scholarly journals Comment on: Frequency and Associated Costs of Anaphylaxis- and Hypersensitivity-Related Adverse Events for Intravenous Iron Products in the USA: An Analysis Using the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System

Drug Safety ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Auerbach
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Event ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Drug Administration ◽  
Reporting System ◽  
Adverse Event Reporting System ◽  
Intravenous Iron ◽  
Adverse Event Reporting ◽  
Event Reporting ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Usa

Mortality and adverse events with brand and generic clopidogrel in the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 210-215 ◽  
Author(s):  
Victor L Serebruany ◽  
Trygve S Hall ◽  
Dan Atar ◽  
Stefan Agewall ◽  
Moo Hyun Kim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Event ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Drug Administration ◽  
Reporting System ◽  
Food And Drug Administration ◽  
Adverse Event Reporting System ◽  
Adverse Event Reporting ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Event Reporting ◽  
The Us

Abstract Aims Clopidogrel is commonly used even after expiring patents. The brand clopidogrel (BC) was dealt by single company, while numerous manufacturers produce generic clopidogrel (GC). There are no convincing data to compare the safety of different formulations. Therefore, the data yielded from international, uniform, government-mandated registries may be useful. Methods and results We assessed primary causative adverse events (PCAE) after BC and GC in the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS). The outcomes were divided into death, cardiac, thrombotic/embolic, haemorrhagic, and rash/dermal complications. These primary endpoints were then examined by proportional reporting ratios (PRR) and chi-square (χ2). Among total FAERS (n = 9 466 679) reports, overall BC (n = 88 863) cases were more common than after GC (n = 36 559). When triaged by PCAE role, BC (n = 18 328) was also more abundant than GC (n = 3987). The reported death rates were more than doubled after BC [18.4% vs. 7.0%; PRR = 0.38; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.32–0.43; χ2=369.7; P<0.0001] for total FAERS, and consistent for late 2010–2017 (17.6% vs. 7.0% PRR = 0.40; 95% CI 0.37–0.45; χ2=286.2; P<0.004) PCAE cases. In contrast, GC trended to co-report more cardiac (14.6% vs. 13.3%; PRR = 1.12; 95% CI 1.0–1.25; χ2=3.5; P<0.06). The haemorrhagic (40.9% vs. 32.3%; PRR = 1.45; 95% CI 1.33–1.57; χ2=75.8; P<0.0001), and rash/dermal (5.4% vs. 4.6%; PRR = 1.20; 95% CI 1.0–1.44; χ2=3.75; P<0.05) events were also more common for GC. Thrombotic/embolic events were reported equally (at 7.0%) after each formulation. Conclusion The PCAE profiles differ with BC and GC in FAERS. While deaths reports were higher, the rates of cardiac, haemorrhagic, and skin complications were less common for BC. Despite expected reporting bias, this may indicate that the manufacturers of GC are reluctant to report deaths to the FDA. However, the overall adverse event profile suggests potentially better safety of BC over GC formulations.

scholarly journals Adverse event profiles of solvent-based and nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel formulations using the Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 205031211983601
Author(s):  
Misa Naganuma ◽  
Kohei Tahara ◽  
Shiori Hasegawa ◽  
Akiho Fukuda ◽  
Sayaka Sasaoka ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Event ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Anaphylactic Reaction ◽  
Drug Administration ◽  
Reporting System ◽  
Food And Drug Administration ◽  
Adverse Event Reporting System ◽  
Adverse Event Reporting ◽  
Event Reporting ◽  
The Us

Objectives: Paclitaxel is a highly effective antitumor agent with notable adverse events, including hypersensitivity reactions, peripheral neuropathy, arthralgia, myalgias, and neutropenia. Solvent-based paclitaxel causes severe allergic, hypersensitivity, and anaphylactic reactions. Nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel was recently developed and provides an advantage over solvent-based paclitaxel in avoiding solvent/surfactant-related adverse events. The aim of this study was to assess the adverse event profiles of solvent-based paclitaxel and nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel formulations using data from the spontaneous adverse event reporting system of the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System database. Methods: This study relied on Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities preferred terms and standardized queries, and calculated the reporting ratio and reporting odds ratios of paclitaxel formulations. Results: Of 8,867,135 reports recorded in the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System database from January 2004 to December 2016, 3469 and 4447 adverse events corresponded to solvent-based paclitaxel and nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel, respectively. Reporting odds ratios (95% confidence interval) for anaphylactic reaction (standardized MedDRA query code: 20000021) associated with the use of solvent-based paclitaxel and nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel were 1.69 (1.56–1.84) and 0.75 (0.68–0.83), respectively. Reporting odds ratio signal for anaphylactic reaction was not detected for nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel. Reporting odds ratios (95% confidence interval) for acute renal failure (standardized MedDRA query code: 20000003) associated with the use of solvent-based paclitaxel and nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel were 0.75 (0.58–0.98) and 1.60 (1.37–1.89), respectively. Conclusion: This is the first study to evaluate the adverse event profile of nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel using US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System data. Considering that the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System database does not allow to infer causality or risk ranking, the different reporting frequencies of anaphylactic reaction and acute renal failure between solvent-based paclitaxel and nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel must be further investigated via analytical observational research.

scholarly journals Cardiovascular Safety Profile of Romosozumab: A Pharmacovigilance Analysis of the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS)

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (8) ◽  
pp. 1660
Author(s):  
Annika Vestergaard Kvist ◽  
Junaid Faruque ◽  
Enriqueta Vallejo-Yagüe ◽  
Stefan Weiler ◽  
Elizabeth M. Winter ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Event ◽  
Drug Administration ◽  
Cardiovascular Events ◽  
Reporting System ◽  
Food And Drug Administration ◽  
Adverse Event Reporting System ◽  
Adverse Event Reporting ◽  
Cardiovascular Safety ◽  
Event Reporting ◽  
The Us

Background: Cardiovascular safety concerns for major cardiovascular events (MACE) were raised during the clinical trials of romosozumab. We aimed to evaluate the cardiovascular safety profile of romosozumab in a large pharmacovigilance database. Methods: All cases reported between January 2019 and December 2020 where romosozumab was reported were extracted from the Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS). The outcome of interest was MACE (myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, or cardiovascular death). A disproportionality analysis was conducted by estimating the reporting odds ratios (RORs) and 95% confidence intervals. Disproportionality analyses were stratified by sex and reporting region (US, Japan, other). Results: Of the 1995 eligible cases with romosozumab, the majority (N = 1188; 59.5%) originated from Japan. Overall, 206 suspected MACE reports were identified, of which the majority (n = 164; 13.8%) were from Japan, and 41 (5.2%) were from the United States (US). Among Japanese reports, patients were older and more frequently male than reports from the US. Similarly, cases with a reported MACE were older and had higher reports of cardioprotective drugs than those without cardiovascular events. Elevated reports for MACE (ROR 4.07, 95% CI: 2.39–6.93) was identified overall, which was primarily driven by the significant disproportionality measures in the Japanese reports. Conclusions: The current pharmacovigilance study identified a potential signal for elevated MACE, particularly in Japan. The results support the current safety warnings from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) to avoid use in high-risk patients.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document