Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Impact of EU regulatory label changes for diclofenac in people with cardiovascular disease in four countries: interrupted time series regression analysis

  • Daniel R. Morales
  • , Steven V. Morant
  • , Thomas M. MacDonald*
  • , Jesper Hallas
  • , Martin Thomsen Ernst
  • , Anton Pottegard
  • , Ron M.C. Herings
  • , Elisabeth Smits
  • , Jetty A. Overbeek
  • , Isla S. Mackenzie
  • , Alexander S.F. Doney
  • , Lyn Mitchell
  • , Marion Bennie
  • , Chris Robertson
  • , Li Wei
  • , Lizzie Nicholson
  • , Carole Morris
  • , Robert W.V. Flynn
  • *Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

20 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Objective: Due to cardiovascular safety concerns, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) recommended new contraindications and changes to product information for diclofenac across Europe in 2013. This study aims to measure their impact among targeted populations. Method: Quarterly interrupted time series regression (ITS) analyses of diclofenac initiation among cohorts with contraindications (congestive cardiac failure [CHF], ischaemic heart disease [IHD], peripheral arterial disease [PAD], cerebrovascular disease [CVD]) and cautions (hypertension, hyperlipidaemia, diabetes) from Denmark, the Netherlands, England and Scotland. Results: The regulatory action was associated with significant immediate absolute reductions in diclofenac initiation in all countries for IHD (Denmark −0.08%, 95%CI −0.13, −0.03; England −0.09%, 95%CI −0.13 to −0.06%; the Netherlands −1.84%, 95%CI −2.51 to −1.17%; Scotland −0.34%, 95%CI −0.38 to −0.30%), PAD and hyperlipidaemia, the Netherlands, England and Scotland for hypertension and diabetes, and England and Scotland for CHF and CVD. Post-intervention there was a significant negative trend in diclofenac initiation in the Netherlands for IHD (−0.12%, 95%CI −0.19 to −0.04), PAD (−0.13%, 95%CI −0.22 to −0.05), hypertension, hyperlipidaemia and diabetes, and in Scotland for CHF (−0.01%, 95%CI −0.02 to −0.007%), IHD (−0.017, 95%CI −0.02, −0.01%), PAD and hypertension. In England, diclofenac initiation rates fell less steeply. In Denmark changes were more strongly associated with the earlier EMA 2012 regulatory action. Conclusion: Although significant reductions in diclofenac initiation occurred, patients with contraindications continued to be prescribed diclofenac, the extent of which varied by country and target condition. Understanding reasons for such variation may help to guide the design or dissemination of future safety warnings.

Original languageEnglish
Number of pages12
JournalBritish Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
Early online date5 Jul 2020
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 5 Jul 2020

Funding

The study was funded by the European Medicines Agency (Procurement procedure EMA/2014/50/RE). The EMA approved the final study protocol and had no influence on the results or decision to publish. D.M. is supported by a Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Career Development Fellowship (Grant 214,588/Z/18/Z). E.S., J.O. and R.H. are employees of the PHARMO Institute for Drug Outcomes Research. This independent research institute performs financially supported studies for government and related healthcare authorities and several pharmaceutical companies. T.M.M.'s university holds research grants from Novartis, Ipsen, Teijin and Menarini. He is or has been the Principal Investigator on trials paid for by Novartis, Ipsen, Teijin, RTI, GlaxoSmithKline, SHIRE and Menarini. In the last 3 years he has been paid consulting fees by Novartis and Merck. None of these studies relate to diclofenac.

Keywords

  • cardiovascular disease
  • diclofenac
  • drug safety
  • epidemiology
  • NSAIDs
  • pharmacovigilance

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Impact of EU regulatory label changes for diclofenac in people with cardiovascular disease in four countries: interrupted time series regression analysis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this