Aims: We aimed to assess and characterize sex differences in adverse drug reactions (ADRs) reported to the national pharmacovigilance centre in the Netherlands while considering differences in drug use.Methods: ADRs spontaneously reported by healthcare professionals and patients to the Netherlands pharmacovigilance centre Lareb were used. Drug–ADR combinations reported at least 10 times between 2003–2016 for drugs used by ≥10,000 persons in that period were included. Data about the number of drug users was obtained from the National Health Care Institute. Sex‐specific ADRs, like gynaecological problems, were excluded. Sex differences in specific drug–ADR combinations were tested using bivariate logistic regression analyses in which the number of drug users per sex was taken into account.Results: In total, 2483 drug–ADR combinations were analysed. Possibly relevant sex differences were shown in 363 combinations (15%). Most of these drug–ADR combinations were reported more often for women (322 combinations). Drugs with the highest number of ADRs that were more often reported for women included thyroid hormones (32 combinations) and antidepressants (16 combinations for the centrally acting sympathomimetics; 14 combinations for other antidepressants). Some ADRs were predominantly reported for women across a range of drugs such as headache and dizziness whereas other ADRs such as tendon ruptures and aggression were reported more often for men.Conclusions: Identified sex differences in reported ADRs often referred to women. These differences may have various causes, including pharmacological and behavioural causes, which need to be further assessed. The results may ultimately lead to sex‐specific prescribing or monitoring recommendations.

Introduction In general, women more often experience metformin-associated adverse drug reactions (ADRs) than men. Objectives We aimed to assess whether sex differences in reported ADRs for metformin are observed at different times after initiation, and to explore their concurrence with sex differences in the dose of metformin over time. This may guide future studies in assessing the involved mechanisms of sex differences in metformin-associated ADRs and may guide sex-specific management of ADRs in clinical practice. Methods This study has a longitudinal design using data about patients initiating metformin collected by the Dutch National Pharmacovigilance Center Lareb through their Intensive Monitoring program. Patients were asked to complete a web-based questionnaire six times after initiation (i.e., at 2 weeks, 6 weeks and at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months). The outcome variables were the proportion of patients reporting any ADR (primary) and the dose of metformin (secondary). Sex differences in the proportions of ADRs and in the dose were tested at each assessment using Pearson Chi-Squared tests and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, respectively. Using Bonferroni adjustment for multiple testing, a p value < 0.01 was considered statistically significant. Results The number of included patients was 1712 (40.9% women). Women reported an ADR more often than men, which was statistically significant at the assessment at 2 weeks (34% vs 25%, p < 0.001), and 6 weeks (37% vs 28%, p = 0.001) after initiation. In general, women were reported to be prescribed a lower dose than men, which became statistically significant at the 9-month assessment (p < 0.01). Conclusions Sex differences in reported ADRs were seen in the first weeks after metformin initiation, whereas statistically significant differences in self-reported prescribed dosing were observed after several months. Patients, in particular women, might benefit from being prescribed lower metformin doses at treatment initiation.

Conventional therapy is commonly used for the treatment of inflammatory skin conditions, but undesirable effects, such as erythema, dryness, skin thinning, and resistance to treatment, may cause poor patient compliance. Therefore, patients may seek complementary treatment with herbal plant products including essential oils (EOs). This scoping review aims to generate a broad overview of the EOs used to treat inflammatory skin conditions, namely, acne vulgaris, dermatitis and eczema, psoriasis, and rosacea, in a clinical setting. The quality, efficacy, and safety of various EOs, as well as the way in which they are prepared, are reviewed, and the potential, as well as the limitations, of EOs for the treatment of inflammatory skin conditions are discussed. Twenty-nine eligible studies (case studies, uncontrolled clinical studies, and randomized clinical studies) on the applications of EOs for inflammatory skin conditions were retrieved from scientific electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library). As an initial result, tea tree (Melaleuca alternifolia) oil emerged as the most studied EO. The clinical studies with tea tree oil gel for acne treatment showed an efficacy with fewer adverse reactions compared to conventional treatments. The uncontrolled studies indicated the potential efficacy of ajwain (Trachyspermum ammi) oil, eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) oil, and cedarwood (Cedrus libani) oil in the treatment of acne, but further research is required to reach conclusive evidence. The placebo-controlled studies revealed the positive effects of kānuka (Kunzea ericoides) oil and frankincense (Boswellia spp.) oil in the treatment of psoriasis and eczema. The quality verification of the EO products was inconsistent, with some studies lacking analyses and transparency. The quality limitations of some studies included a small sample size, a short duration, and the absence of a control group. This present review underscores the need for extended, well-designed clinical studies to further assess the efficacy and safety of EOs for treating inflammatory skin conditions with products of assured quality and to further elucidate the mechanisms of action involved.

Introduction Vortioxetine, a multimodal serotonergic drug, is widely used as treatment for major depressive disorder. Although on the market since late 2013, the data of the relative safety of vortioxetine, especially compared to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, are still scarce. Objective The aim of this study was to explore the adverse event reporting pattern of vortioxetine through a cluster analysis. Furthermore, to compare the adverse event reporting pattern for vortioxetine with that of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Methods Individual case safety reports for vortioxetine in VigiBase up to 1 November, 2019 were subjected to consensus clustering, to identify and describe natural groupings of reports based on their reported adverse events. A vigiPoint exploratory analysis compared vortioxetine to the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in terms of relative frequencies for a wide range of covariates, including patient sex and age, reported drugs and adverse events, and reporting country. Important differences were identified using odds ratios with adaptive statistical shrinkage. Results Thirty-six clusters containing at least five reports were identified and analysed. The two largest clusters included 48% of the vortioxetine reports and appeared to represent gastrointestinal adverse events and hypersensitivity adverse events. Other distinct clusters were related to, respectively, fatigue, aggression/suicidality, convulsion, medication errors, arthralgia/myalgia, increased weight, paraesthesia and anticholinergic effects. Some of these clusters are not labelled for vortioxetine, such as arthralgia/myalgia and paraesthesia, but are known adverse events for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. A vigiPoint analysis revealed a higher proportion of reports from consumers and non-health professionals for vortioxetine as well as higher relative reporting rates of gastrointestinal symptoms, pruritus and mood-related symptoms, consistent with the cluster analysis. Conclusions A pattern of co-reported adverse events that is consistent with labelled adverse events for vortioxetine and the safety profile for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in general was revealed. Clusters of unlabelled adverse events were identified that reflect clinical entities that might represent signals of previously unknown adverse events. More extensive analyses of spontaneous reports may help to further understand the reporting pattern of adverse events.

Background Intranasal corticosteroids are one of the cornerstone treatment options for allergic rhinitis and chronic sinusitis complaints. Safety information in the summary of product characteristics may not be representative for observations in daily clinical practice. The Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Center (Lareb) collects post-marketing safety information, using spontaneous reporting systems. Objective Our objective was to analyse reports of adverse drug reactions associated with intranasal corticosteroids reported in the Dutch spontaneous reporting database of the Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Center Lareb to obtain insight into real-world safety data. Methods We retrospectively examined all adverse drug reactions of intranasal corticosteroids reported to the Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Center Lareb, entered into the database from 1991 until 1 July, 2020. Results In total, 2263 adverse drug reactions after intranasal corticosteroid use were reported in 1258 individuals. Headache (n = 143), epistaxis (n = 124) and anosmia (n = 57) were reported most frequently. Nasal septum perforation (reporting odds ratio 463.2; 95% confidence interval: 186.7–1149.7) had the highest reporting odds ratio, followed by nasal mucosal disorder (reporting odds ratio 104.5; 95% confidence interval 36.3–301.3) and hyposmia (reporting odds ratio 90.8; 95% confidence interval 45.1–182.7). Moreover, 101 (4.5%) reports were classified as serious by Lareb, including reports of Cushing’s syndrome, adrenal cortical hypofunction and growth retardation. Conclusions Many side effects are consistent with the safety information in the summary of product characteristics of intranasal corticosteroids. Several serious (systemic) side effects are reported and it is important to realise that intranasal corticosteroids may contribute to the development. Healthcare providers and patients should be aware of the potential (individual) adverse drug reactions of intranasal corticosteroids. This information could help in discussing treatment options.