4.0 Article

Population-based drug-induced agranulocytosis

期刊

ARCHIVES OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
卷 165, 期 8, 页码 869-874

出版社

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/archinte.165.8.869

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Since the publication of a major international case-control study on the risk of agranulocytosis associated with the use of medicines in the 1980s, many new drugs have been introduced in therapeutics. Methods: Seventeen units of hematology contribute to the case-control surveillance of agranulocytosis and aplastic anemia in Barcelona, Spain. After a follow-up of 78.73 million person-years, 177 community cases of agranulocytosis were compared with 586 sex-, age, and hospitalmatched control subjects with regard to previous use of medicines. Results: The annual incidence of community-acquired agranulocytosis was 3.46:1 million, and it increased with age. The fatality rate was 7.0%, and the mortality rate was 0.24:1 million. The drug most strongly associated with a risk of agranulocytosis was ticlopidine hydrochloride with an odds ratio (OR) of 103.23 (95% confidence interval [CI], 12.73-837.44), followed by calcium dobesilate (OR, 77.84 [95% CI, 4.50-1346.20]), antithyroid drugs (OR, 52.75 [95% CI, 5.82-478.03]), dipyrone (metamizole sodium and metamizole magnesium) (OR, 25.76 [95% CI, 8.39-179.12]), and spironolactone (OR, 19.97 [95% CI, 2.27-175.89]). Other drugs associated with a significant risk were pyrithyldione, cinepazide, aprindine hydrochloride, carbamazepine, sulfonamides, phenytoin and phenytoin sodium, beta-lactam antibiotics, erythromycin stearate and erythromycin ethylsuccinate, and diclofenac sodium. Individual attributable incidences for all these drugs, which collectively accounted for 68.6% of cases, were less than 1: 1 million per year. Conclusions: Agranulocytosis is rare but serious. A few drugs account for two thirds of the cases. Our results also provide reassurance regarding the. risk associated with a number of newly marketed drugs.

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

4.0
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