Advertisement

Drug Safety

, Volume 33, Issue 9, pp 751–763 | Cite as

Paediatric Postmarketing Pharmacovigilance Using Prescription-Event Monitoring

Comparison of the Adverse Event Profiles of Lamotrigine Prescribed to Children and Adults in England
  • Beate Aurich-Barrera
  • Lynda Wilton
  • David Brown
  • Saad ShakirEmail author
Original Research Article

Abstract

Background: Using postmarketing pharmacovigilance data collected shortly after market authorization of lamotrigine in the UK, a study was conducted to compare the adverse event (AE) profiles of children and adults taking lamotrigine, using modified signal detection methods.

Methods: Data from the lamotrigine Prescription Event Monitoring (PEM) study, an observational cohort study, were stratified by age and examined using summary statistics for adverse drug reactions (ADRs), reasons for stopping treatment, deaths and follow-up information. Incidence densities of AEs in children (0–17 years) and adults (≥18 years) in the first month of treatment were compared with months 2–6 to examine whether the AE rates were different in these two periods. AE rates in children were compared with those in adults (proportional reporting ratio [PRR] and incidence rate ratios), to compare the AE profiles between these age groups.

Results: The cohort included 2457 children and 7379 adults. Differences in the AE profiles between children and adults were observed. Rash (PRR 1.2) and Stevens-Johnson syndrome (PRR 4.5) were more commonly reported in children, and confusion more frequently in adults (PRR 6.3). In children, 33% of ADRs were reported to the Regulatory Authority compared with 44% in adults. A higher proportion of children stopped treatment due to lack of effectiveness (45% vs 38%). No deaths were attributed to lamotrigine.

Conclusions: This study demonstrated that signal detection methods can be used to detect quantitative and qualitative differences in the AE profiles between the first children and adults taking a newly licensed drug.

Keywords

Lamotrigine Adverse Event Signal Incidence Density Proportional Reporting Ratio Prescription Event Monitoring 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to record our keen appreciation of the cooperation of the general practitioners and numerous other colleagues, including Mr Shayne Freemantle, who have helped in this study. We would also like to thank, for their important participation, the Prescription Pricing Division of the NHS Business Services Authority (formerly known as the Prescription Pricing Authority) in England. In addition, we wish to thank Mrs Lesley Flowers for assistance with the preparation of this manuscript.

The Drug Safety Research Unit (DSRU) is a registered independent charity (no. 327206). It receives unconditional donations from pharmaceutical companies. The companies have no control over the conduct or publication of the studies conducted by the DSRU. The Unit has received such funds from Wellcome, the original manufacturer of lamotrigine. After the conclusion and initial report of this study, B. Aurich-Barrera took up employment with GlaxoSmithKline in 2006 (which merged in 2001 with Wellcome) and later, in October 2009, took up employment with Novartis. L. Wilton, D. Brown and S. Shakir have declared no conflicts of interest related to the content of this study.

References

  1. 1.
    European Parliament and Council of the European Union. Regulation (EC) No. 1901/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on medicinal products for paediatric use and amending Regulation (EEC) No. 1768/92, Directive 2001/20/EC, Directive 2001/83/EC and Regulation (EC) No. 726/2004. Official Journal of the European Union: L 378/1 (27.12.2006 a)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. Regulation (EC) No. 1902/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 amending Regulation 1901/2006 on medicinal products for paediatric use. Official Journal of the European Union: L 378/20 (27.12.2006 b)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 2002. Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, 2002 Jan 4: Public Law No. 107–9Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use. Guideline on conduct of pharmacovigilance for medicines used by the paediatric population [online]. Available from URL: http://www.tga.gov.au/docs/pdf/euguide/phvwp/23591005en.pdf [Accessed 2010 Jul 20]
  5. 5.
    European Commission. Volume 9A “Pharmacovigilance for drugs for human use” of the rules governing medicinal products in the European Union; EMEA [online]. Available from URL: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/pharmaceuticals/eudralex/vol-9/pdf/vol9a_09-2008.pdf [Accessed 2009 Jan 18]
  6. 6.
    CIOMS/WHO. International guidelines for biomedical research involving human subjects. Geneva: CIOMS/WHO, 2002Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Royal College of Physicians of London. Guidelines on the practice of ethics committees in medical research involving human subjects. London: RCP, 1996Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    General Medical Council. Good practice in research [online]. Available from URL: http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/current/library/research.asp#Projects%20which%20are%20not%20approved%20by%20research%20ethics%20committees [Accessed 2009 Jan 18]
  9. 9.
    Shakir S. PEM in the UK. In: Mann RD, Andrews EB, editors. Pharmacovigilance. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2007: 307–16Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Strom B. Sample size considerations for pharmacoepidemiology studies. In: Strom B, editor. Pharmacoepidemiology. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2005: 29–36Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use. ICH harmonised tripartite guideline: clinical investigation of medicinal products in the pediatric population, E11, Step 4 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ich.org/LOB/media/MEDIA487.pdf [Accessed 2009 Jan 18]
  12. 12.
    Shakir SAW. Causality and correlation in pharmacovigilance. In: Talbot J, Waller P, editors. Stephens’ detection of new adverse drug reactions. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2004: 329–43Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Heeley E, Wilton LV, Shakir SAW. Automated signal generation in prescription-event monitoring. Drug Saf 2002; 25: 423–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    GlaxoSmithKline. Lamictal: summary of product characteristics 2009 [online]. Available from URL: http://emc.medicines.org.uk/medicine/4228/SPC/Lamictal+Combined+Tablets/ [Accessed 2009 Nov 2]
  15. 15.
    Wellcome. Lamictal (lamotrigine) tablets [data sheet]. London: Wellcome, 1991Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Martin RM, Kapoor KV, Wilton LV, et al. Underreporting of suspected adverse drug reactions to newly marketed (“black triangle”) drugs in general practice: observational study. BMJ 1998; 317: 119–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mackay FJ, Wilton LV, Pearce GL, et al. Safety of long-term lamotrigine in epilepsy. Epilepsia 1997; 38: 881–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wellcome. Lamital (lamotrigine) tablets, lamictal (lamotrigine) dispersible [data sheet]. London: Wellcome, 1994Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Turner S, Nunn AJ, Fielding K, et al. Adverse drug reactions to unlicensed and off-label drugs on paediatric wards: a prospective study. Acta Paediatr 1999; 88: 965–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wong I, Sweis D, Cope J, et al. Paediatric medicines research in the UK: how to move forward. Drug Saf 2003; 26: 529–37PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Campbell AGM, McIntosh N, editors. Forfar and Arneil’s textbook of paediatrics. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 1998Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wong IC, Mawer GE, Sander JW. Factors influencing the incidence of lamotrigine-related skin rash. Ann Pharmacother 1999; 33: 1037–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Armijo JA, Bravo J, Cuadrado A, et al. Lamotrigine serum concentration-to-dose ratio: influence of age and concomitant antiepileptic drugs and dosage implications. Ther Drug Monit 1999; 21: 182–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Burton ME, Shaw LM, Schentag JJ, et al. Special pharmacokinetic considerations in children. In: Evans WE, Schentag JJ, Jusko WJ, et al., editors. Applied pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics: principles of therapeutic drug monitoring. Baltimore (MD): Lippincot, Williams and Wilkins, 2006: 10–32Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Messenheimer JA, Giorgi L, Risner ME. The tolerability of lamotrigine in children. Drug Saf 2000; 22: 303–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Goa KL, Ross SR, Chrisp P. Lamotrigine: a review of its pharmacological properties and clinical efficacy in epilepsy. Drugs 1993; 46: 152–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Vittorio CC, Muglia JJ. Anticonvulsant hypersensitivity syndrome. Arch Intern Med 1995; 155: 2285–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wolkenstein P, Revuz J. Drug-induced severe skin reactions: incidence, management and prevention. Drug Saf 1995; 13: 56–68PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schaub JE, Williamson PJ, Barnes EW, et al. Multisystem adverse reaction to lamotrigine [letter]. Lancet 1994; 344: 481PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schaub N, Birchloer AJ. Severe hypersensitivity syndrome to lamotrigine confirmed by lymphocyte stimulation in vitro. Allergy 2000; 55: 191–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Carroll MC, Yueng-Yue KA, Essterly NB, et al. Drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome in pediatric patients. Pediatrics 2001; 108: 485–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sourander A, Haavisto A, Ronning JA, et al. Behavioural effects of the newer antiepileptic drugs: an update. Expert Opin Drug Saf 2004; 3: 1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Besag FM. Behavioural effects of the newer antiepileptic drugs: an update. Expert Opin Drug Saf 2004; 3: 1–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gilliam FG, Santos J, Vahle V, et al. Depression in epilepsy: ignoring clinical expression of neuronal network dysfunction? Epilepsia 2004; 45: 28–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kaindl AM, Asimiadou S, Manthey D, et al. Antiepileptic drugs and the developing brain. Cell Mol Life Sci 2006; 63: 399–413PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Berg AT, Shinnar S, Testa FM, et al. Mortality in childhood-onset epilepsy. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2004; 158(12): 1147–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Nilsson L, Tomson T, Farahmand BY, et al. Cause-specific mortality in epilepsy: a cohort study of more than 9000 patients once hospitalized for epilepsy. Epilepsia 1997; 38(10): 1062–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Rafnsson V, Olafsson E, Hauser WA, et al. Cause-specific mortality in adults with unprovoked seizures: a population-based incidence cohort study. Neuroepidemiology 2001; 20(4): 232–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Mendez MF, Lanska DJ, Manon-Espaillat R, et al. Causative factors for suicide attempts by overdose in epileptics. Arch Neurol 1989; 46(10): 1065–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Boerus LO. Drug-receptor interactions and biologic maturation. In: Mirkin BL, editor. Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics. Chicago (IL): Year Book Medical Publishers Inc, 1978: 3–22Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Impicciatore P, Choonara I, Clarkson A, et al. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in paediatric in/out-patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2001; 52: 77–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Beate Aurich-Barrera
    • 1
    • 2
  • Lynda Wilton
    • 1
    • 2
  • David Brown
    • 1
    • 2
  • Saad Shakir
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Drug Safety Research UnitSouthamptonUK
  2. 2.Division of Pharmacy Practice, School of Pharmacy and Biomedical SciencesPortsmouth UniversityPortsmouthUK

Personalised recommendations