4.7 Article

Gender differences in adverse event reports associated with antidiabetic drugs

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 10, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-74000-4

关键词

-

资金

  1. Government-wide R&D Fund project for infectious disease research - Korea Health Industry Development Institute [HG18C0068]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Little is known about gender-specific reporting of adverse events (AEs) associated with antidiabetic drugs. This study was to assess the gender-related difference in AEs reporting associated with antidiabetic agents. The number of antidiabetic drug-AE pairs associated was identified using the Korea Adverse Event Reporting System database. Prevalence of diabetes was estimated using the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service-National Patients Sample database. Reporting rate per 10,000 people was calculated by dividing drug-AE pairs with the number of antidiabetic drug users by gender. Gender difference was presented with risk ratio (reporting rate ratio) of women to men. Antidiabetic agent-associated AEs were more frequently reported by women than men throughout body organs and drug classes. 13 out of 17 system organ class level disorders with significant gender differences were reported more often by women than men. By drug class, gender-specific reporting rates were observed in most of the drug classes, especially in newer classes such as glucagon-like peptide-1 analog (GLP1-RA), sodium glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT2i), and thiazolidinedione (TZD). Looking into preferred term level for each drug class, women dominated the reports of class-specific AEs of newer antidiabetic drugs such as urinary tract/genital infection (all reported by women) in SGLT2i, edema in TZD (risk ratio (RR) 12.56), and hyperglycemia in insulin users (RR 15.35). Gender differences in antidiabetic-associated AE reporting often attributed to women. Explanations for these different report levels by gender should be further investigated.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据