We aimed to describe patterns of use and characteristics of 10 commonly used antidepressants for the period 2009-2014 in Denmark, Germany, Spain, and Sweden. Adult initiators from 2009 to 2014 of each study antidepressant were identified in four countries using five data sources: the Danish National registers, GePaRD (Germany), EpiChron (Aragon, Spain), SIDIAP (Catalonia, Spain), and the Swedish National Registers. The study included 10 study antidepressants: citalopram, escitalopram, fluoxetine, paroxetine, sertraline, duloxetine, venlafaxine, amitriptyline, mirtazapine, and agomelatine. Citalopram was the most prescribed study antidepressant, followed by mirtazapine. Paroxetine and agomelatine were the least prescribed antidepressants. Mirtazapine was widely used among older antidepressant initiators with higher percentages of comorbidities at baseline, and fluoxetine was used among young patients. Citalopram and amitriptyline had the lowest percentage of multiple antidepressant use in the 12 months prior to the current treatment episode, while agomelatine, duloxetine, and venlafaxine had the highest percentage of multiple antidepressant use in the year prior to the current treatment episode. The most important limitations are exposure information based on filled prescriptions, focus on antidepressant initiators only, lack of information on the indication, and heterogeneity of the type of data across data sources. Results of this study including 4.8 million study antidepressant initiators of study antidepressants suggest that citalopram and mirtazapine are the most commonly prescribed antidepressants. Agomelatine and paroxetine were the least used antidepressants in the participating populations. Mirtazapine was the antidepressant most commonly prescribed among older antidepressant initiators with high percentage of comorbidities at baseline, whereas fluoxetine was commonly used among young patients.

In 2010, a safety signal was detected for narcolepsy following vaccination with Pandemrix, an AS03-adjuvanted monovalent pandemic H1N1 influenza (pH1N1) vaccine. To further assess a possible association and inform policy on future use of adjuvants, we conducted a multi-country study of narcolepsy and adjuvanted pH1N1 vaccines. We used electronic health databases to conduct a dynamic retrospective cohort study to assess narcolepsy incidence rates (IR) before and during pH1N1 virus circulation, and after pH1N1 vaccination campaigns in Canada, Denmark, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. Using a case-control study design, we evaluated the risk of narcolepsy following AS03- and MF59-adjuvanted pH1N1 vaccines in Argentina, Canada, Spain, Switzerland, Taiwan, and the Netherlands. In the Netherlands, we also conducted a case-coverage study in children born between 2004 and 2009. No changes in narcolepsy IRs were observed in any periods in single study sites except Sweden and Taiwan; in Taiwan incidence increased after wild-type pH1N1 virus circulation and in Sweden (a previously identified signaling country), incidence increased after the start of pH1N1 vaccination. No association was observed for Arepanrix-AS03 or Focetria-MF59 adjuvanted pH1N1 vaccines and narcolepsy in children or adults in the case-control study nor for children born between 2004 and 2009 in the Netherlands case-coverage study for Pandemrix-AS03. Other than elevated narcolepsy IRs in the period after vaccination campaigns in Sweden, we did not find an association between AS03- or MF59-adjuvanted pH1N1 vaccines and narcolepsy in children or adults in the sites studied, although power to evaluate the AS03-adjuvanted Pandemrix brand vaccine was limited in our study.

Purpose: Validating cases of acute liver injury (ALI) in health care data sources is challenging. Previous validation studies reported low positive predictive values (PPVs).Methods: Case validation was undertaken in a study conducted from 2009 to 2014 assessing the risk of ALI in antidepressants users in databases in Spain (EpiChron and SIDIAP) and the Danish National Health Registers. Three ALI definitions were evaluated: primary (specific hospital discharge codes), secondary (specific and nonspecific hospital discharge codes), and tertiary (specific and nonspecific hospital and outpatient codes). The validation included review of patient profiles (EpiChron and SIDIAP) and of clinical data from medical records (EpiChron and Denmark). ALI cases were confirmed when liver enzyme values met a definition by an international working group.Results: Overall PPVs (95% CIs) for the study ALI definitions were, for the primary ALI definition, 84% (60%‐97%) (EpiChron), 60% (26%‐88%) (SIDIAP), and 74% (60%‐85%) (Denmark); for the secondary ALI definition, 65% (45%‐81%) (EpiChron), 40% (19%‐64%) (SIDIAP), and 70% (64%‐77%) (Denmark); and for the tertiary ALI definition, 25% (18%‐34%) (EpiChron), 8% (7%‐9%) (SIDIAP), and 47% (42%‐52%) (Denmark). The overall PPVs were higher for specific than for nonspecific codes and for hospital discharge than for outpatient codes. The nonspecific code “unspecified jaundice” had high PPVs in Denmark.Conclusions: PPVs obtained apply to patients using antidepressants without preexisting liver disease or ALI risk factors. To maximize validity, studies on ALI should prioritize hospital specific discharge codes and should include hospital codes for unspecified jaundice. Case validation is required when ALI outpatient cases are considered.

Background Agomelatine is a melatonin receptor agonist and serotonin 5-HT_2C receptor antagonist indicated for depression in adults. Hepatotoxic reactions like acute liver injury (ALI) are an identified risk in the European risk management plan for agomelatine. Hepatotoxic reactions have been reported for other antidepressants, but population studies quantifying these risks are scarce. Antidepressants are widely prescribed, and users often have risk factors for ALI (e.g. metabolic syndrome). Objective The goal was to estimate the risk of ALI associated with agomelatine and other antidepressants (fluoxetine, paroxetine, sertraline, escitalopram, mirtazapine, venlafaxine, duloxetine, and amitriptyline) when compared with citalopram in routine clinical practice. Method A nested case–control study was conducted using data sources in Denmark, Germany, Spain, and Sweden (study period 2009–2014). Three ALI endpoints were defined using International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes: primary (specific codes) and secondary (all codes) endpoints used only hospital discharge codes; the tertiary endpoint included both inpatient and outpatient settings (all codes). Validation of endpoints was implemented. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for current use were estimated for each data source and combined. Results We evaluated 3,238,495 new antidepressant and 74,440 agomelatine users. For the primary endpoint, the OR for agomelatine versus citalopram was 0.48 (CI 0.13–1.71). Results were also < 1 when no exclusion criteria were applied (OR 0.37; CI 0.19–0.74), when all exclusion criteria except alcohol and drug abuse were applied (OR 0.47; CI 0.20–1.07), and for the secondary (OR 0.40; CI 0.05–3.11) and tertiary (OR 0.79; CI 0.50–1.25) endpoints. Regarding other antidepressants versus citalopram, most OR point estimates were also below one, although with varying widths of the 95% CIs. The result of the tertiary endpoint and the sensitivity analyses of the primary endpoint were the most precise. Conclusion In this study, using citalopram as a comparator, agomelatine was not associated with an increased risk of ALI hospitalisation. The results for agomelatine should be interpreted in the context of the European risk minimisation measures in place. Those measures may have induced selective prescribing and could explain the lower risk of ALI for agomelatine when compared with citalopram. Most other antidepressants evaluated had ORs suggesting a lower risk than citalopram, but additional studies are required to confirm or refute these results.

Objectives: To describe the sex and gender differences in the treatment initiation and in the socio-demographic and clinical characteristics of all patients initiating an oral anticoagulant (OAC), and the sex and gender differences in prescribed doses and adherence and persistence to the treatment of those receiving direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC).Material and methods: Cohort study including patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) who initiated OAC in 2011–2020. Data proceed from SIDIAP, Information System for Research in Primary Care, in Catalonia, Spain.Results: 123,250 people initiated OAC, 46.9% women and 53.1% men. Women were older and the clinical characteristics differed between genders. Women had higher risk of stroke than men at baseline, were more frequently underdosed with DOAC and discontinued the DOAC less frequently than men.Conclusion: We described the dose adequacy of patients receiving DOAC, finding a high frequency of underdosing, and significantly higher in women in comparison with men. Adherence was generally high, only with higher levels in women for rivaroxaban. Persistence during the first year of treatment was also high in general, being significantly more persistent women than men in the case of dabigatran and edoxaban. Dose inadequacy, lack of adherence and of persistence can result in less effective and safe treatments. It is necessary to conduct studies analysing sex and gender differences in health and disease.

Atherosclerosis is a chronic inflammatory and degenerative process that mainly occurs in large- and medium-sized arteries and is morphologically characterized by asymmetric focal thickenings of the innermost layer of the artery, the intima. This process is the basis of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), the most common cause of death worldwide. Some studies suggest a bidirectional link between atherosclerosis and the consequent CVD with COVID-19. The aims of this narrative review are (1) to provide an overview of the most recent studies that point out a bidirectional relation between COVID-19 and atherosclerosis and (2) to summarize the impact of cardiovascular drugs on COVID-19 outcomes. A growing body of evidence shows that COVID-19 prognosis in individuals with CVD is worse compared with those without. Moreover, various studies have reported the emergence of newly diagnosed patients with CVD after COVID-19. The most common treatments for CVD may influence COVID-19 outcomes. Thus, their implication in the infection process is briefly discussed in this review. A better understanding of the link among atherosclerosis, CVD, and COVID-19 could proactively identify risk factors and, as a result, develop strategies to improve the prognosis for these patients.