Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33841134›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2020

Spontaneous Reports of Serious Adverse Drug Reactions Resulting From Drug-Drug Interactions: An Analysis From the French Pharmacovigilance Database.

Louis Létinier, Amandine Ferreira, Alexandre Marceron, Marina Babin, Joëlle Micallef, Ghada Miremont-Salamé, Antoine Pariente, French Network of Pharmacovigilance Centres

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Drug Interactions for Patients with Respiratory Diseases Receiving COVID-19 Emerged Treatments.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Review
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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Louis LétinierUniv. Bordeaux, INSERM, BPH, U1219, Team Pharmacoepidemiology, Bordeaux, France.
Amandine FerreiraUniv. Bordeaux, INSERM, BPH, U1219, Team Pharmacoepidemiology, Bordeaux, France.
Alexandre MarceronUniv. Bordeaux, INSERM, BPH, U1219, Team Pharmacoepidemiology, Bordeaux, France.
Marina BabinService de Pharmacologie Toxicologie et CRPV, CHU, Angers, France.
Joëlle MicallefCRPV Marseille Provence Corse, Service Hospitalo-Universitaire de Pharmacologie Clinique et Pharmacovigilance, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Marseille, Marseille, France.
Ghada Miremont-SalaméUniv. Bordeaux, INSERM, BPH, U1219, Team Pharmacoepidemiology, Bordeaux, France.
Antoine ParienteUniv. Bordeaux, INSERM, BPH, U1219, Team Pharmacoepidemiology, Bordeaux, France.
French Network of Pharmacovigilance Centres
Inserm · FRBordeaux Population Health · FRCentre Hospitalier Universitaire d'Angers · FRCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Bordeaux · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Few data are available on the clinical impact of drug-drug interactions (DDIs). Most of the studies are limited to the analysis of exposure to potential DDI or the targeted impact of the combination of a few drugs or therapeutic classes. The analysis of adverse drug reaction (ADR) reports could be a mean to study generally the adverse effects identified due to a DDI. Our objective was to describe the characteristics of ADRs resulting from DDIs reported to the French Pharmacovigilance system and to identify the drugs most often implicated in these ADRs. Considering all ADR reports from January 01, 2012, to December 31, 2016, we identified all cases of ADR resulting from a DDI (DDI-ADRs). We then described these in terms of patients' characteristics, ADR seriousness, drugs involved (two or more per case), and ADR type. Of the 4,027 reports relating to DDI-ADRs, 3,303 were related to serious ADRs. Patients with serious DDI-ADRs had a median age of 76 years (interquartile range: 63-84); 53% were male. Of all serious DDI-ADRs, 11% were life-threatening and 8% fatal. In 36% of cases, the DDI causing the ADR involved at least three drugs. Overall, 8,424 different drugs were mentioned in the 3,303 serious DDI-ADRs considered. Altogether, drugs from the "antithrombotic agents" subgroup were incriminated in 34% of serious DDI-ADRs. Antidepressants were the second most represented therapeutic/pharmacological subgroup (5% of serious DDI-ADRs). Among the 3,843 ADR types reported in the 3,303 serious DDI-ADRs considered, the most frequently represented were hemorrhage (40% clinical hemorrhage; 6% biological hemorrhage), renal failure (8%), pharmacokinetic alteration (5%), and cardiac arrhythmias (4%). Hemorrhagic accidents are still an important part of serious ADRs resulting from DDIs reported in France. The other clinical consequences of DDIs seem less well identified by pharmacovigilance. Moreover, more than one-third of serious DDI-ADRs involved at least three drugs.

Indexed as

adverse drug reactionantithrombotic agentsdrug–drug interactionhemorrhagespharmacovigilancespontaneous reporting

Identifiers

PMID33841134
PMCPMC8024557
OpenAlexW3138242539

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.