ArticlePloS one2025
Mining and analysis of drug-induced shock adverse reactions: A comprehensive pharmacovigilance study based on the US FAERS database.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundShock is a life-threatening clinical condition characterized by high morbidity and mortality. Drug-induced shock represents a complex subset of adverse drug reactions that has not been systematically investigated on a large scale. Comprehensive pharmacovigilance analyses are needed to identify high-risk drugs and drug combinations.
methodWe conducted a retrospective pharmacovigilance analysis using the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) covering the period from 2004Q1 to 2024Q2. Shock-related events were extracted using standardized MedDRA preferred terms. Data deduplication followed FDA guidelines, and four complementary signal detection methods-reporting odds ratio (ROR), proportional reporting ratio (PRR), information component (IC), and empirical Bayes geometric mean (EBGM)-were applied. Drug classification was performed using the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) system, and drug-drug interaction analysis was carried out with the Ω shrinkage method.
resultThe initial dataset contained 3,611,216 duplicate records, and after deduplication, 17,947,720 demographic records were retained. From these, 8,511,840 records reported by healthcare professionals were included, yielding 277,956 shock-related adverse event reports involving 244,030 patients. Among these patients, 46.38% were female, 43.09% were male, and 10.53% had unspecified gender, while the main age groups were 45-64 years (27.35%) and ≥65 years (27.82%). Geographically, the United States accounted for 26.09% of reports, followed by France (8.20%), Japan (4.76%), and the United Kingdom (4.16%), with 99.26% of cases classified as serious events. Signal detection analysis showed that among 847 drugs, 158 (18.7%) were positive in three methods and 79 (9.3%) were positive in all four methods. Metformin was associated with 2,604,602 reports and amlodipine with 2,783,836 reports, both strongly linked to shock. ATC classification revealed cardiovascular drugs accounted for 32% of signals, anti-infectives for 28%, and nervous system drugs for 23%. High-risk drug combinations included anastrozole + levofloxacin (Ω = 4.23), duloxetine + ondansetron (Ω = 4.29), amphotericin B + fluoxetine (Ω = 4.30), quetiapine + sertindole (Ω = 4.25), and risperidone + sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim (Ω = 4.16). Performance evaluation showed the combined four-method approach achieved a positive predictive value of 94% and a negative predictive value of 89%.
conclusionThis study demonstrates strong associations between specific drug classes and shock, with cardiovascular, anti-infective, and nervous system agents identified as the most critical categories. The application of advanced multi-method signal detection enhances the accuracy of pharmacovigilance, reveals novel associations, and provides important evidence for clinical monitoring and risk management.
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.