Medicines Safety Update Vol 2, No 2, April 2011
This issue of Medicines Safety Update was published in the April 2011 issue of Australian Prescriber.
Drugs are a common contributor to hyponatraemia. Diuretics, antidepressants, antiepileptics and antihypertensives appear commonly as suspected causes in reports to the TGA.
Hyponatraemia, defined as serum sodium less than 135 mmol/L, is often caused by drugs, with diuretics, antidepressants and antiepileptics some of the most commonly implicated medicines.1 We present a summary of recent cases of hyponatraemia reported to the TGA. Management of severe hyponatraemia is discussed in this issue of Australian Prescriber.2
Between January 2009 and 2011, the TGA received 136 reports of hyponatraemia. Drugs well known to be associated with hyponatraemia appear in many reports (Table). Similar to reports of hyponatraemia received between May 2005 and Oct 2008,3 drug combinations are suspected in many reports, with the combination of a diuretic with an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker appearing in 41 reports.
Just over half of the reports (76; 56%) described patients aged 70 or over and 64% (49) of these involved females. Older age is acknowledged to be a risk factor for hyponatraemia.
Commonly reported symptoms with hyponatraemia were confusion, dizziness, dehydration, nausea and vomiting, although a number of reports describe asymptomatic hyponatraemia detected on routine laboratory tests. One example is the case of a 91-year-old woman admitted to an emergency department for lower leg pain. Her serum sodium was found to be 124 mmol/L. One month earlier, when she started taking escitalopram, her serum sodium was 139 mmol/L. The reporting health professional considered escitalopram to have contributed to the hyponatraemia. Escitalopram was ceased and the woman was treated with fluid restriction and sodium replacement.
Other cases describe more severe, symptomatic hyponatraemia. Severe hyponatraemia is usually defined as serum sodium less than 120 mmol/L. In one case, a 71-year-old woman taking carbamazepine and indapamide experienced mental deterioration and was found to have serum sodium of 114 mmol/L. Both drugs were ceased and her symptoms resolved.
- Fourlanos S, Greenberg P. Managing drug-induced hyponatraemia in adults. Aust Prescr 2003;26:114-7.
- Shannon G. Severe hyponatraemia. Aust Prescr 2011;34:42–5.
- Drug-induced hyponatraemia. Aust Adv Drug React Bull 2008; 27: 19.
The TGA has released an analysis of rotavirus vaccine and the risk of intussusception. A detailed report of the analysis, and links to fact sheets for parents and immunisation providers, are available from the TGA website.
The TGA, working in collaboration with state health authorities, has undertaken an investigation of a possible association between the use of the rotavirus vaccines Rotarix (GSK) and RotaTeq (Merck/CSL) and the occurrence of a rare form of bowel obstruction known as intussusception. Intussusception is a condition caused by the telescoping of one segment of the bowel into another. It is estimated to occur each year in around 80 per 100,000 children under 12 months of age, which represents approximately 200 cases per year in Australia. The peak incidence is in infants 5–10 months of age, with 80% of cases occurring before 24 months of age. It is much more common in males than females.
Intussusception was found to be an adverse effect of the first generation rotavirus vaccine (RotaShield, Wyeth) that was available in the United States in 1998–99. RotaShield was estimated to cause intussusception in 10–20 of every 100,000 doses given to infants, and was voluntarily withdrawn in October 1999.1,2 RotaShield was not used outside the US; however, as the historical incidence of intussusception is 2.5 to 3 times higher in infants in Australia than in the US, this would have translated to 25–60 cases of intussusception for every 100,000 doses of RotaShield if the vaccine had been used here.
Subsequently two new rotavirus vaccines, Rotarix and RotaTeq were developed. Both were tested in large studies designed to explore whether there was a risk of intussusception. In each of these placebo-controlled preregistration studies, approximately 35 000 infants were given rotavirus vaccine, with no increased risk of intussusception observed.3,4 However, as large preregistration safety studies may not always detect rare events, postmarketing studies have been undertaken in a number of countries.
In Australia, two postmarketing studies have been conducted to investigate whether the new rotavirus vaccines are associated with an increased risk of intussusception. The first study was conducted using two surveillance systems - the Paediatric Enhanced Disease Surveillance with active surveillance of intussusception cases in 4 tertiary centres, and the Australian Paediatric Surveillance Unit with national retrospective reporting of intussusception cases by paediatricians. This study, conducted in NSW, Victoria, WA and SA, found an apparent four-fold increased risk of intussusception in babies within one week of being given the first dose of either vaccine, compared with historical data on hospitalisations coded as intussusception, but no overall increase in overall rates of intussusception up to the age of 9 months. This is much lower than the risk found with the earlier RotaShield vaccine.
Following this, a large self-controlled case series study using data on all hospitalised cases coded as intussusception from NSW, Victoria and WA was commissioned by the TGA. This study found a statistically significant four-fold increase in the occurrence of intussusception in the first 1–7 days following the first dose of either Rotarix or RotaTeq compared with other time periods after vaccine receipt. This increase in risk translates to approximately 2 additional cases of intussusception occurring in every 100 000 first doses of vaccine administered, or six additional cases each year in children under 12 months of age in Australia. These findings are preliminary, as the data are subject to confirmation.
It is currently unclear whether this represents a true increase in overall risk of intussusception, or an early increase in risk in infants which is compensated for by a subsequent decrease in risk leading to a reduction in cases of intussusception in older children. Longer term studies are required to clarify this.
Prior to the introduction of rotavirus vaccine, there were an estimated 10,000 hospitalisations annually in children under five years due to rotavirus gastroenteritis. Since the introduction of Rotarix and RotaTeq on to the National Immunisation Program, emergency department visits for acute gastroenteritis in young children have declined and hospitalisations for rotavirus gastroenteritis in the under-5-years age group have been reduced by over 70%.5,6 Based on the established benefits of rotavirus vaccination and the rare occurrence of intussusception, both the World Health Organization and the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation have recommended the continued use of rotavirus vaccine for infants under the National Immunisation Program.
- Withdrawal of rotavirus vaccine recommendation. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1999;48:1107.
- Murphy T, Garriullo P, Massoudi M, Nelson D, Jumaan AO, Okoro CA et al. Intussusception among infants given an oral rotavirus vaccine. N Engl J Med 2001; 344:564-72
- Ruiz-Palacios G, Pérez-Schael I, Velázquez F, H HA, Breuer T, Clemens SC, Cheuvart B et al. Safety and efficacy of an attenuated vaccine against severe rotavirus gastroenteritis. N Engl J Med 2006;354:11-22.
- Vesikari T, Matson D, Dennehy P, Damme PV, Santosham M, Rodriguez Z et al. Safety and efficacy of a pentavalent human-bovine (WC3) reassortant rotavirus vaccine. N Engl J Med 2006;354:23-33.
- Macartney KK, Porwal M, Dalton D, Cripps T, Maldigri T, Isaacs D et al Decline in rotavirus hospitalisations following introduction of Australia's national rotavirus immunisation programme. J Paediatr Child Health 2011; published online: 18 Jan 2011 DOI: 10.1111/j.1440-1754.2010.01953.x
- Lambert SB, Faux CE, Hall L, Birrell FA, Peterson KV, Selvey CE et al. Early evidence for direct and indirect effects of the infant rotavirus vaccine program in Queensland. Med J Aust 2009; 191: 157-60.
Pharmacists are asked to be aware of the similar packaging for Coversyl and Coumadin and to take extra care to ensure that dispensing errors do not occur.
Coversyl (perindopril) and Coumadin (warfarin) 5 mg appear near each other in the pharmacy dispensary and both are packaged in white bottles with green caps and labels (see figure). The similarity arose when changes were made to the Coversyl packaging to comply with new requirements for a child-resistant closure.
In late November 2010, the TGA received 2 reports of dispensing errors associated with Coversyl and Coumadin. In one case, a patient developed haematuria when Coumadin was dispensed instead of Coversyl. Despite several weeks of warfarin therapy, the patient's INR was 3. The patient made a full recovery and did not require warfarin reversal. In the other case, a patient's INR dropped to 1.1 when Coversyl was dispensed in place of Coumadin. The patient did not experience any symptoms. Coversyl was ceased, anticoagulant therapy reintroduced and the patient made a full recovery.
The sponsor for Coversyl, Servier, has been working with the TGA to review and update the Coversyl packaging. New Coversyl packaging has been approved by the TGA and is expected to start appearing in pharmacies in April 2011. The updated packaging will include new labelling and white lids.
In the interim, Servier has worked with the Pharmacy Guild to publish an article advising pharmacists of the similarities between the Coversyl and Coumadin packaging. Alerts have also been issued by Pharmaceutical Defence Limited and the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care.
Pharmacists should take care when dispensing not only Coversyl and Coumadin, but all drugs with similar trade names or packaging, ensuring appropriate checking and use of barcode scanners.
Medicines Safety Update is written by staff from the Office of Product Review. Editor: Ms Elspeth Kay. Principal Medical Advisor: Dr Megan Keaney. Contributors to this issue include Dr Katherine Gray and Dr Shaun Williams. For correspondence or further information about Medicines Safety Update, contact the TGA's Office of Product Review at ADR Reports or 1800 044 114.
The TGA encourages the reporting of all suspected adverse reactions to medicines, including vaccines, over-the-counter medicines, herbal, traditional or alternative remedies. The TGA particularly requests reports of:
- ALL suspected reactions to new medicines
- ALL suspected medicines interactions
- Suspected reactions causing
- admission to hospital or prolongation of hospitalisation
- increased investigations or treatments
- birth defects
For blue cards
Reports of suspected adverse drug reactions are best made by using a prepaid reporting form ('blue card') which is available from the website: Report of suspected adverse reaction to medicines/vaccines or from the Office of Product Review, phone 1800 044 114.
Reports can also be submitted:
- online - on the TGA website and click on 'Report a problem' on the right
- fax 02 6232 8392
- email ADR.Reports@tga.gov.au
For further information from the Office of Product Review:
- Phone: 1800 044 114
- Fax: 02 6232 8392
- Email: ADR.Reports@tga.gov.au
© Commonwealth of Australia 2011
This work is copyright. You may reproduce the whole or part of this work in unaltered form for your own personal use or, if you are part of an organisation, for internal use within your organisation, but only if you or your organisation do not use the reproduction for any commercial purpose and retain this copyright notice and all disclaimer notices as part of that reproduction. Apart from rights to use as permitted by the Copyright Act 1968 or allowed by this copyright notice, all other rights are reserved and you are not allowed to reproduce the whole or any part of this work in any way (electronic or otherwise) without first being given specific written permission from the Commonwealth to do so. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights are to be sent to the TGA Copyright Officer, Therapeutic Goods Administration, PO Box 100, Woden ACT 2606 or emailed to <firstname.lastname@example.org>.
Content last updated: Monday, 4 April 2011
Web page last updated: Tuesday, 30 October 2012