been reported over a nine-month surveillance period. This paper describes results following 20 months of follow up. This Phase IIb, single-centre, randomized controlled trial enrolled 340 infants in Tanzania to receive three doses of RTS,S/AS02(D) or hepatitis B vaccine at 8, 12, and 16 weeks of age. All infants also received DTPw/Hib (diphtheria and tetanus toxoids, whole-cell pertussis vaccine, conjugated Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine) at the same timepoints. The study was double-blinded to month 9 and single-blinded from months 9 to 20. From month 0 to 20, at least one SAE was reported in 57/170 infants who received RTS,S/AS02(D) (33.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 26.5, 41.2) and 62/170 infants who received hepatitis B vaccine (36.5%; 95% CI: 29.2, 44.2). The SAE profile was similar in both vaccine groups; none were considered to be related to vaccination. At month 20, 18 months after completion of vaccination, 71.8% of recipients of RTS,S/AS02(D) and 3.8% of recipients of hepatitis B vaccine had seropositive titres for anti-CS antibodies; seroprotective levels of anti-HBs antibodies remained in 100% of recipients of RTS,S/AS02(D) and 97.7% recipients of hepatitis B vaccine. Anti-HBs antibody GMTs were higher in the RTS,S/AS02(D) group at all post-vaccination time points compared to control. According to protocol population, vaccine efficacy against multiple episodes of malaria disease was 50.7% (95% CI: -6.5 to 77.1, p = 0.072) and 26.7% (95% CI: -33.1 to 59.6, p = 0.307) over 12 and 18 months post vaccination, respectively. In the Intention to Treat population, over the 20-month follow up, vaccine efficacy against multiple episodes of malaria disease was 14.4% (95% CI: -41.9 to 48.4, p = 0.545). The acceptable safety profile and good tolerability of RTS,S/AS02(D) in combination with EPI vaccines previously reported from month 0 to 9 was confirmed over a 20 month surveillance period in this infant population. Antibodies against both CS and HBsAg in the RTS,S/AS02(D) group remained significantly higher compared to control for the study duration. Over 18 months follow up, RTS,S/AS02(D) prevented approximately a quarter of malaria cases in the study population. CLINICAL TRIALS: Gov identifier: NCT00289185

An Insight into Z-Drug Abuse and Dependence: An Examination of Reports to the European Medicines Agency Database of Suspected Adverse Drug Reactions

© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of CINP.BACKGROUND: Although originally marketed as safe alternatives to the habit-forming benzodiazepines, growing numbers of zaleplon, zolpidem, and zopiclone ("Z-drugs") clinical concerns relating to their potential of abuse, dependence, and withdrawal have been reported over time. We aimed here at assessing these issues analyzing datasets of adverse drug reactions provided by the European Medicines Agency through the EudraVigilance system. METHODS: Analyzing the adverse drug reactions databases of each Z-drug, descriptive analyses have been performed on cases and proportional reporting ratios (PRRs) computed. RESULTS: An overall number of 33 240 (e.g., 23 420 zolpidem; 9283 zopiclone; and 537 zaleplon) misuse-, abuse-, dependence-, and withdrawal-related adverse drug reactions, corresponding to some 6246 unique patients given Z-drugs, were here identified. Cases were studied and described, including demographic characteristics and clinical data such as concomitant drugs, doses, routes of administration, and outcomes of the reactions (being fatalities recorded). Considering PRR values and in comparison with zopiclone, zolpidem was more frequently involved in both misuse/abuse and withdrawal issues. Zolpidem and zopiclone presented with the same dependence risk, but zopiclone was most involved in overdose adverse drug reactions. Compared with zaleplon, zopiclone presented higher dependence and overdose-related issues but slightly lower misuse/abuse and withdrawal PRR values. CONCLUSION: Current data may only represent a gross underestimate of the real prevalence of Z-drug misuse. Caution should be exercised when prescribing those molecules, especially for patients with psychiatric illnesses and/or history of drug abuse. We recommend the need to invest in proactive pharmacovigilance activities to better and promptly detect, understand, and prevent any possible misuse potential of prescribed medications.Peer reviewe