4.5 Article

Drug-induced liver injury associated with the use of newer antiseizure medications in the elderly: an analysis of data from VigiBase

期刊

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/17425255.2023.2203859

关键词

Anticonvulsants; drug-induced liver injury; elderly; hepatotoxicity; pharmacovigilance; signal detection

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Analysis of data on drug-induced liver injury (DILI) in elderly patients treated with newer antiseizure medications (ASMs) revealed that certain drugs may pose a risk of liver injury in this population. Further research is needed to validate these findings.
BackgroundData on drug-induced liver injury (DILI) caused by newer antiseizure medications (ASMs) in the elderly are scarce and mainly come from literature case reports. We analyzed Individual Case Safety Reports (ICSRs) of DILI in elderly patients treated with newer ASMs reported to VigiBase.Research design and methodsEmpirica (TM) Signal software was used to retrieve ICSRs reported to VigiBase up to 31 December 2021 and to calculate Empirical Bayesian Geometric Mean and corresponding 90% confidence intervals (EB05, EB95) for each drug-event pair. EB05 > 2, N > 0 was considered a signal. Analysis by age subgroups and gender was performed to assess the influence of these factors on ICSR characteristics and identified signals.ResultsThere were 1399 ICSRs reporting 1947 events of hepatotoxicity. 56.97% of the reports were reported in females, 67.05% were serious, and 3.36% resulted in death. For one or more events of hepatotoxicity, signals were detected for lamotrigine, levetiracetam, oxcarbazepine, topiramate, and zonisamide. Age- and gender-biased reporting frequency was identified for topiramate-induced hyperammonemia, with disproportionally higher reporting frequency in >= 75-year-old male patients.ConclusionsThe results of our study indicate differences among newer ASMs in their potential to cause DILI in the elderly. Further studies are needed to confirm the associations identified in this study.

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

4.5
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