Dermatologic surgery : official publication for American Society for Dermatologic Surgery [et al.] · 2019
Safety Profile of Sclerosing Agents: An Analysis From the World Health Organization Pharmacovigilance Database VigiBase.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Roselli Audrey, Khouri Charles, Roustit Matthieu, Blaise Sophie, Cracowski Jean-Luc
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Several sclerosing agents are used to treat chronic venous diseases. Although they do not seem to differ in terms of efficacy, their safety profiles might differ.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety profile of sclerosing agents through an analysis of the World Health Organization pharmacovigilance database.
METHODS: The authors performed a disproportionality analysis using the proportional reporting ratio (PRR) method to compare pharmacovigilance signals between each sclerosing agent among 6 adverse event syndromes of interest: hypersensitivity reactions, arterial thromboembolic disorders, venous thromboembolic disorders, cardiac arrhythmias, visual/neurological disturbances, and skin ulcerations. The cutoff for signal detection was defined by a logPRR lower boundary 95% confidence interval (CI) ≥0 and number of cases n ≥3.
RESULTS: Of 1,227 Individual Case Safety Reports (ICSRs) identified, after removal of ICSRs with unselected indications, the authors selected 472 reports for the analysis. The authors found that polidocanol is associated with more reporting of venous embolic/thrombotic events (logPRR = 1.38 [95% CI 1.27-1.49]), ethanolamine with the higher pharmacovigilance disproportionality signal of cardiac arrhythmias (logPRR = 0.80 [95% CI 0.51-1.09]), and STS with more reporting of allergic reactions (logPRR = 1.79 [95% CI 1.59-1.98]).
CONCLUSION: The safety profile of sclerosing agents significantly differs and should guide benefit-risk ratio assessment of such agents.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety profile of sclerosing agents through an analysis of the World Health Organization pharmacovigilance database.
METHODS: The authors performed a disproportionality analysis using the proportional reporting ratio (PRR) method to compare pharmacovigilance signals between each sclerosing agent among 6 adverse event syndromes of interest: hypersensitivity reactions, arterial thromboembolic disorders, venous thromboembolic disorders, cardiac arrhythmias, visual/neurological disturbances, and skin ulcerations. The cutoff for signal detection was defined by a logPRR lower boundary 95% confidence interval (CI) ≥0 and number of cases n ≥3.
RESULTS: Of 1,227 Individual Case Safety Reports (ICSRs) identified, after removal of ICSRs with unselected indications, the authors selected 472 reports for the analysis. The authors found that polidocanol is associated with more reporting of venous embolic/thrombotic events (logPRR = 1.38 [95% CI 1.27-1.49]), ethanolamine with the higher pharmacovigilance disproportionality signal of cardiac arrhythmias (logPRR = 0.80 [95% CI 0.51-1.09]), and STS with more reporting of allergic reactions (logPRR = 1.79 [95% CI 1.59-1.98]).
CONCLUSION: The safety profile of sclerosing agents significantly differs and should guide benefit-risk ratio assessment of such agents.