Spontaneous reporting systems remain pivotal for post-marketing surveillance and disproportionality analysis (DA) represents a recognized approach for early signal detection. Although DAs cannot be used per se as a standalone approach to assess a drug-related risk and cannot replace clinical judgment in the individual patient, their role remain irreplaceable for rapid detection of rare and unpredictable adverse drug reactions with strong drug-attributable component (e.g., designated medical events), especially when developed by a multidisciplinary team and combined with a careful case-by-case analysis (individual inspection of reports for causality assessment or to uncover reporting patterns and clinical features). In the recent past, a remarkable increase in publications of pharmacovigilance studies using DAs was observed, albeit the quality was debated: several publications contained “spin”, namely, misinterpretation of results to infer causality, calculate incidence, or provide risk stratification, which may ultimately result in unjustified alarm. The development of dedicated Guidelines by the international READUS-PV project (https://readus-statement.org/) will allow reproducible and transparent publication of accurate DAs, thus supporting their real transferability and exploitation by regulators and clinicians. This review offered a perspective on methodological aspects (and understanding) of DAs, their rationale, design, reporting, and interpretation.

Monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapy has been previously exploited for viral infections, such as respiratory syncytial virus pneumonia and Ebolavirus disease. In the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, early signals of efficacy from convalescent plasma therapy have encouraged research and development of anti-SARS-CoV-2 mAbs. While many candidates are in preclinical development, we focus here on anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing mAbs (or mAb cocktails) that represent the late-stage clinical pipeline, i.e., those currently in Phase 2 or Phase 3 clinical trials. We describe the structure, mechanism of action, and ongoing trials for VIR-7831, LY-CoV555, LY-CoV016, BGB-DXP593, REGN-COV2, and CT-P59. We speculate also on the next generation of these mAbs.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic that hit the world in 2020 triggered a massive dissemination of information (an “infodemic”) about the disease that was channeled through the print, broadcast, web, and social media. This infodemic also included sensational and distorted information about drugs that likely first influenced opinion leaders and people particularly active on social media and then other people, thus affecting choices by individual patients everywhere. In particular, information has spread about some drugs approved for other indications (chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor antagonists, favipiravir, and umifenovir) that could have led to inappropriate and therefore hazardous use. In this article, we analyze the rationale behind the claims for use of these drugs in COVID-19, the communication about their effects on the disease, the consequences of this communication on people’s behavior, and the responses of some influential regulatory authorities in an attempt to minimize the actual or potential risks arising from this behavior. Finally, we discuss the role of pharmacovigilance stakeholders in emergency management and possible strategies to deal with other similar crises in the future.