Liver injury due to endothelin receptor antagonists: a real-world study based on post-marketing drug monitoring data.

IF 3.3 3区 医学 Q2 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM
Shichao Dong, Xiaofei Guo, Huayu Wang, Chuan Sun
{"title":"Liver injury due to endothelin receptor antagonists: a real-world study based on post-marketing drug monitoring data.","authors":"Shichao Dong, Xiaofei Guo, Huayu Wang, Chuan Sun","doi":"10.1177/17534666231223606","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Liver injury is the hallmark adverse reaction of endothelin receptor antagonist (ERA). Since the first drug, bosentan has been widely used in clinical practice, hepatotoxicity has been accompanied by the history of ERA. The new ERA has been proven to have a lower liver risk but the current research findings are inconsistent. ERA-based targeted drug combinations are commonly used in the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension, where the risk of liver injury is difficult to estimate.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to compare the correlation between ERA and different ERA combination regimens with liver injury in the real world.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>This is a retrospective study using data from the Adverse Event Reporting System (Food and Drug Administration AERS, FAERS).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study used proportional imbalance and Bayesian analysis to mine FAERS data from January 2004 to December 2022 to determine the association of three ERAs with liver injury and to further mine the risk of liver injury due to the combination of ERAs with other targeted drugs. In addition, we analyzed the onset time, mortality, and hospitalization rate of liver injury caused by different ERA combination regimens.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We screened out 3581 ERA-related liver injury events, of which bosentan (59.82%) had the largest number of cases. The patients with liver injury were mainly female (60.63%), and the age was concentrated between 61 and 75 years (26.75%). According to different signal mining methods, reporting odds ratio (ROR; 3.38, 95% confidence interval = 3.23-3.53), proportional reporting ratio (PRR; 3.22, <i>χ</i><sup>2</sup> = 37.84), Bayesian confidence propagation neural network (BCPNN; 1.68, 95% confidence interval = 1.61), multi-item gamma Poisson shrinker (MGPS; 3.21, 95% confidence interval = 3.09), bosentan had the strongest association with liver injury compared to ambrisentan and macitentan. Furthermore, bosentan + sildenafil [ROR (2.52, 95% confidence interval = 2.23-2.84), PRR (2.44, <i>χ</i><sup>2</sup> = 15.92), BCPNN (1.29, 95% confidence interval = 1.14), MGPS (2.44, 95% confidence interval = 2.21)], bosentan + epoprostenol [ROR (5.39, 95% confidence interval = 4.29-6.77), PRR (4.94, <i>χ</i><sup>2</sup> = 65.18), BCPNN (2.30, 95% confidence interval = 1.83), MGPS (4.94, 95% confidence interval = 4.08)], bosentan + iloprost [ROR (2.70, 95% confidence interval = 2.11-3.45), PRR (2.61, <i>χ</i><sup>2</sup> = 31.03), BCPNN (1.38, 95% confidence interval = 1.08), MGPS (2.61, 95% confidence interval = 2.12)] had a higher risk of liver injury caused by the three ERA combination regimens. The median time to onset of hepatotoxicity associated with all ERA combination regimens was 259 days (interquartile range: 58-716.5 days). Finally, the hospitalization rate for patients experiencing hepatotoxicity with ERA combination regimens was 47.86% and the mortality rate was 12.67%.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>By mining the FAERS, we analyzed and compared the risk of liver injury related to different ERA and ERA combination regimens, and the onset time and adverse reaction outcomes of all ERA combination regimens. According to the results of the study, bosentan had the highest risk of liver injury and the combination regimens bosentan + sildenafil, bosentan + epoprostenol, and bosentan + iloprost had a stronger risk of liver injury. From the early stages of treatment, we need to regularly monitor the liver function of patients, especially for females and the elderly, and discontinue the suspected drug as soon as the liver injury occurs.</p>","PeriodicalId":22884,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutic Advances in Respiratory Disease","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10771067/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutic Advances in Respiratory Disease","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17534666231223606","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Liver injury is the hallmark adverse reaction of endothelin receptor antagonist (ERA). Since the first drug, bosentan has been widely used in clinical practice, hepatotoxicity has been accompanied by the history of ERA. The new ERA has been proven to have a lower liver risk but the current research findings are inconsistent. ERA-based targeted drug combinations are commonly used in the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension, where the risk of liver injury is difficult to estimate.

Objectives: This study aimed to compare the correlation between ERA and different ERA combination regimens with liver injury in the real world.

Design: This is a retrospective study using data from the Adverse Event Reporting System (Food and Drug Administration AERS, FAERS).

Methods: The study used proportional imbalance and Bayesian analysis to mine FAERS data from January 2004 to December 2022 to determine the association of three ERAs with liver injury and to further mine the risk of liver injury due to the combination of ERAs with other targeted drugs. In addition, we analyzed the onset time, mortality, and hospitalization rate of liver injury caused by different ERA combination regimens.

Results: We screened out 3581 ERA-related liver injury events, of which bosentan (59.82%) had the largest number of cases. The patients with liver injury were mainly female (60.63%), and the age was concentrated between 61 and 75 years (26.75%). According to different signal mining methods, reporting odds ratio (ROR; 3.38, 95% confidence interval = 3.23-3.53), proportional reporting ratio (PRR; 3.22, χ2 = 37.84), Bayesian confidence propagation neural network (BCPNN; 1.68, 95% confidence interval = 1.61), multi-item gamma Poisson shrinker (MGPS; 3.21, 95% confidence interval = 3.09), bosentan had the strongest association with liver injury compared to ambrisentan and macitentan. Furthermore, bosentan + sildenafil [ROR (2.52, 95% confidence interval = 2.23-2.84), PRR (2.44, χ2 = 15.92), BCPNN (1.29, 95% confidence interval = 1.14), MGPS (2.44, 95% confidence interval = 2.21)], bosentan + epoprostenol [ROR (5.39, 95% confidence interval = 4.29-6.77), PRR (4.94, χ2 = 65.18), BCPNN (2.30, 95% confidence interval = 1.83), MGPS (4.94, 95% confidence interval = 4.08)], bosentan + iloprost [ROR (2.70, 95% confidence interval = 2.11-3.45), PRR (2.61, χ2 = 31.03), BCPNN (1.38, 95% confidence interval = 1.08), MGPS (2.61, 95% confidence interval = 2.12)] had a higher risk of liver injury caused by the three ERA combination regimens. The median time to onset of hepatotoxicity associated with all ERA combination regimens was 259 days (interquartile range: 58-716.5 days). Finally, the hospitalization rate for patients experiencing hepatotoxicity with ERA combination regimens was 47.86% and the mortality rate was 12.67%.

Conclusion: By mining the FAERS, we analyzed and compared the risk of liver injury related to different ERA and ERA combination regimens, and the onset time and adverse reaction outcomes of all ERA combination regimens. According to the results of the study, bosentan had the highest risk of liver injury and the combination regimens bosentan + sildenafil, bosentan + epoprostenol, and bosentan + iloprost had a stronger risk of liver injury. From the early stages of treatment, we need to regularly monitor the liver function of patients, especially for females and the elderly, and discontinue the suspected drug as soon as the liver injury occurs.

内皮素受体拮抗剂导致的肝损伤:基于上市后药物监测数据的真实世界研究。
背景:肝损伤是内皮素受体拮抗剂(ERA)的标志性不良反应。自第一种药物波生坦被广泛应用于临床以来,肝毒性一直伴随着ERA的历史。新的ERA已被证实具有较低的肝脏风险,但目前的研究结果并不一致。基于ERA的靶向药物组合常用于肺动脉高压的治疗,其肝脏损伤风险难以估计:本研究旨在比较ERA和不同ERA联合用药方案在现实世界中与肝损伤的相关性:这是一项回顾性研究,使用的数据来自不良事件报告系统(食品药品管理局 AERS,FAERS):本研究采用比例失衡和贝叶斯分析法挖掘2004年1月至2022年12月的FAERS数据,以确定三种ERA与肝损伤的相关性,并进一步挖掘ERA与其他靶向药物联用导致肝损伤的风险。此外,我们还分析了不同ERA联合用药方案导致肝损伤的发病时间、死亡率和住院率:结果:我们筛选出 3581 例 ERA 相关肝损伤事件,其中波生坦(59.82%)的病例数最多。肝损伤患者以女性为主(60.63%),年龄集中在61-75岁之间(26.75%)。根据不同的信号挖掘方法,报告几率比(ROR;3.38,95% 置信区间 = 3.23-3.53)、比例报告比(PRR;3.22,χ2 = 37.84)、贝叶斯置信传播神经网络(BCPN;1.68,95% 置信区间 = 1.61)、多项目伽马泊松收缩器(MGPS;3.21,95% 置信区间 = 3.09),与安立生坦和马西替坦相比,波生坦与肝损伤的相关性最强。此外,波生坦+西地那非[ROR(2.52,95% 置信区间 = 2.23-2.84)、PRR(2.44,χ2 = 15.92)、BCPNN(1.29,95% 置信区间 = 1.14)、MGPS(2.44,95% 置信区间 = 2.21)]、波生坦 + 依前列醇[ROR(5.39,95% 置信区间 = 4.29-6.77)、PRR(4.94,χ2 = 65.18)、BCPNN(2.30,95%置信区间=1.83),MGPS(4.94,95%置信区间=4.08)]、波生坦+伊洛前列素[ROR(2.70,95%置信区间=2.11-3.45),PRR(2.61,χ2=31.03),BCPNN(1.38,95%置信区间=1.08),MGPS(2.61,95%置信区间=2.12)]三种ERA联合方案引起肝损伤的风险较高。所有ERA联合疗法引起肝毒性的中位时间为259天(四分位距:58-716.5天)。最后,ERA联合疗法肝毒性患者的住院率为47.86%,死亡率为12.67%:通过使用 FAERS,我们分析比较了不同ERA和ERA联合用药方案的肝损伤风险,以及所有ERA联合用药方案的发病时间和不良反应结果。研究结果显示,波生坦的肝损伤风险最高,波生坦+西地那非、波生坦+表前列醇、波生坦+伊洛前列素等联合方案的肝损伤风险较高。从治疗早期开始,我们就需要定期监测患者的肝功能,尤其是女性和老年人,一旦出现肝损伤,应立即停用可疑药物。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
57
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊介绍: Therapeutic Advances in Respiratory Disease delivers the highest quality peer-reviewed articles, reviews, and scholarly comment on pioneering efforts and innovative studies across all areas of respiratory disease.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信