4.6 Article

The Reporting Frequency of Ketoacidosis Events with Dapagliflozin from the European Spontaneous Reporting System: The DAPA-KETO Study

期刊

PHARMACEUTICALS
卷 15, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ph15030286

关键词

dapagliflozin; ketoacidosis; diabetes mellitus; safety; adverse drug reaction

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Evaluating the occurrence of dapagliflozin-induced ketoacidosis events using the European spontaneous reporting system, it was found that dapagliflozin is associated with a higher reporting frequency of ketoacidosis compared to DPP-4 inhibitors or insulins and a lower reporting frequency compared to other SGLT2 inhibitors.
Dapagliflozin was associated with an increased risk of diabetic ketoacidosis that has led to the European withdrawal of the authorization for the type 1 diabetes. However, it is still used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Therefore, we aim to evaluate the occurrence of dapagliflozin-induced ketoacidosis events by using the European spontaneous reporting system. The reporting odds ratios (ROR) were computed to assess the reporting frequency of ketoacidosis events for dapagliflozin compared to Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, insulins, or all other Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors. A total of 2406 cases with dapagliflozin reported at least one event of ketoacidosis. The three most reported events were: diabetic ketoacidosis (1412; 55.39%), ketoacidosis (476; 18.67%), and euglycaemic diabetic ketoacidosis (296; 11.61%). Dapagliflozin was associated with the higher reporting frequency of ketoacidosis events compared to DPP-4 inhibitors (ROR 12.07, 95%CI 11.67-13.81) or insulins (ROR 7.59, 95%CI 7.13-7.89). A lower reporting frequency was instead observed compared to other SGLT2 inhibitors (ROR 0.91, 95%CI 0.87-0.96). Considering the higher reporting frequency of ketoacidosis observed with dapagliflozin then DPP-4 inhibitors or insulins, attention should be given to patients treated with this drug.

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

4.6
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