A pharmacoepidemiological study of the association of suicide reattempt risk with psychotropic drug exposure

INTRODUCTION

Recent pharmacoepidemiological studies have suggested that consumption of certain classes of psychotropic drugs could be considered protective or risk factors for suicidal behaviour. The aim of the study was to evaluate the association between the risk of suicide reattempt within 6 and 14 months after a suicide attempt (SA) with the use of different classes of psychotropic drugs, combination pairs and treatment adequacy from inclusion through 6 and 14 months post-SA.

METHOD

A prospective observational cohort of 972 subjects from the ALGOS study from January 2010 to February 2013 was used to evaluate the association of risk of suicide reattempt within 6 and 14 months with the use of different classes of psychotropic drugs (antidepressants, anxiolytics, antipsychotics, lithium, anticonvulsants, analgesics, opioid maintenance therapy and maintenance treatment for alcohol dependence). A multivariable Cox model was performed after imputation of missing data using the multiple imputation method.

RESULTS

Our main results did not show an association between psychotropic drug use and suicide reattempt after 6 months of follow-up. We demonstrated that the use of benzodiazepines (HR = 1.87 [1.25; 2.81], p < 0.01) and hypnotics (HR = 1.49 [1.03; 2.17], p = 0.04) or a combination of both (HR = 1.80 [1.17; 2.72], p = 0.01) were associated with suicide reattempt within 14 months after a previous SA.

CONCLUSION

The early identification of a positive association between psychotropic drugs and the risk of suicidal behaviour is extremely important for prevention of suicide reattempts. Special precautions should be considered when prescribing psychotropic drugs for these subjects, particularly those at risk of suicide reattempt.

Incidence of Adverse Drug Reactions in High-Risk Pregnancy: A Prospective Cohort Study in Obstetric Intensive Care

PURPOSE

To estimate the cumulative incidence of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in women with high-risk pregnancy hospitalized in an obstetric intensive care unit, then to describe the medicines involved and to identify major risk factors.

METHODS

From June 2016 to December 2017, patients admitted to the ICU with high-risk pregnancy were considered eligible in this observational, longitudinal, prospective study. Patients were investigated daily for the occurrence of ADRs through pharmaceutical anamnesis, active search in medical records and questioning of the health team. Suspected ADRs were classified according to Naranjo's algorithm. Written informed consent was obtained from all patients. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression were used to identify risk factors of ADR.

RESULTS

The study population consisted of 607 high-risk pregnancies from 851 women admitted to the ICU, of whom 244 admitted for non-obstetric conditions, with an ICU stay less than 24 h or readmitted to the ICU were excluded. The mean age was 27.0 ± 7.5 years-old, mean gestational age was 33.8 ± 6.3 weeks. ADR were observed in 165 women (27.2%). No severe ADR was observed and 29.7% were of moderate severity. The most often implicated medicine was magnesium sulphate (25.2%) with 44.5% of patients administered that substance experiencing ADRs consisting of somnolence (68.6%), absent patellar reflex (21.6%) and hypotension (9.8%). Risk factors of ADR were blood pressure (adjusted odds-ratio (aOR) 1.02), haemoglobin level (aOR 1.21) and body temperature (aOR 0.71).

CONCLUSIONS

ADRs affect about one third of high-risk pregnancies, mainly due to magnesium sulphate administrations. High blood pressure, lower body temperature, and high haemoglobin concentration on admission were associated with an increased risk of ADR.

The need for a transparent, ethical, and successful relationship between academic scientists and the pharmaceutical industry: a view of the Group for the Respect of Ethics and Excellence in Science (GREES)

This paper provides recommendations for fair and unbiased relationship between academic scientists and the pharmaceutical industry.

INTRODUCTION

Real or perceived problems in the relationship between academics and the industry have been the subject of much recent debate. It has been suggested that academic clinicians should sever all links with the industry-a view that is rarely challenged.

METHODS

Academic experts and members of the pharmaceutical industry were invited to an expert consensus meeting to debate this topic. This meeting was organized by the Group for the Respect of Ethics and Excellence in Science. Conflict of interest, competing interest, right and duties of academic scientist, authorship, and staff and student education were discussed.

RESULTS

Guidelines for a transparent, ethical, strong, and successful partnership between the academic scientist and the pharmaceutical industry have been provided.

CONCLUSIONS

The Group support interactions between the industry and clinicians provided that it is transparent and ethical.