Observational studyPharmacoepidemiology and drug safety2018
Effectiveness of risk minimization measures for the use of cilostazol in United Kingdom, Spain, Sweden, and Germany.
Observational study in Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mixed Impact of Direct Healthcare Professional Communications When Considering Proximal Outcomes and the Targeted Population: A Systematic Review.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2025Pooled it
- Quality of Reporting on the Evaluation of Risk Minimization Programs: A Systematic Review.Drug safety · 2020Pooled it
- Effectiveness of risk minimization measures for the use of cilostazol in United Kingdom, Spain, Sweden, and Germany.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2018Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of the study is to evaluate the effectiveness of risk minimization measures-labeling changes and communication to health care professionals-recommended by the European Medicines Agency for use of cilostazol for the treatment of intermittent claudication in Europe.
methodsObservational study of cilostazol in The Health Improvement Network (United Kingdom), EpiChron Cohort (Spain), SIDIAP (Spain), Swedish National Databases, and GePaRD (Germany). Among new users of cilostazol, we compared the prevalence of conditions targeted by the risk minimization measures in the periods before (2002-2012) and after (2014) implementation. Conditions evaluated were prevalence of smoking, cardiovascular conditions, concurrent use of ≥2 antiplatelet agents, concurrent use of potent CYP3A4/CYP2C19 inhibitors and high-dose cilostazol, early monitoring of all users, and continuous monitoring of users at high cardiovascular risk.
resultsWe included 22 593 and 1821 new users of cilostazol before and after implementation of risk minimization measures, respectively. After implementation, the frequency of several conditions related to the labeling changes improved in all the study populations: prevalence of use decreased between 13% (EpiChron) and 57% (SIDIAP), frequency of cardiovascular contraindications decreased between 8% (GePaRD) and 84% (EpiChron), and concurrent use of high-dose cilostazol and potent CYP3A4/CYP2C19 inhibitors decreased between 6% (Sweden) and 100% (EpiChron). The frequency of other conditions improved in most study populations, except smoking, which decreased only in EpiChron (48% reduction).
conclusionsThis study indicates that the risk minimization measures implemented by the EMA for the use of cilostazol have been effective in all European countries studied, except for smoking cessation before initiating cilostazol, which remains an area of improvement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.