ArticlePloS one2024
Comparison of safety profiles for dapagliflozin based on EMA and FDA safety issues: Challenges and future of post-marketing surveillance in Korea.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Europe, the United States (U.S), and Korea each maintain post-marketing surveillance (PMS) systems to monitor rare or unexpected adverse events. Korea's PMS mainly involves a re-examination system to identify new adverse events not seen in pre-market trials during the early stages of post-marketing drug use, along with the risk management plan (RMP), a comprehensive strategy using methods like signal detection to regularly assess safety and benefit-risk throughout the drug's lifecycle. This study compares the post-marketing safety issues associated with dapagliflozin as identified by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the U.S Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and in Korea. To identify these safety issues, we reviewed the safety concerns listed in the European Union RMP (EU-RMP), adverse events noted in the Warnings and Precautions section of the U.S FDA drug label, and use-result surveillance results detailed in the Korean Ministry of Food and Drug Safety drug label. Additionally, we used Korean Adverse Event Reporting System (KAERS) data to detect safety signals. We manually matched and compared safety issues identified by the EMA and FDA with those recognized in Korea. For safety issues unique to Korea, we compared KAERS signals with the results from use-result surveillance. We compared 17 EMA/FDA safety issues with 38 KAERS signals and 231 results from use-result surveillance. While there was a significant concordance (71%) between the safety issues identified by the EMA/FDA and those in Korea, Korean safety issues had limitations in capturing long-term outcomes and laboratory results. Some safety issues that were initially recognized in the EU-RMP and FDA drug labels were no longer found in the latest documents. To enhance PMS in Korea, it is necessary to establish more specific laws and regulations and develop detailed guidelines that utilize a variety of real-world data and research methodologies to continuously assess causality throughout the product lifecycle.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.