BACKGROUND: Levocetirizine was launched onto the UK market in September 2001. It is indicated for symptomatic treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR), including persistent AR and chronic idiopathic urticaria. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to monitor the safety of levocetirizine prescribed in the primary care setting in England, in the immediate postmarketing period. METHODS: Exposure data were derived from dispensed prescriptions written by primary care physicians (general practitioners [GPs]) for levocetirizine (November 2001-November 2002): patient demographic, indication, pattern of use and outcome (event) data from enhanced prescription-event monitoring (PEM) questionnaires (with additional questions to gather further relevant information) returned by GPs. Incidence density observation rates (IDobs) [number of first reports/1000 patient-months] between months 1 and 2 (IDobs(m1/m2)) were compared for the whole cohort and by groups defined by indication and pattern of use. RESULTS: The cohort comprised 12 367 patients (median age 37 years [interquartile range 22-55]; 58% female). The most frequent indication was AR (67%; n = 8275). After 2 months, 35.7% (n = 2414) of patients were still taking levocetirizine. 'Condition improved' was the most common event and reason for stopping treatment. Headache/migraine was uncommon but associated with starting treatment (IDobs(m1/m2) 2.4 [95% CI 1.1, 6.0]), as was drowsiness/sedation (IDobs(m1/m2) 11.5 [95% CI 4.2, 43.9]). Cardiovascular events occurred rarely or very rarely, as did most central and peripheral nervous system events. No serious adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were reported. Events related to effectiveness were more frequent in month 1 than month 2 for all patient subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: This postmarketing surveillance study shows that levocetirizine is well tolerated when used in general practice in England. No previously unrecognized ADRs were detected. This study highlights how modifications to PEM, such as additional questions, are contributing to the evaluation of drug utilization factors in relation to risks.
BACKGROUND:Levocetirizine was launched onto the UK market in September 2001. It is indicated for symptomatic treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR), including persistent AR and chronic idiopathic urticaria. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to monitor the safety of levocetirizine prescribed in the primary care setting in England, in the immediate postmarketing period. METHODS: Exposure data were derived from dispensed prescriptions written by primary care physicians (general practitioners [GPs]) for levocetirizine (November 2001-November 2002): patient demographic, indication, pattern of use and outcome (event) data from enhanced prescription-event monitoring (PEM) questionnaires (with additional questions to gather further relevant information) returned by GPs. Incidence density observation rates (IDobs) [number of first reports/1000 patient-months] between months 1 and 2 (IDobs(m1/m2)) were compared for the whole cohort and by groups defined by indication and pattern of use. RESULTS: The cohort comprised 12 367 patients (median age 37 years [interquartile range 22-55]; 58% female). The most frequent indication was AR (67%; n = 8275). After 2 months, 35.7% (n = 2414) of patients were still taking levocetirizine. 'Condition improved' was the most common event and reason for stopping treatment. Headache/migraine was uncommon but associated with starting treatment (IDobs(m1/m2) 2.4 [95% CI 1.1, 6.0]), as was drowsiness/sedation (IDobs(m1/m2) 11.5 [95% CI 4.2, 43.9]). Cardiovascular events occurred rarely or very rarely, as did most central and peripheral nervous system events. No serious adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were reported. Events related to effectiveness were more frequent in month 1 than month 2 for all patient subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: This postmarketing surveillance study shows that levocetirizine is well tolerated when used in general practice in England. No previously unrecognized ADRs were detected. This study highlights how modifications to PEM, such as additional questions, are contributing to the evaluation of drug utilization factors in relation to risks.
Authors: Deborah Layton; Lynda Wilton; Andrew Boshier; Victoria Cornelius; Scott Harris; Saad A W Shakir Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2006 Impact factor: 5.606
Authors: Marie R Griffin; Christopher S Coffey; Kathleen M Neuzil; Edward F Mitchel; Peter F Wright; Kathryn M Edwards Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2002-06-10