Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Experiences with the Use of Varenicline in Daily Practice in the Netherlands: A Prospective, Observational Cohort Study

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
Drug Safety Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Although a concise overview of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to varenicline is available, little is known about the use of varenicline in daily practice and time-related information about ADRs.

Objective

The aim of this study was to gain insight in the safety and use of varenicline in daily practice.

Methods

A prospective, observational, non-interventional cohort study was performed. The study population was defined as first-time users recruited through participating pharmacies between 1 December 2008 and 31 March 2012. Patients could sign up for the study on a dedicated website. Web-based questionnaires were sent after 1, 2 and 6 weeks, 3 months and 4 months after patients started to use varenicline. Questions were asked about drug use and ADRs. Information about the ADR, its seriousness and the action taken when experiencing an ADR was gathered.

Results

A total of 1,418 patients signed up for the study. The response rates for the various questionnaires varied from 31.3 to 62.5 %. At least one ADR was reported by 58.8 % of the patients. The most frequently reported ADRs were nausea (30.8 %), abdominal pain (11.2 %) and abnormal dreaming (10.4 %). Most patients did not stop taking varenicline when they experienced these ADRs. The median latency times for ADRs reported more than 50 times were 3–7 days, with an exception for depressed mood, which had a latency time of 10 days.

Conclusion

This prospective cohort study has given insight into latency time and action taken with varenicline when ADRs occur during treatment with varenicline in daily practice. It confirms the ADR pattern detected prior to marketing of the drug.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Harmark L, van Grootheest K. Web-based intensive monitoring: from passive to active drug surveillance. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2012;11(1):45–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Harmark L, van Puijenbroek E, Straus S, van Grootheest K. Intensive monitoring of pregabalin: results from an observational, Web-based, prospective cohort study in the Netherlands using patients as a source of information. Drug Saf. 2011;34(3):221–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Harmark L, van Puijenbroek E, van Grootheest K. Intensive monitoring of duloxetine: results of a web-based intensive monitoring study. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2013;69:209–15.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. European summary of product characteristics for varenicline [in Dutch]. Version date 21 Jan 2014. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/nl_NL/document_library/EPAR-Product_Information/human/000699/WC500025251.pdf. Accessed 28 March 2014.

  5. Kasliwal R, Wilton LV, Shakir SAW. Safety and drug utilization profile of varenicline as used in general practice in England: interim results from a prescription-event monitoring study. Drug Saf. 2009;32(6):499–507.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Stapleton JA, Watson L, Spirling LI, Smith R, Milbrandt A, Ratcliffe M, et al. Varenicline in the routine treatment of tobacco dependence: a pre-post comparison with nicotine replacement therapy and an evaluation in those with mental illness. Addiction. 2008;103(1):146–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. CIOMS Working Group IV. Benefit-risk balance for marketed drugs: evaluating safety signals. Geneva: CIOMS; 1998. http://www.cioms.ch/publications/g4-benefit-risk.pdf. Accessed 20 Nov 2013.

  8. MedDRA. http://www.meddra.org/. Accessed 28 March 2014.

  9. Z-Index. http://www.z-index.nl/english. Accessed 28 March 2014.

  10. Stichting Farmaceutische Kengetallen. http://www.sfk.nl/over-de-sfk. Accessed 28 March 2014.

  11. Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek. Smokers smoke for 24 years on average [in Dutch]. 2003. http://www.cbs.nl/nl-NL/menu/themas/gezondheid-welzijn/publicaties/artikelen/archief/2003/2003-1204-wm.htm. Accessed 20 Nov 2013.

  12. Harmark L, Lie-Kwie M, Berm L, de Gier H, Van Grootheest K. Patients’ motives for participating in active post-marketing surveillance. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2013;22(1):70–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Varenicline. Procedural steps taken and scientific information after the authorisation. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Procedural_steps_taken_and_scientific_information_after_authorisation/human/000699/WC500025256.pdf. Accessed 28 March 2014.

  14. Thomas KH, Martin RM, Davies NM, Metcalfe C, Windmeijer F, Gunnell D. Smoking cessation treatment and risk of depression, suicide, and self harm in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink: prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2013;347:f5704.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. NHG standard M85. Quitting smoking; 2012 [in Dutch]. http://nhg.artsennet.nl/kenniscentrum/k_richtlijnen/k_nhgstandaarden/NHGStandaard/M85_std.htm#N65909. Accessed 28 March 2014.

  16. Harmark L, Huls H, de Gier H, van Grootheest AC. Non-response in a pharmacy and patient based intensive monitoring system. PEDS. 2012;21(8):Supplement 212.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Borg JJ, Aislaitner G, Pirozynski M, Mifsud S. Strengthening and rationalizing pharmacovigilance in the EU: where is Europe heading to? A review of the new EU legislation on pharmacovigilance. Drug Saf. 2011;34(3):187–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all patients who participated in this study.

Funding and Conflicts of Interest

No sources of funding were used to conduct this study or prepare this manuscript. Ingrid Oosterhuis, Linda Härmark and Eugène van Puijenbroek have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb, Goudsbloemvallei 7, 5237 MH, ’s-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands

    Ingrid Oosterhuis, Linda Härmark & Eugène van Puijenbroek

  2. Division of Pharmacotherapy and Pharmaceutical Care, Department of Pharmacy, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands

    Eugène van Puijenbroek

Authors
  1. Ingrid Oosterhuis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Linda Härmark
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Eugène van Puijenbroek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ingrid Oosterhuis.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 23 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Oosterhuis, I., Härmark, L. & van Puijenbroek, E. Experiences with the Use of Varenicline in Daily Practice in the Netherlands: A Prospective, Observational Cohort Study. Drug Saf 37, 449–457 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-014-0166-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-014-0166-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation