Literature DB >> 15546159

Impact of regulatory labeling for troglitazone and rosiglitazone on hepatic enzyme monitoring compliance: findings from the state of Ohio medicaid program.

Robert J Cluxton1, Zili Li, Pamela C Heaton, Sheila R Weiss, Ilene H Zuckerman, Charles J Moomaw, Van Doren Hsu, Evelyn M Rodriguez.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Troglitazone, the first drug of the thiazolidinediones class for type II diabetes, was first marketed in March 1997 and was removed from the U.S. market 36 months later after 90 cases of liver failure were reported despite multiple warnings containing liver enzyme monitoring recommendations. Rosiglitazone has been available since June 1999 and is still on the market. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of labeled hepatic enzyme monitoring for troglitazone and rosiglitazone.
METHODS: Drug cohorts were assembled, using population-based fee-for-service Medicaid claims, for patients between 18 and 65 years of age who had received at least one troglitazone (n = 7226) or rosiglitazone (n = 1480) prescription between 1 April, 1997, and 21 March, 2000. The outcome of interest was the percentage of patients, based on their first treatment episode, who had baseline and post-baseline liver enzyme testing.
RESULTS: Overall baseline testing was under 9% before regulatory actions, increased to 14% after the first two 'Dear Doctor' letters issued by the FDA in October and December 1997, and peaked to about 26% afterwards. Coincident with the marketing of rosiglitazone and the fourth 'Dear Doctor' letter issued in June 1999, baseline testing dropped to 18%. Baseline testing increased 2.5-fold (race-sex-age adjusted) after regulatory action. Achieving 50% post-baseline testing took approximately 6 months for both drugs.
CONCLUSION: Regulatory actions had only modest effects on the incidence of liver monitoring. More effective and timely communication strategies, health provider prescribing interventions and modification of health provider behaviors to enhance compliance with recommended risk management measures need to be identified, evaluated and implemented. Copyright (c) 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15546159     DOI: 10.1002/pds.1048

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf        ISSN: 1053-8569            Impact factor:   2.890


  16 in total

Review 1.  Impact of safety-related regulatory action on clinical practice: a systematic review.

Authors:  Sigrid Piening; Flora M Haaijer-Ruskamp; Jonie T N de Vries; Menno E van der Elst; Pieter A de Graeff; Sabine M J M Straus; Peter G M Mol
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2012-05-01       Impact factor: 5.606

2.  A decade of safety-related regulatory action in the Netherlands: a retrospective analysis of direct healthcare professional communications from 1999 to 2009.

Authors:  Peter G M Mol; Sabine M J M Straus; Sigrid Piening; Jonie T N de Vries; Pieter A de Graeff; Flora M Haaijer-Ruskamp
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2010-06-01       Impact factor: 5.606

3.  An investigation into the effect of advice from the Scottish Medicines Consortium on the use of medicines in Scotland's Health Service.

Authors:  Marion Bennie; James Dear; Sharon Hems; Corri Black; Laura McIver; David J Webb
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 4.335

4.  Effectiveness of safety warnings in atypical antipsychotic drugs: an interrupted time-series analysis in Spain.

Authors:  Gabriel Sanfélix-Gimeno; Pedro Cervera-Casino; Salvador Peiró; Beatriz González López-Valcarcel; Amparo Blázquez; Teresa Barbera
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 5.606

5.  Pharmacy students' knowledge of black box warnings.

Authors:  Karen E Moeller; Theresa I Shireman; Joyce Generali; Sally Rigler; Angela Mayorga
Journal:  Am J Pharm Educ       Date:  2010-02-10       Impact factor: 2.047

6.  Relevance of a "Dear Doctor letter" to alert healthcare providers to new recommendations for vitamin D administration.

Authors:  Hélène Théophile; Ghada Miremont-Salamé; Philip Robinson; Nicholas Moore; Bernard Bégaud; Françoise Haramburu
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2011-05-20       Impact factor: 2.953

Review 7.  Impact of FDA drug risk communications on health care utilization and health behaviors: a systematic review.

Authors:  Stacie B Dusetzina; Ashley S Higashi; E Ray Dorsey; Rena Conti; Haiden A Huskamp; Shu Zhu; Craig F Garfield; G Caleb Alexander
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 2.983

8.  Liver Test Monitoring: Real-World Compliance for Drugs with Monitoring Requirements at 2-Week Intervals or More Frequently.

Authors:  Marsha A Wilcox; Jill Hardin; James Weaver; Erica A Voss
Journal:  Pharmaceut Med       Date:  2019-10

Review 9.  A critical review of methods to evaluate the impact of FDA regulatory actions.

Authors:  Becky A Briesacher; Stephen B Soumerai; Fang Zhang; Sengwee Toh; Susan E Andrade; Joann L Wagner; Azadeh Shoaibi; Jerry H Gurwitz
Journal:  Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf       Date:  2013-07-12       Impact factor: 2.890

10.  Agomelatine Drug Utilisation Study in Selected European Countries: A Multinational, Observational Study to Assess Effectiveness of Risk-Minimisation Measures.

Authors:  Emmanuelle Jacquot; Estelle Collin; Amy Ladner; Anita Tormos; Lynne Hamm; Susana Perez-Gutthann; Lia Gutierrez; Costel Chirila; Nicolas Deltour
Journal:  Pharmaceut Med       Date:  2019-08
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.