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.

Sars-CoV-2 complications include pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), which require intensive care unit admission. These conditions have rapidly overwhelmed healthcare systems, with detrimental effects on the quality of care and increased mortality. Social isolation strategies have been implemented worldwide with the aim of reducing hospital pressure. Among therapeutic strategies, the use of immunomodulating drugs, to improve prognosis, seems promising. Particularly, since pneumonia and ARDS are associated with a cytokine storm, drugs belonging to therapeutic classes as anti-IL-6, anti-TNF, and JAK inhibitors are currently studied. In this article, we discuss the potential advantages of the most promising pharmacological approaches.

Introduction: Social media mining could be a possible strategy to retrieve drug safety information. The mining of social media is a complex process under progressive evolution, falling into three broad categories: listening (safety data reporting), engaging (follow-up), and broadcasting (risk communication). This systematic review is aimed at evaluating the usefulness and quality of proto-signals by social media listening. Areas covered: In this systematic search, performed according to MOOSE and PRISMA statements, we selected studies, published in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Google Scholar until 31 December 2017, that listened at least one social media to identify proto-adverse drug events and proto-signals. Expert opinion: The selected 38 studies identified serious and unexpected proto-adverse drug events characterized by poorer information quality as compared with spontaneous reporting databases. This feature allows rarely the evaluation of causal relationships. Proto-signals identified by social media listening had the potential of anticipating pre-specified known signals in only six studies. Moreover, the personal perception of patients reported in social media could be used to implement effective risk communication strategies. However, signal detection in social media cannot be currently recommended for routine pharmacovigilance, due to logistic and technical issues.

Allopurinol is used as long-term therapy to reduce the occurrence of gout flares. This study estimated the impact of patient adherence to allopurinol on hyperuricaemia (serum uric acid levels, sUA > 6 mg/dl) and the identification of non-adherence predictors.The Italian Health Search-CSD Longitudinal Patient Database was accessed to identify outpatients aged ≥ 18 years with gout and prescribed with allopurinol during the years 2002-2011. Patients with a proportion of days covered ≥ 80% were considered adherent to allopurinol. Data on sUA levels over the first year of therapy were categorised in three time-windows (30-89; 90-149; 150-365 days). Logistic regressions were used to estimate the association between adherence and hyperuricaemia, as well as non-adherence predictors.A total of 3727 patients were included. In the interval 0-29 days, the proportion of patients adherent to allopurinol was 45.9%, while up to 89, 149 and 365 days the percentages were 16.7%, 10.0% and 3.2%, respectively. The proportions of hyperuricaemic patients for each time-window were 43.1%, 42.4%, 32.6% and 59.0%, 64.0%, 66.4% among adherent and non-adherent patients, respectively. In the multivariable analysis, adherence was associated with a significant lower risk of hyperuricaemia. The adjusted ORs were 0.49 (95% CI: 0.33-0.73), 0.40 (95% CI: 0.24-0.67) and 0.23 (95% CI: 0.15-0.34) for the first, second and third time-window, respectively. Patients with hypertension (adjusted OR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.42-0.99) and history of gout flares (adjusted OR = 0.55, 95% CI: 0.32-0.95) were significantly adherent to allopurinol.Adherence monitoring in patients with gout is pivotal to ensure the effectiveness of therapy. To gain a better patient adherence, the communication between physicians and patients should be improved.