Post-marketing safety assessment of constipation drugs: a real-world pharmacovigilance study based on FAERS database.

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Wenyu Zhang, Hui Wang, Shiwei Yang, Xue Pang, Wenqi Hu, Guang Zhang, Xuezhi Xin
{"title":"Post-marketing safety assessment of constipation drugs: a real-world pharmacovigilance study based on FAERS database.","authors":"Wenyu Zhang, Hui Wang, Shiwei Yang, Xue Pang, Wenqi Hu, Guang Zhang, Xuezhi Xin","doi":"10.1080/14740338.2025.2467829","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Laxatives are widely used in the treatment of constipation, but they also have brought many adverse reactions to patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a pharmacovigilance analysis based on the United States Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database to analyze the adverse events of six constipation drugs (linaclotide, lubiprostone, prucalopride, naloxegol, naldemedine, and plecanatide) and to search for clinically meaningful adverse reaction signals. We used disproportionality analysis as the main analysis method to detect pharmacovigilance signals, which includes Frequentist methods and Bayesian methods.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among the reports of the six drugs, more adverse reactions were reported from females than males, and the number of adverse reactions reported was higher in the group of 60-89 years. Linaclotide had the lowest proportion of serious adverse event reports (4.38%), while naldemedine had the highest proportion of serious adverse event reports (25.57%). According to the classification of system organ classification (SOC), the number of gastrointestinal adverse events (<i>N</i> = 8321) was the largest.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The adverse reactions of constipation drugs were mainly gastrointestinal symptoms such as diarrhea, abdominal pain and abdominal distension. Linaclotide has the highest safety, and more studies are needed to analyze the cardiovascular safety of lubiprostone.</p>","PeriodicalId":12232,"journal":{"name":"Expert Opinion on Drug Safety","volume":" ","pages":"1-12"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Opinion on Drug Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14740338.2025.2467829","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Laxatives are widely used in the treatment of constipation, but they also have brought many adverse reactions to patients.

Methods: We conducted a pharmacovigilance analysis based on the United States Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database to analyze the adverse events of six constipation drugs (linaclotide, lubiprostone, prucalopride, naloxegol, naldemedine, and plecanatide) and to search for clinically meaningful adverse reaction signals. We used disproportionality analysis as the main analysis method to detect pharmacovigilance signals, which includes Frequentist methods and Bayesian methods.

Results: Among the reports of the six drugs, more adverse reactions were reported from females than males, and the number of adverse reactions reported was higher in the group of 60-89 years. Linaclotide had the lowest proportion of serious adverse event reports (4.38%), while naldemedine had the highest proportion of serious adverse event reports (25.57%). According to the classification of system organ classification (SOC), the number of gastrointestinal adverse events (N = 8321) was the largest.

Conclusions: The adverse reactions of constipation drugs were mainly gastrointestinal symptoms such as diarrhea, abdominal pain and abdominal distension. Linaclotide has the highest safety, and more studies are needed to analyze the cardiovascular safety of lubiprostone.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
3.20%
发文量
97
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Expert Opinion on Drug Safety ranks #62 of 216 in the Pharmacology & Pharmacy category in the 2008 ISI Journal Citation Reports. Expert Opinion on Drug Safety (ISSN 1474-0338 [print], 1744-764X [electronic]) is a MEDLINE-indexed, peer-reviewed, international journal publishing review articles on all aspects of drug safety and original papers on the clinical implications of drug treatment safety issues, providing expert opinion on the scope for future development.
×
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