Why the study?
To identify and evaluate the most common and critical drugs associated with the risk of noninfectious myocarditis.
Which drugs are most strongly associated with reports of noninfectious myocarditis in the FAERS database?
Which drugs are most strongly associated with reports of noninfectious myocarditis in the FAERS database?
A pharmacovigilance analysis of the FAERS database identified multiple drugs with strong signals for noninfectious myocarditis, including several without current label warnings, highlighting the need for clinical monitoring.
May prompt vigilance for myocarditis with flagged drugs; leaves open causal confirmation in prospective studies.
BACKGROUND: This investigation aims to identify and evaluate the most common and critical drugs associated with the risk of noninfectious myocarditis utilizing the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database. METHODS: Data pertaining to noninfectious myocarditis from 2004 Q1 to 2024 Q2 were extracted. Following data standardization, multiple signal quantification techniques, including Reporting Odds Ratio (ROR) and Proportional Reporting Ratio, were employed for analysis. RESULTS: The study identified a total of 10,763 adverse event reports associated with noninfectious myocarditis. Disproportionality analysis revealed that the top 5 drugs by ROR were phendimetrazine tartrate (ROR 104.64), trimethoprim + sulfamethoxazole (ROR 67.65), aldesleukin (ROR 52.67), mesalazine (ROR 49.73), and balsalazide disodium (ROR 45.26). Notably, among the 30 drugs with the strongest ROR signals, 8 drugs lacked myocarditis risk information in their package inserts. CONCLUSION: Through comprehensive analysis of the FAERS database, our study identified drugs with a strong signal for myocarditis that are not currently indicated on their labels. The findings suggest that the potential risk of myocarditis associated with these medications is significant and warrants close monitoring in clinical practice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yan et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: