Drug safety · 2021
Is There an Increased Risk of Hepatotoxicity with Metamizole? A Comparative Cohort Study in Incident Users.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
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.
Hedenmalm Karin, Pacurariu Alexandra, Slattery Jim, Kurz Xavier, Candore Gianmario, Flynn Rob
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The analgesic metamizole, which has been withdrawn from the market in several countries due to the risk of agranulocytosis but is still available on the market in Germany and some other countries, has been associated with liver injury in published case reports; however, epidemiological studies on the risk of liver injury are limited.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the risk of liver injury up to 270 days after the first start of treatment with metamizole with the corresponding risk in patients starting treatment with paracetamol, using a retrospective cohort incident user design.
METHODS: The first prescription for either metamizole or paracetamol in the Intercontinental Medical Statistics (IMS)® Disease Analyzer Germany database during the study period (2009-2018) was identified in patients with at least 365 days of observation and no prior diagnosis of liver events, cancer or HIV, or treatment within the last 6 months with hepatotoxic drugs typically administered for chronic conditions. Each patient was followed for specific liver events for 90 days after the prescription. In case of a new prescription within 90 days, a new 90-day observation period started, up to a maximum of 270 days. Cox regression was used to compare the risk of liver injury in the two groups.
RESULTS: Metamizole was associated with a higher risk of liver injury compared with paracetamol (adjusted hazard ratio 1.69, 95% confidence interval 1.46-1.97). Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of these findings. In all the sensitivity analyses, metamizole was still associated with a higher risk of liver injury, including an analysis where naproxen was used as a comparator instead of paracetamol.
CONCLUSIONS: Results from this study support previous studies suggesting that metamizole is associated with a significant risk of liver injury. Nevertheless, a possible impact of residual confounding cannot be excluded.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the risk of liver injury up to 270 days after the first start of treatment with metamizole with the corresponding risk in patients starting treatment with paracetamol, using a retrospective cohort incident user design.
METHODS: The first prescription for either metamizole or paracetamol in the Intercontinental Medical Statistics (IMS)® Disease Analyzer Germany database during the study period (2009-2018) was identified in patients with at least 365 days of observation and no prior diagnosis of liver events, cancer or HIV, or treatment within the last 6 months with hepatotoxic drugs typically administered for chronic conditions. Each patient was followed for specific liver events for 90 days after the prescription. In case of a new prescription within 90 days, a new 90-day observation period started, up to a maximum of 270 days. Cox regression was used to compare the risk of liver injury in the two groups.
RESULTS: Metamizole was associated with a higher risk of liver injury compared with paracetamol (adjusted hazard ratio 1.69, 95% confidence interval 1.46-1.97). Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of these findings. In all the sensitivity analyses, metamizole was still associated with a higher risk of liver injury, including an analysis where naproxen was used as a comparator instead of paracetamol.
CONCLUSIONS: Results from this study support previous studies suggesting that metamizole is associated with a significant risk of liver injury. Nevertheless, a possible impact of residual confounding cannot be excluded.