Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32418024›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2020

Paradoxical adverse drug reactions: descriptive analysis of French reports.

Yan Hakimi, Nadine Petitpain, Véronique Pinzani, Jean-Louis Montastruc, Haleh Bagheri

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 30% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. The Person's Care Requires a Sex and Gender Approach.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021
    Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Yan HakimiCentre De Pharmacovigilance, De Pharmacoépidémiologie Et D'informations Sur Le Médicament, Inserm UMR 1027, Faculté De Médecine, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire, Toulouse, France.
Nadine PetitpainCentre Régional De Pharmacovigilance-Service De Pharmacologie Clinique, Toxicologie CHRU, De Nancy, France.
Véronique PinzaniDépartement De Pharmacologie Médicale et Toxicologie, Centre Régional De Pharmacovigilance Occitanie-Est, Montpellier, France.
Jean-Louis MontastrucCentre De Pharmacovigilance, De Pharmacoépidémiologie Et D'informations Sur Le Médicament, Inserm UMR 1027, Faculté De Médecine, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire, Toulouse, France.
Haleh BagheriCentre De Pharmacovigilance, De Pharmacoépidémiologie Et D'informations Sur Le Médicament, Inserm UMR 1027, Faculté De Médecine, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire, Toulouse, France. haleh.bagheri@univ-tlse3.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9585-9341
Inserm · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionParadoxical adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are defined as being opposing reactions to the pharmacological effect of drugs in relation to its pharmacodynamic properties. Their diagnosis is difficult as they are relatively rare with atypical clinical presentation (with the possibility of being confused with drug ineffectiveness or the worsening of the underlying disease). This kind of ADR may be particularly subject to under-notification. The aim of the present study is to describe paradoxical ADRs using the French PharmacoVigilance DataBase (FPVDB).

methodWe analysed all reports recorded in the FPVDB with drugs defined as "suspect" and which included the term "paradoxical reaction" (PR) (according to MedDRA classification) from 01/01/1984 to 12/31/2018. The drugs were classified according to the Chemical Therapeutic Anatomical Classification (ATC).

resultsWe found 57 reports of PR, with half of them recorded between 2015 and 2018. The median age of patients was 46 years, mainly male (54%). The most frequently involved drugs were immunomodulating agents (n = 28, 49%) and psychotropics (n = 28, 49%). The leading paradoxical ADRs were psychiatric (anxiety, sleep and behavioural disorders) and skin-related. In 19 cases (33%), PR was related to benzodiazepines mainly occurring in patients in extreme ages (five cases in children and patients > 70, respectively, 53%). For psychotropic-induced PR (n = 28), known contributory factors (alcohol consumption, underlying psychiatric diseases) were found in 18 cases (64%). Paradoxical reactions with immunomodulating agents were mainly related to skin ADRs (n = 25). For psychotropics, paradoxical ADRs occurred rapidly after a mean delay of 1 day, predominantly following high doses. We also identified several "unexpected" paradoxical reactions, such as cognitive degradation with donepezil, or a return to impulsive smoking addiction with varenicline.

conclusionThis study highlights that pharmacovigilance databases like the French database make it possible to investigate the main characteristics of paradoxical reactions to drugs. This ADR was mainly found in the FPVDB with psychotropic drugs and immunomodulating agents. Moreover, pharmacovigilance databases enable the identification of some signs of "unexpected paradoxical reactions". In order to identify this type of ADR more effectively, work on awareness and harmonization is required to register these reports. The addition of the term "paradoxical reaction to the drug" to the list of other symptoms would facilitate their identification and analysis.

Indexed as

AdultAdverse Drug Reaction Reporting SystemsAgedDatabases, FactualDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsFemaleFranceHumansMaleMiddle AgedPharmacovigilanceYoung AdultBenzodiazepinesDrug safetyImmunomodulating agentsParadoxical adverse drug reactionsPharmacovigilance

Identifiers

PMID32418024
OpenAlexW3025889500

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.