Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Are adverse drug reaction patterns different between romiplostim and eltrombopag? 2009-2013 French PharmacoVigilance assessment.
Moulis, Guillaume; Bagheri, Haleh; Sailler, Laurent; Jonville-Bera, Annie-Pierre; Weber, Emmanuelle; Guy, Claire; Petitpain, Nadine; Laroche, Marie-Laure; Favrelière, Sylvie; Béné, Johana; Baldin, Bernadette; Villeval-Federici, Laure; Tebacher-Alt, Martine; Bres, Virginie; Veyrac, Gwenaëlle; Grandvuillemin, Aurélie; Mauprivez, Cédric; Lapeyre-Mestre, Maryse; Montastruc, Jean-Louis.
Afiliação
  • Moulis G; Laboratoire de Pharmacologie Médicale et Clinique, Université Paul Sabatier, Faculté de Médecine, 37 Allées Jules-Guesde, 31000 Toulouse, France; Equipe de Pharmacoépidémiologie de l'INSERM U 1027, Faculté de Médecine, 37 Allées Jules-Guesde, 31000 Toulouse, France; Service de Médecine Interne, Cent
  • Bagheri H; Laboratoire de Pharmacologie Médicale et Clinique, Université Paul Sabatier, Faculté de Médecine, 37 Allées Jules-Guesde, 31000 Toulouse, France; Equipe de Pharmacoépidémiologie de l'INSERM U 1027, Faculté de Médecine, 37 Allées Jules-Guesde, 31000 Toulouse, France; Service de Pharmacologie Clinique
  • Sailler L; Equipe de Pharmacoépidémiologie de l'INSERM U 1027, Faculté de Médecine, 37 Allées Jules-Guesde, 31000 Toulouse, France; Service de Médecine Interne, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Toulouse, Place du Dr Baylac, TSA 40031, 31059 Toulouse Cedex 9, France.
  • Jonville-Bera AP; Service de Pharmacologie Clinique, Centre Régional de Pharmacovigilance, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Tours, 2 bd Tonnellé, 37044 Tours Cedex 9, France.
  • Weber E; Service de Médecine Interne, Hôpital Nord, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Saint-Etienne, 42055 Saint-Étienne Cedex 02, France.
  • Guy C; Centre Régional de Pharmacovigilance et de Renseignements sur le Médicament, Hôpital Nord, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Saint-Etienne, 42055 Saint-Étienne Cedex 02, France.
  • Petitpain N; Service de Pharmacologie Clinique, Centre Régional de Pharmacovigilance de Lorraine, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nancy, 29 Avenue du Maréchal-de-Lattre-de-Tassigny, 54035 Nancy Cedex, France.
  • Laroche ML; Service de Pharmacologie, Toxicologie et Pharmacovigilance, Centre Régional de Pharmacovigilance, de Pharmacoépidémiologie et d'Information sur les Médicaments, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Limoges, 2 Avenue Martin-Luther-King, 87042 Limoges Cedex, France.
  • Favrelière S; Centre Régional de Pharmacovigilance, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Poitiers, BP 577, 86021 Poitiers Cedex, France.
  • Béné J; Centre Régional de Pharmacovigilance, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Lille, 1 Place de Verdun, 59045 Lille Cedex, France.
  • Baldin B; Centre Régional de Pharmacovigilance, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nice, 4 Avenue Reine Victoria, BP 1179, 06003 Nice Cedex 1, France.
  • Villeval-Federici L; Service de Médecine Interne, Clinique Adassa, 13 Place de Haguenau, 67000 Strasbourg, France.
  • Tebacher-Alt M; Centre Régional de Pharmacovigilance, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Strasbourg, 1 Place de l'Hôpital, BP 426, 67091 Strasbourg Cedex, France.
  • Bres V; Département de Pharmacologie Médicale et Toxicologie, Centre Régional de Pharmacovigilance de Languedoc-Roussillon, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Montpellier, 371 Avenue du Doyen-Gaston-Giraud, 34295 Montpellier Cedex 5, France.
  • Veyrac G; Service de Pharmacologie Clinique, UF de Pharmacovigilance, Institut de Biologie, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nantes, 9 Quai Moncousu, 44093 Nantes Cedex 01, France.
  • Grandvuillemin A; Centre Régional de Pharmacovigilance de Bourgogne, EA 4184, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Dijon, 14 rue Paul-Gaffarel, BP 77908, 21079 Dijon Cedex, France.
  • Mauprivez C; Centre Régional de Pharmacovigilance de Paris-Cochin, Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris, 27 rue du Faubourg-Saint-Jacques, 75014 Paris, France.
  • Lapeyre-Mestre M; Laboratoire de Pharmacologie Médicale et Clinique, Université Paul Sabatier, Faculté de Médecine, 37 Allées Jules-Guesde, 31000 Toulouse, France; Equipe de Pharmacoépidémiologie de l'INSERM U 1027, Faculté de Médecine, 37 Allées Jules-Guesde, 31000 Toulouse, France; Service de Pharmacologie Clinique
  • Montastruc JL; Laboratoire de Pharmacologie Médicale et Clinique, Université Paul Sabatier, Faculté de Médecine, 37 Allées Jules-Guesde, 31000 Toulouse, France; Equipe de Pharmacoépidémiologie de l'INSERM U 1027, Faculté de Médecine, 37 Allées Jules-Guesde, 31000 Toulouse, France; Service de Pharmacologie Clinique
Eur J Intern Med ; 25(8): 777-80, 2014 Oct.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25242516
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Romiplostim and eltrombopag, the two marketed thrombopoietin receptor agonists (TPO-RAs), have distinct binding sites and might have distinct pharmacodynamic mechanisms. The aim of this study was to compare their adverse drug reaction (ADR) patterns.

METHODS:

We selected in the French PharmacoVigilance Database all ADRs associated with TPO-RAs from TPO-RA marketing until the 31st of December 2013. Medical charts were reviewed. We conducted disproportionality analyses comparing romiplostim exposure in the reports of a given ADR pattern (thrombosis, neurological, cutaneous, gastrointestinal or hematological) to romiplostim exposure in all other TPO-RA-related ADR reports. Reporting Odds Ratios (RORs) were adjusted for age and gender. We also compared the number of reports of a given ADR pattern per million daily defined doses (DDDs) dispensed in France during the study period.

RESULTS:

We described 45 reports (53 ADRs) with romiplostim and 26 reports (37 ADRs) with eltrombopag. There were 19 venous thromboses. At least one other risk factor was present in 83.3% of the cases. Ten (55.6%) patients had been splenectomized previously. There were eight arterial thromboses. Another risk factor was noticed in all cases. There was no signal for an excess risk of thrombosis with romiplostim versus eltrombopag (ROR 1.45, 95% CI [0.48-4.45]). There was a signal for a higher risk of gastrointestinal ADRs with eltrombopag (ROR 30.28, 95% CI [3.23-383.86]) and of hematological ADRs with romiplostim (ROR 14.36, 95% CI [1.73-119.08]). Dispensing data-adjusted comparisons led to similar results.

CONCLUSIONS:

This study suggests different ADR patterns between romiplostim and eltrombopag.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Pirazóis / Trombopoetina / Benzoatos / Proteínas Recombinantes de Fusão / Trato Gastrointestinal / Receptores de Trombopoetina / Hidrazinas Tipo de estudo: Risk_factors_studies Limite: Aged / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged País como assunto: Europa Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2014 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Pirazóis / Trombopoetina / Benzoatos / Proteínas Recombinantes de Fusão / Trato Gastrointestinal / Receptores de Trombopoetina / Hidrazinas Tipo de estudo: Risk_factors_studies Limite: Aged / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged País como assunto: Europa Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2014 Tipo de documento: Article