Post-marketing safety assessment of constipation drugs: a real-world pharmacovigilance study based on FAERS database.

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY Expert Opinion on Drug Safety Pub Date : 2025-02-18 DOI:10.1080/14740338.2025.2467829
Wenyu Zhang, Hui Wang, Shiwei Yang, Xue Pang, Wenqi Hu, Guang Zhang, Xuezhi Xin
{"title":"Post-marketing safety assessment of constipation drugs: a real-world pharmacovigilance study based on FAERS database.","authors":"Wenyu Zhang, Hui Wang, Shiwei Yang, Xue Pang, Wenqi Hu, Guang Zhang, Xuezhi Xin","doi":"10.1080/14740338.2025.2467829","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Laxatives are widely used in the treatment of constipation, but they also have brought many adverse reactions to patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a pharmacovigilance analysis based on the United States Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database to analyze the adverse events of six constipation drugs (linaclotide, lubiprostone, prucalopride, naloxegol, naldemedine, and plecanatide) and to search for clinically meaningful adverse reaction signals. We used disproportionality analysis as the main analysis method to detect pharmacovigilance signals, which includes Frequentist methods and Bayesian methods.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among the reports of the six drugs, more adverse reactions were reported from females than males, and the number of adverse reactions reported was higher in the group of 60-89 years. Linaclotide had the lowest proportion of serious adverse event reports (4.38%), while naldemedine had the highest proportion of serious adverse event reports (25.57%). According to the classification of system organ classification (SOC), the number of gastrointestinal adverse events (<i>N</i> = 8321) was the largest.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The adverse reactions of constipation drugs were mainly gastrointestinal symptoms such as diarrhea, abdominal pain and abdominal distension. Linaclotide has the highest safety, and more studies are needed to analyze the cardiovascular safety of lubiprostone.</p>","PeriodicalId":12232,"journal":{"name":"Expert Opinion on Drug Safety","volume":" ","pages":"1-12"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Opinion on Drug Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14740338.2025.2467829","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Laxatives are widely used in the treatment of constipation, but they also have brought many adverse reactions to patients.

Methods: We conducted a pharmacovigilance analysis based on the United States Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database to analyze the adverse events of six constipation drugs (linaclotide, lubiprostone, prucalopride, naloxegol, naldemedine, and plecanatide) and to search for clinically meaningful adverse reaction signals. We used disproportionality analysis as the main analysis method to detect pharmacovigilance signals, which includes Frequentist methods and Bayesian methods.

Results: Among the reports of the six drugs, more adverse reactions were reported from females than males, and the number of adverse reactions reported was higher in the group of 60-89 years. Linaclotide had the lowest proportion of serious adverse event reports (4.38%), while naldemedine had the highest proportion of serious adverse event reports (25.57%). According to the classification of system organ classification (SOC), the number of gastrointestinal adverse events (N = 8321) was the largest.

Conclusions: The adverse reactions of constipation drugs were mainly gastrointestinal symptoms such as diarrhea, abdominal pain and abdominal distension. Linaclotide has the highest safety, and more studies are needed to analyze the cardiovascular safety of lubiprostone.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
便秘药物上市后安全性评估:基于FAERS数据库的真实世界药物警戒研究
背景:泻药被广泛应用于便秘的治疗,但也给患者带来了许多不良反应。方法:基于美国食品药品监督管理局不良事件报告系统(FAERS)数据库进行药物警戒分析,分析利那洛肽、鲁比前列酮、普鲁卡必利、纳洛西戈、纳德美定、普莱卡纳肽6种便秘药物的不良事件,寻找具有临床意义的不良反应信号。我们采用歧化分析作为检测药物警戒信号的主要分析方法,包括频率分析方法和贝叶斯分析方法。结果:在6种药物的报告中,女性报告的不良反应多于男性,且60 ~ 89岁年龄组报告的不良反应数较多。利那洛肽严重不良事件报告比例最低(4.38%),而纳地美定严重不良事件报告比例最高(25.57%)。按系统器官分类(SOC)分类,胃肠道不良事件数最多(N = 8321)。结论:便秘药物的不良反应以腹泻、腹痛、腹胀等胃肠道症状为主。利那洛肽的安全性最高,需要更多的研究来分析鲁比前列石的心血管安全性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
3.20%
发文量
97
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Expert Opinion on Drug Safety ranks #62 of 216 in the Pharmacology & Pharmacy category in the 2008 ISI Journal Citation Reports. Expert Opinion on Drug Safety (ISSN 1474-0338 [print], 1744-764X [electronic]) is a MEDLINE-indexed, peer-reviewed, international journal publishing review articles on all aspects of drug safety and original papers on the clinical implications of drug treatment safety issues, providing expert opinion on the scope for future development.
期刊最新文献
Safety and efficacy of currently used drug therapies for treatment of lymphomas in patients with Sjögren's disease, a scoping review. Insights gained from drug utilization research to improve safe clinical practice for children and adolescents in Denmark. Safe prescribing of antihypertensive drugs in the elderly and managing the risk of adverse events. Safety concerns associated with various types of statins: a disproportionality analysis of the FAERS database. Increased reporting of accidental overdose with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists: a population-based study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1