Rapid Responses to:

LETTERS: Rokuro Hama Fifty sudden deaths may be related to central suppression BMJ 2007; 335: 59 [Full text]

Rapid Responses: Submit a response to this article

Rapid Responses published:

Oseltamivir adverse reactions: what is the denominator?

J Mark F Temple   (26 July 2007)

Oseltamivir adverse reactions: Most deaths were unnecessary

Rokuro Hama   (1 August 2007)

Serious misclassification in Japanese MHLW epidemiologic study on Oseltamivir

Rokuro Hama   (8 August 2008)

Mechanisms of neuropsychiatric reactions to oseltamivir become clearer.

Rokuro Hama   (12 August 2008)

Oseltamivir adverse reactions: what is the denominator? 26 July 2007
J Mark F Temple, CPHM CDSC Wales Cardiff CF113NW Send response to journal: Re: Oseltamivir adverse reactions: what is the denominator?	The report by Hama gives us a clear indication of the numerator. However, without any indication of the denominator the usefulness of this report is severely curtailed. Can we have an indication of the number of patients who have taken Oseltamivir in the relevant age groups in Japan, over the same period, please? Competing interests: None declared
Oseltamivir adverse reactions: Most deaths were unnecessary 1 August 2007
Rokuro Hama, Chairperson: Japan Institute of Pharmacovigilance, Editor: Kusuri-no-Check (a drug bulletin) #402 Osaka 2-3-2, Tennoji-ku Osaka, Japan 543-0062�@ Send response to journal: Re: Oseltamivir adverse reactions: Most deaths were unnecessary	Before discussing the denominator (the number of patients who have taken oseltamivir), I would like to mention some important points when considering benefit/harm balance in using Tamiflu. First of all, I would like to emphasize the self-limiting manner of influenza in otherwise healthy people. It is also true even in children with chronic asthma, because Kaplan-Meier curves for proportion of patients without freedom from illness in placebo treated patients are almost the same both in the randomized controlled trial with previously healthy children (study WV15758[1]) and those with chronic asthma (study WV15795/15871[1]). Thus, for most of the people with sudden deaths or with accidental deaths from abnormal behaviour, Tamiflu was unnecessary. Secondly as mentioned previously [2], percent case mortality among patients with encephalopathy (Reye's syndrome or so called influenza- associated encephalopathy) fell from approximately thirty percent to below fifteen percent before the introduction of Tamiflu for children in Japan in late 2002. This is due to the restriction of use of non-steroidal anti- inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) as antipyretics in 2000, which caused a percentage of NSAIDs users in encephalopathy children to fall from about thirty percent to below ten percent in the same period. Thirdly, one of the most important things I tried to tell in my letter [3] was that the classifications of 58 deaths (50 sudden deaths and eight accidental deaths from abnormal behaviour) differ completely between that by Japanese MHLW (practically causality denied) and that by many doctors(probable, possible or at least causality could not be ruled out. For the denominator, no precise data are available except the number of prescription (IMS data) released by FDA in November 2006 [4] and the overall number of Tamiflu users estimated by Chugai which Japanese MHLW released in June 2007 [5]. The number of Tamiflu prescriptions in all ages from 2001 to 2005 is 6.5 million and 24.5 million in US and Japan respectively, while that in ages 0-16 is 0.9 million and 11.6 million respectively. The number of Tamiflu users is estimated as 35 million in Japan from 2001 to 2007 (estimated from a shipment by Chugai) and 45 million in the world in the same period (from the press release issued by Roche in March 2007) [5]. However, it should be noted that spontaneous reporting systems such as the Yellow card system in UK estimate that physicians report between only one and ten percent of adverse effects on treatment [6], though no such estimation is available in Japan. Erratum: In the products (capsules and powder for oral suspension), oseltamivir is present as oseltamivir-phosphate (oseltamivir-P), from which oseltamivir is easily dissociated in the GI tracts, absorbed, extensively metabolized to oseltamivir-carboxylate by esterase in the liver, otherwise up to one fourth of oseltamivir is distributed via circulation and enter into brain tissue through blood-brain barrier. Therefore, the agent which has central suppressive action is oseltamivir (ethyl ester prodrug). So "oseltamivir-P" should be changed to "oseltamivir" as follows: Thus adverse reactions to oseltamivir may be roughly classified into three groups: (a) sudden onset reactions related to central suppressive action of oseltamivir during cytokine storm, including sudden death, abnormal behaviours, and other sudden neuropsychiatric disorders; (b) late onset reactions such as pneumonia, sepsis, hyperglycaemia, and late onset neuropsychiatric disorders possibly related to inhibition of human cytosolic neuraminidase (sialidase) activity by oseltamivir carboxylate5; and (c) allergic reactions and others. References 1.New drug approval package (NAP) of oseltmivir (in Japanese); Tamiflu dry syrup (2002): http://211.132.8.246/shinyaku/g0201/11/5303990_21400AMY00010.html? 2.Hama R. Limited benefit and potential harm of oseltamivir including sudden death and death from abnormal behaviour. www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/331/7526/1203-b#122513 3.Hama R. Oseltamivir's adverse reactions: Fifty sudden deaths may be related to central suppression. BMJ. 2007 Jul 14;335(7610):59. http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/335/7610/59 4.FDA, Tamiflu AE Review 2006 http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/06/briefing/2006- 4254b_09_01_Tamiflu%20AE%20Review%202006%20Redacted_D060309_092.pdf 5.Document No 3 for Advisory Committee on Drug and Food. Second annual meeting of the Sub-Committee on Safety of Medicine for 2007 held on 4 April 2007 (in Japanese) http://www.mhlw.go.jp/shingi/2007/04/dl/s0404- 2c.pdf 6.Pirmohamed M, Breckenridge AM, Kitteringham NR, Park BK. Adverse drug reactions. BMJ. 1998;316:1295�E298. Competing interests: None declared
Serious misclassification in Japanese MHLW epidemiologic study on Oseltamivir 8 August 2008
Rokuro Hama, Chairperson: Japan Institute of Pharmacovigilance, Editor: Kusuri-no-Check (a drug bulletin) #902 Ueshio3-2-17, Tennoji-ku Osaka, Japan 543-0002�@ Send response to journal: Re: Serious misclassification in Japanese MHLW epidemiologic study on Oseltamivir	EDITOR- Japanese authorities set up two working groups on oseltamivir (Tamiflu, Chugai, Roche), one examining clinical and the other non-clinical causality issues related to neuropsychiatric events, after they advised against prescribing Tamiflu to adolescents aged 10-19 years in March 2007[1]. After discussing a series of studies mainly by pharmaceutical companies (Roche and Chugai) as well as its own, the clinical working group initially announced at the last (7th) meeting on 10th July 2008 [2] that it had not found any causal relationship between the drug and neuropsychiatric events including sudden death and abnormal behavior. With these results, the Pharmaceutical Affairs and Food Sanitation Council was scheduled to hold a session on Friday (8th August) to lift a ban on the use of Tamiflu by teens. Surprising enough, the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare (MHLW) announced on 5th August it will review its opinion about causality issues, as errors in the processing of data of an epidemiological study had been identified [3]. This epidemiological study analyzed 10,316 children with flu in the winter of 2006/07. The study was done by the MHLW's task force headed by Prof. Yoshio Hirota of Osaka City University, who also led the research. The preliminary report was first issued on December 25th 2007 [4]. It was a short course cohort study with two groups: one was prescribed oseltamivir phosphate (Tamiflu) (7,677 children) while the other is the group of children who were prescribed drugs other than Tamiflu (2,192). They were followed for four days from onset of fever and the proportions of children with neuropsychiatric events were compared [2,4]. The odds ratio in the Tamiflu group was 0.382 (95%CI: 0.338-0.432, p<0.0001) in the preliminary report [4]. But there was serious misclassification of events among groups. For example they withdrew cases with the above-mentioned events occurring before taking drug(s) only in the Tamiflu-prescribed group (T-pr group) and they added these withdrawn cases to non-Tamiflu-prescribed group (non- T-pr group) [5]. Correct odds ratio calculated on intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis is estimated to be at least 1.37 (95%CI: 1.18-1.58) [5]. I warned the task force head about this misclassification on Feb. 8th 2008 and I requested that results be corrected to show significant relationship between abnormal behavior and Tamiflu prescribing. I also suggested that they should withdraw cases with early neuropsychiatric events before taking prescribed drugs from both groups if they want to calculate the proportion of patients with events only among those who took drugs. At the 7th meeting of the clinical working group for Tamiflu held 10th July 2008, an interim report analyzing a total of 10,017 children under 18 year old was published. The children had confirmed flu and the report showed that the proportions of events were 11.9 % (889 in 7,487) in Tamiflu-treated group and 12.8 % (286 in 2,228) in non-Tamiflu-treated group, with an odds balance of 0.91 (95%CI: 0.79-1.06) [2]. In this interim report, it is stated that 1,215 children with events in the T-pr group and 262 in the non-T-pr group were identified. Early neuropsychiatric events that occurred before visiting physicians were deleted from both groups (227 from T-pr group and 47 from non-T-pr group), which was reasonable. However, cases with events before taking drugs were again removed only from the Tamiflu-pr group (99 cases) and added to the non-T-pr group. Correct proportions of children with events (including early events before taking drugs) calculated on ITT analysis were 13.0 % (988 in 7,586) and 8.8 % (187 in 2,129) respectively. Odds ratio was estimated at 1.56 (95%C.I. 1.32-1.84) [6]. The task force's analysis is wrong: Suppose Tamiflu does not affect the neuropsychiatric system and there are two groups (T-pr and non-T-pr groups) with the same population (n), the same number of patients with early events before taking drugs (b), and the same number of patients with events after taking drugs (a). The proportion of total events calculated on ITT-analysis is the same: (a+b)/n and the odds ratio=1. If we follow the task force's analysis the proportion would be a/(n-b) in the T group and (b+a+b)/(n+b) in the non-T group, with an odds ratio of a/(a+2b), i.e. less than 1. Thus the results obtained through the task force's analysis contradict the initial assumption. Reference [1] Japan issued Tamiflu warning after child deaths. Times 21 March 2007. www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article1549260.ece [2] MHLW. �gThe seventh meeting of working group for clinical issue of causality of Tamiflu and neuropsychiatric events held on 10th July 2008 (in Japanese): http://www.mhlw.go.jp/shingi/2008/07/s0710-6.html document-1: Epidemiological study on the symptoms during influenza (Interim report: in Japanese) http://www.mhlw.go.jp/shingi/2007/12/dl/s1225-7y.pdf [3] Ministry to review links between Tamiflu, behavior http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/20080807TDY03302.htm [4] MHLW (2007). �gThe fifth working panel for drug safety in 2007�h held on 25th Dec. 2007: document-3-4: Epidemiological study on the symptoms during influenza (in Japanese) http://www.mhlw.go.jp/shingi/2007/12/dl/s1225-7y.pdf [5] Hama R, Fatal neuropsychiatric adverse reactions to oseltamivir: case series and overview of causal relationships. The International Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine (2008) 20: 5-36. available at : http://npojip.org/sokuho/published-paperJRS431.pdf [6] Hama R. Epidemiological study showed the Tamiflu increase abnormal behavior by 1.56 in children. �gWeb-Kusuri-no-Check�g No108 (in Japanese): http://npojip.org/sokuho/080711.html and No 109 (in Japanese) http://npojip.org/sokuho/080728.html Competing interests: None declared
Mechanisms of neuropsychiatric reactions to oseltamivir become clearer. 12 August 2008
Rokuro Hama, Chairperson: Japan Institute of Pharmacovigilance, Editor: Kusuri-no-Check (a drug bulletin) #902 Ueshio3-2-17, Tennoji-ku Osaka, Japan 543-0002�@ Send response to journal: Re: Mechanisms of neuropsychiatric reactions to oseltamivir become clearer.	EDITOR- In spite of the Pharmaceutical Affairs and Food Sanitation Council repeated announcements that it had not found any causal relationship between oseltamivir (Tamiflu, Chugai, Roche) and neuropsychiatric adverse events [1], clinical and non-clinical evidence have been accumulating and the mechanisms of neuropsychiatric reactions to Tamiflu has now become clearer [2-8]. It includes a dose-dependent increase in deaths and central suppressive symptoms in 7-day-old experimental rats, together with the similarity of symptoms and findings in animals and humans [2]. Symptoms occurring after taking Tamiflu may be induced by unchanged oseltamivir (OT), because its level in the brain is 64 times higher in 7-day-old rats than in mature rats. Such higher level of OT in brain may be due to the immature activity of liver microsomal carboxyesterase (CE-1) that metabolize OT to oseltamivir carboxylate (OC) [3] and immature P- glycoprotein (P-gp) that is the efflux transporter of OT through the blood -brain barrier (BBB) [4]. It is not difficult to presume that not only the immaturity but also the impairment of CE-1 and P-gp due to higher level of cytokines at the peak of flu infection in older infants and adults in human may increase level of OT in the brain. On the other hand the mechanism underlying the abnormal behavior on oseltamivir may be related to dyscontrol of central nervous suppressants such as barbiturates, benzodiazepines and alcohol [2]. But the precise mechanisms were not known. Recently, Yoshino et al [5] found that systemic administration of oseltamivir (25mg/kg or 100mg/kg; intraperitoneally (i.p.)) significantly increased extracellular dopamine in the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) of rats on microdialysis by 156 % or 223 % compared to the control values. Serotonin level was unchanged and it was suggested that the increase of dopamine (DA) was due to increased DA release in the mPFC [5]. The mechanisms of increased release of DA are clearly different from those caused by psychostimulants such as amphetamine and narcotics such as cocaine, and are similar to those induced by benzodiazepines because of the following reasons: (1) The extent of DA increase was far less than with psychostimulants, including phencyclidine and methamphetamine that led to more than 10-fold increase versus preadministration levels [6]. (2) Neither OT nor OC inhibited the reuptake of DA in presynapses and promoted its release in postsynapses in the in vitro assay system using rat brain synaptosomes, while metanphetamine inhibited the reuptake of DA and promoted its release, and cocaine only inhibited the reuptake of DA [7]. (3) In rats, ataxia was observed within 10 min after 100mg/kg of OT was administered continuing for a few minutes [5]. (4) Diazepam was found to have a biphasic effect in mice; increasing locomotor activity (about 1.5 times more than pretreatment level) at a low dose (0.25 mg/kg or less), while decreasing it at higher doses (>0.5 mg/kg) [8]. The locomotor stimulating effect of diazepam was effectively blocked by pretreatment with the benzodiazepine receptor antagonist flumazenil, as well as with the catecholamine synthesis inhibitor e- methyltyrosine and the dopamine receptor antagonists haloperidol, spiperone and SCH 23390 [8]. Taken together, these data indicate that the locomotor stimulating effect observed after low doses of diazepam is due to activation of brain dopaminergic systems involved in locomotor activity [8]. References [1] MHLW. A series of meetings of the working group for clinical issue of causality of Tamiflu and neuropsychiatric events�Eand that for non- clinical issue�E The last meeting was held on 10th July 2008 (in Japanese): http://www.mhlw.go.jp/shingi/2008/07/s0710-6.html [2] Hama R, Fatal neuropsychiatric adverse reactions to oseltamivir: case series and overview of causal relationships. The International Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine (2008) 20: 5-36. available at: http://npojip.org/sokuho/published-paperJRS431.pdf [3] Chugai Pharm Co (2002) New drug approval package (NAP) of oseltmivir (in Japanese); Tamiflu dry syrup (in Japanese): available at http://164.46.226.166/shinyaku/g0201/11/5303990_21400AMY00010.html? [4] Morimoto K, Nakakariya M, Shirasaka Y, Kakinuma C, Fujita T, Tamai I, Ogihara T. Oseltamivir (TamifluTM) efflux transport at the blood- brain barrier via P-glycoprotein. Drug Metab Dispos. 36(1) (2008):6-9. Epub 2007 Oct 16 [5] Yoshino T, Nisijima K, Shioda K, Yui K, Kato S. Oseltamivir (Tamiflu) increases dopamine levels in the rat medial prefrontal cortex. Neurosci Lett. 2008 Jun 13;438(1):67-9. Epub 2008 Apr 9. [6] Nishijima K, Kashiwa A, Hashimoto A, Iwama H, Umino A, Nishikawa T. Differential effects of phencyclidine and methamphetamine on dopamine metabolism in rat frontal cortex and striatum as revealed by in vivo dialysis. Synapse. 1996 Apr;22(4):304-12. [7] Satoh K, Nonaka R, Ogata A, Nakae D, Uehara S. Effects of oseltamivir phosphate (Tamiflu) and its metabolite (GS4071) on monoamine neurotransmission in the rat brain. Biol Pharm Bull. 2007 Sep;30(9):1816- 8. available at: http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/bpb/30/9/1816/_pdf [8] Söderpalm B, Svensson L, Hulthe P, Johannessen K, Engel JA. Evidence for a role for dopamine in the diazepam locomotor stimulating effect. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 1991;104(1):97-102. Competing interests: None declared