Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background:

Acute pancreatitis (AP) is associated with risks of morbidity and mortality. The incidence of AP recently increased compared to that traditionally reported in the literature.

Objective:

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the possible association between AP and drugs using the Japanese Adverse Drug Event Report (JADER) database, which is a spontaneous reporting database of adverse drug events.

Methods:

Adverse event reports submitted to the JADER database between 2004 and 2017 were analyzed. Disproportionality analysis was performed by calculating the reporting odds ratio (ROR) with 95% confidence intervals for signal detection.

Results:

A total of 3,443 reports (0.17% of all adverse events) were identified as drug-induced AP, in which 431 different drugs were involved. Acute pancreatitis was frequently reported in men (58.5%) in their 60s (19.1%); 40.6% developed AP within 4 weeks after the treatment. Among the most frequently reported drugs, signals were detected for prednisolone, ribavirin, sitagliptin, mesalazine, tacrolimus, and l-asparaginase, which are well-known causes of AP. Telaprevir, donepezil, and ustekinumab also generated signals. As for drugs with high RORs, l-asparaginase and alogliptin were noteworthy.

Conclusion:

Most of the identified drugs were already known to induce AP, but the likelihood of the reporting of AP varied among the drugs. Our results should raise physicians’ awareness of drugs associated with AP, but further investigation of these medications is warranted.

Keywords

acute pancreatitis drug-induced adverse events spontaneous reporting system reporting odds ratio (ROR)Japanese Adverse Drug Event Report (JADER) database

Introduction

Acute pancreatitis (AP) is characterized by acute inflammation of the pancreas and classified into interstitial edematous pancreatitis and necrotizing pancreatitis.¹ Common clinical symptoms are upper abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, fever, and elevated serum pancreatic enzymes. Although AP is mild to moderate in severity in the majority of patients, some develop persistent organ failure.² The most frequent causes of AP are gallstones and excessive alcohol consumption.³ Drugs are responsible for 5% of AP incidents⁴; however, the incidence recently increased compared to that traditionally reported in the literature, 1%.⁵ As a result, drug-induced AP has gained more attention, promoting health-care providers to become more concerned about drug-induced AP.

The vast majority of reported drug-induced AP cases may have an idiosyncratic character⁶; the onset of drug-induced AP is thought to be immune mediated.^7,8 Early diagnosis and discontinuation of the offending drug can reduce complications.⁹ Classically, there have been several studies on drugs inducing AP⁵ but little information about drugs that are most frequently responsible for AP in a real-world setting.

Pharmacovigilance is a growing field, and it may be a useful tool to screen for potential associations among adverse drug events. Identifying the drugs most frequently implicated in the occurrence of AP could improve prescribing practice. However, few studies have performed surveillance of drugs inducing AP using a spontaneous reporting database.¹⁰ In the present study, we conducted a comprehensive nationwide overview of the risk of drug-induced AP and identification of drugs most frequently implicated in the occurrence of AP using the Japanese Adverse Drug Event Report (JADER) database, a spontaneous reporting database of the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA).

Materials and Methods

We used the JADER database of the PMDA as a spontaneous reporting database, which was established in April 2004.^11

-15 The JADER database is freely obtainable from the web site of the PMDA, and we accessed the data set to which adverse event reports were submitted between April 2004 and January 2017. The data structure of the database consists of 4 data sets: patient demographics, drug information, adverse reactions, and medical history. In the adverse reaction table, the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) is used to codify the adverse reactions, which are indicated as “preferred term (PT).”

After we removed duplicated data, each table was then linked using the ID number. In each case, the contribution of the medication to adverse reactions was classified into 3 categories: “suspected medicine,” “interaction,” and “concomitant medicine.” A “suspected medicine” is defined as a pharmaceutical product with which an adverse reaction is suspected to be associated. When the reporter suspects an interaction, he or she reports it as an “interaction.” A “concomitant medicine” is defined as another pharmaceutical product used at the time of the adverse reaction.

We only extracted cases that were classified as “suspected medicine” and excluded patients with a history of chronic or autoimmune pancreatitis. We analyzed the reports of suspected drugs and adverse events, which we selected as “pancreatitis acute” in the PT coded in MedDRA (version 20). We compiled a cross-tabulation table based on 2 classifications: the presence or absence of AP and the presence or absence of the suspected medicine. Then, we calculated the reporting odds ratio (ROR). The ROR is rate of reporting a specific adverse reaction caused by a particular drug divided by the rate of the same adverse reactions caused by all other drugs present in the database. In addition, the ROR was frequently used with the spontaneous reporting database as an index of the relative risk of drug-associated adverse events. A signal¹⁶ was considered to be present when the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the ROR was >1.

In this database, age, height, and weight information is indicated in the form of age in decades, height in centimeter-denominated ranges, and weight in kilogram-denominated ranges. Because these data are not continuous variables, we could not conduct multiple analyses using them. All analyses were performed with JMP Pro 12 (SAS Institute Inc, Cary, North Carolina).

Results

The total number of reported cases of AP associated with drugs was 3,443 (0.17% of all adverse events). The annual numbers of reports in 2004 to 2016 are shown in Table 1. Rates of death and nonrecovery from drug-induced AP varied widely from year to year and reached peaks of 12.6% and 18.4%, respectively. Table 2 shows characteristics of patients. Acute pancreatitis was frequently reported in men (58.5%) in their 60s (19.1%). As for the treatment period until AP, 40.6% of patients experienced AP within 4 weeks and 36.5% of reports did not specify an onset time. The outcomes of AP were distributed as follows: 5.7% (196 reports) of the patients died, 77.0% (2,650 reports) had recovered or were recovering, 5.2% (180 reports) had not recovered, 2.9% (100 reports) had after effects, and the outcome was unknown in the remaining 9.2% (317 reports).

Table 1.

Drug-Induced AP From 2004 to 2016.

	Year													Total
	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	Total
Reports of drug-induced AP	145	197	121	190	219	232	278	319	539	280	350	320	253	3,443
Reports of death due to drug-induced AP	4 (2.8%)	12 (6.1%)	3 (2.5%)	12 (6.3%)	9 (4.1%)	19 (8.2%)	35 (12.6%)	30 (9.4%)	9 (1.7%)	7 (2.5%)	6 (1.7%)	32 (10.0%)	18 (7.1%)	196 (5.7%)
Reports of nonrecovery from drug-induced AP	10 (6.9%)	30 (15.2%)	2 (1.7%)	35 (18.4%)	13 (5.9%)	11 (4.7%)	16 (5.8%)	7 (2.2%)	5 (0.9%)	16 (5.7%)	18 (5.1%)	1 (0.3%)	16 (6.3%)	180 (5.2%)

Abbreviation: AP, acute pancreatitis.

Table 2.

Characteristics of the Patients With Drug-Induced AP.

Variables	n (%)
Sex
Men	2,014 (58.5)
Women	1,389 (40.3)
Unknown	40 (1.2)
Age
<10	258 (7.5)
10s	432 (12.5)
20s	155 (4.5)
30s	271 (7.9)
40s	398 (11.6)
50s	508 (14.8)
60s	657 (19.1)
70s	506 (14.7)
80s	157 (4.5)
90s	18 (0.5)
Unknown	83 (2.4)
Treatment time to episode
1 week	898 (26.1)
2 weeks	235 (6.8)
4 weeks	264 (7.7)
12 weeks	358 (10.4)
24 weeks	154 (4.5)
1 year	141 (4.1)
>1 year	136 (3.9)
Unknown	1,257 (36.5)

Abbreviations: AP, acute pancreatitis; N, number of reports.

In our analysis, 431 different drugs were “suspected” in cases of AP. Of those, we examined the 70 most frequently reported drugs because Nitsche et al¹⁷ reported 62 drugs with a probable or definite association with AP. The most frequently reported drugs were prednisolone (180 reports), ribavirin (159 reports), sitagliptin (127 reports), mesalazine (127 reports), and tacrolimus (105 reports). Focusing on RORs, 39 drugs generated a signal, that is, the lower confidence limit of the ROR was >1. Of note, the association with AP was more noteworthy for l-asparaginase (ROR, 47.9; 95% CI, 39.1-58.7). As shown in Table 3, these 70 drugs were classified into different drug categories. The drug categories most commonly implicated as causative of AP were corticosteroids (6 drugs with signals) and antivirals (6 drugs with signals). The number of death or nonrecovery events did not correlate with the agents with the highest RORs (Supplemental Figure S1).

Table 3.

Most Frequently Reported Drugs Associated With AP.

Drug category	Drug	N	ROR	95% CI
Corticosteroids	Prednisolone	180	2.26^a	1.95-2.63
	Methylprednisolone	26	3.49^a	2.37-5.14
	Methylprednisolone sodium succinate	25	2.96^a	1.99-4.39
	Prednisolone sodium succinate	21	5.61^a	3.65-8.64
	Prednisolone acetate	15	6.71^a	4.03-11.2
	Dexamethasone sodium phosphate	15	2.49^a	1.5-4.14
	Dexamethasone	14	0.34	0.2-0.57
Antivirals	Ribavirin	159	2^a	1.7-2.34
	Peginterferon alfa-2b	83	1.89^a	1.52-2.35
	Telaprevir	74	3.18^a	2.52-4
	Peginterferon alfa-2a	22	1.07	0.7-1.62
	Lamivudine	16	3^a	1.84-4.91
	Ritonavir	14	5.85^a	3.45-9.91
	Lamivudine/abacavir sulfate	12	11.6^a	6.52-20.5
Antidiabetic drugs	Sitagliptin	127	26.9^a	22.5-32.3
	Alogliptin	55	43.3^a	32.8-57
	Vildagliptin	50	10.7^a	8.05-14.1
	Liraglutide	44	31^a	22.8-42
	Linagliptin	23	17.8^a	11.7-27
Anti-inflammatory drugs	Mesalazine	127	27.6^a	23-33.1
Immunosuppressants	Tacrolimus	105	2.32^a	1.91-2.82
	Cyclosporin	75	2.15^a	1.71-2.7
	Azathioprine	46	6.94^a	5.18-9.3
	Mycophenolate mofetil	28	1.42	0.98-2.06
Anticancer drugs	L-asparaginase	103	47.9^a	39.1-58.7
	Sorafenib	67	2.6^a	2.04-3.31
	Tegafur/gimeracil/oteracil (ts-1)	26	0.93	0.63-1.37
	Cyclophosphamide	22	1.07	0.7-1.62
	Azacitidine	21	0.57	0.37-0.88
	Temozolomide	21	0.37	0.24-0.57
	Pazopanib	20	2.63^a	1.69-4.09
	Imatinib	19	0.72	0.46-1.14
	Cisplatin	19	0.52	0.33-0.82
	Sunitinib	19	0.7	0.45-1.1
	Docetaxel	18	0.96	0.6-1.52
	Nilotinib	18	1.73^a	1.09-2.76
	Paclitaxel	15	0.93	0.56-1.55
	Vincristine	14	0.83	0.49-1.4
	Cytarabine	13	1.54	0.9-2.66
	Fluorouracil	13	0.12	0.07-0.21
	Irinotecan	12	0.28	0.16-0.49
	Erlotinib	12	1.29	0.73-2.27
	Carboplatin	12	0.69	0.39-1.22
	Doxorubicin	12	0.55	0.31-0.97
	Gefitinib	11	1.7	0.94-3.07
	Bortezomib	11	0.55	0.3-0.99
Antiepileptic drugs	Valproate acid	91	7.36^a	5.97-9.07
	Levetiracetam	28	4.42^a	3.04-6.42
Antirheumatic drugs	Methotrexate	48	0.91	0.68-1.21
	Tocilizumab	39	1	0.73-1.37
	Salazosulfapyridine	25	5.2^a	3.5-7.72
	Infliximab	20	0.69	0.44-1.07
	Etanercept	15	1.16	0.7-1.93
	Adalimumab	14	1.58	0.93-2.67
Antifungal drugs	Amphotericin b	21	5.3^a	3.45-8.16
	Micafungin	11	3.07^a	1.69-5.55
Antibacterial drugs	Teicoplanin	17	4.65^a	2.88-7.51
	Tazobactam/piperacillin sodium	12	3.1^a	1.76-5.47
	Ceftriaxone	11	1.79	0.99-3.24
Others	Clozapine	23	0.53	0.35-0.8
	Donepezil	21	3.04^a	1.98-4.68
	Furosemide	20	1.98^a	1.28-3.08
	Ustekinumab	16	5.35^a	3.27-8.76
	Famotidine	15	1.65	0.99-2.74
	Propofol	15	2.96^a	1.78-4.92
	Rosuvastatin	15	4.08^a	2.45-6.78
	Nafamostat	13	2.85^a	1.65-4.93
	Enalapril maleate	11	4.97^a	2.74-9
	Olanzapine	11	0.95	0.53-1.72
	Levofolinate	11	0.26	0.14-0.47

Abbreviations: AP, acute pancreatitis; CI, confidence interval; N, number of reports, ROR, reporting odds ratio.

^a Signal detected.

Discussion

This is the first study to provide an apparent association between AP and several drugs and characteristics of patients with drug-induced AP, based on information from the JADER database. Death or nonrecovery from drug-induced AP was 10.9% of the total AP reports, being consistent with previous reports.¹⁸ Regarding the characteristics of patients, AP tended to occur most frequently within 1 month of exposure and show a peak age of onset in patients in their 60s. The highest incidence was noted in patients in their 60s, which is consistent with a study that there is an association between increased risk of AP and polypharmacy.¹⁹ Of note, among drugs with a signal, telaprevir, donepezil, and ustekinumab have not been reported as AP-inducing drugs.

In the study by Nango et al,¹⁰ drug-induced AP was assessed using the US Food and Drug Administration’s adverse event reporting system, in which target drugs were limited to cortisol, cortisone, prednisolone, methylprednisolone, triamcinolone, dexamethasone, and betamethasone. In the present study, we assessed drugs that most frequently induced AP and identified various drugs. In addition, we found that the number of cases of drug-induced AP varied from a low of 145 in 2004 to a high of 539 in 2012. This is partly because several drugs were launched onto the market a few years before 2012: sitagliptin, clozapine, and nilotinib in 2009; alogliptin, vildagliptin, liraglutide, and levetiracetam in 2010; linagliptin, azacitidine, ustekinumab, and ritonavir in 2011; and pazopanib in 2012. Among drugs with a signal, telaprevir, donepezil, and ustekinumab have not been reported as AP-inducing drugs, and so the results might offer new and valuable insights. Focusing on RORs, the drugs with a high signal score included l-asparaginase, alogliptin, liraglutide, sitagliptin, mesalazine, and linagliptin. l-Asparaginase²⁰ and mesalazine²¹ have often been reported as associated with drug-induced AP.⁷ Also, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4 inhibitors: alogliptin, sitagliptin, and linagliptin)²² and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist (liraglutide)²³ were commonly reported. These antidiabetic agents showed an increasing risk of AP.²⁴ The mechanisms of DPP-4 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonist that cause AP are not clear. Among antidiabetic agents, the use of sitagliptin or exenatide led to a 6-fold higher risk of pancreatitis compared to that of other antidiabetic agents,²⁵ whereas the use of incretin-based drugs was not associated with an increased risk of AP compared to other oral antidiabetic agents.²⁶ Follow-up research is needed to confirm the associations.

The mechanisms of drug-induced AP include pancreatic duct constriction, cytotoxic and metabolic effects, the accumulation of a toxic metabolite or intermediary, and hypersensitivity reactions.⁹ Mainly, intrinsic drug toxicity and idiosyncratic reactions treated with drugs are involved in the pathogenesis of drug-induced AP. The mechanism of intrinsic drug toxicity is dose dependent, develops in the short term, and is consistent from person to person regarding the frequency of development. Alternatively, idiosyncratic reactions are not dose dependent, are unpredictable, and the period of development depends on the person. Idiosyncratic reactions can be categorized into those secondary to hypersensitivity reactions and those caused by the accumulation of a toxic metabolite or an injurious intermediary substance. Hypersensitivity reactions tend to occur with a latency of within 1 month after exposure. When a patient is reexposed to a drug that caused hypersensitivity, the drug reaction is reproduced in a shorter time period than before.⁷ In our study, the most frequent treatment period until AP was within 1 month. This is possibly due to hypersensitivity reactions or reexposure. Considering that hypersensitivity reactions are related to the development of drug-induced AP, we need to observe the condition.

Pharmacovigilance can be a useful tool to screen potential associations in drug-induced AP. Indeed, the safety of drugs was primarily assessed in nonclinical and clinical studies in the development stage; however, rare but serious adverse events often go undetected during the development phase because the selection criteria are limited in clinical trials. Therefore, unexpected serious adverse drug events are sometimes identified postmarketing. An analysis using the JADER database as a self-reporting database has advantages in that it can detect unknown or severe side effects.

This study had some limitations. First, as a consequence of the self-reporting database, the data occasionally contain typing errors. In addition, we cannot know whether the reports covered all the incidences, and it is difficult to completely remove the reporting bias. Second, this database lacks detailed clinical information such as on unknown etiology of underlying disease and the possible role of disease in the reported adverse event and on alcohol consumption.²⁷ Third, the ROR may incidentally decrease if another drug-specific reaction is reported more consistently; this dilutes the association because of the stronger association with other events. For example, methotrexate is known to cause AP but did not show a significant ROR in the present data set analysis. This might be because the adverse drug event most frequently reported to the pharmacovigilance network for this drug is interstitial lung disease, resulting in a very small proportion of AP events.

Conclusion

In conclusion, analysis of real-world data suggests that the peak age at onset was in the 60s, the most frequent treatment period until AP was within 1 month, and the most implicated drug categories were corticosteroids and antivirals. We identified that telaprevir, donepezil, and ustekinumab were associated with AP. Most of the identified drugs were already known to induce AP, but the likelihood of reporting AP varied among them. Our results should raise physicians’ awareness of drugs associated with AP, but further studies are needed to confirm the associations identified in this study.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material, DS1_IJT_10.1177_1091581819870717 - Pharmacovigilance Assessment of Drug-Induced Acute Pancreatitis Using a Spontaneous Reporting Database

Supplemental Material, DS1_IJT_10.1177_1091581819870717 for Pharmacovigilance Assessment of Drug-Induced Acute Pancreatitis Using a Spontaneous Reporting Database by Iku Niinomi, Keiko Hosohata, Saki Oyama, Ayaka Inada, Tomohito Wakabayashi and Kazunori Iwanaga in International Journal of Toxicology

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material, DS2_IJT_10.1177_1091581819870717 - Pharmacovigilance Assessment of Drug-Induced Acute Pancreatitis Using a Spontaneous Reporting Database

Supplemental Material, DS2_IJT_10.1177_1091581819870717 for Pharmacovigilance Assessment of Drug-Induced Acute Pancreatitis Using a Spontaneous Reporting Database by Iku Niinomi, Keiko Hosohata, Saki Oyama, Ayaka Inada, Tomohito Wakabayashi and Kazunori Iwanaga in International Journal of Toxicology

Footnotes

Author Contributions

Iku Niinomi contributed to analysis and drafted the manuscript. Saki Oyama contributed to conception and design, contributed to analysis and interpretation, drafted the manuscript, and critically revised the manuscript. Keiko Hosohata contributed to conception and design, contributed to acquisition and interpretation, drafted the manuscript, and critically revised the manuscript. Ayaka Inada contributed to conception and design, contributed to interpretation, and drafted the manuscript. Tomohito Wakabayashi contributed to analysis and drafted the manuscript. Kazunori Iwanaga contributed to acquisition, drafted the manuscript, and critically revised the manuscript. All authors gave final approval and agree to be accountable for all aspects of work ensuring integrity and accuracy.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: K. Hosohata received research support from the Science Research Promotion Fund.

ORCID iD

Keiko Hosohata

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Banks

Bollen

Dervenis

, et al. Classification of acute pancreatitis 2012: revision of the atlanta classification and definitions by international consensus. Gut. 2013;62(1):102–111.

Johnson

Abu-Hilal

. Persistent organ failure during the first week as a marker of fatal outcome in acute pancreatitis. Gut. 2004;53(9):1340–1344.

Wang

Gao

Wei

Wang

Ding

. Acute pancreatitis: etiology and common pathogenesis. World J Gastroenterol. 2009;15(12):1427–1430.

Lankisch

Apte

Banks

. Acute pancreatitis. Lancet. 2015;386(9988):85–96.

Lankisch

Droge

Gottesleben

. Drug induced acute pancreatitis: incidence and severity. Gut. 1995;37(4):565–567.

Trivedi

Pitchumoni

. Drug-induced pancreatitis: an update. J Clini Gastroenterol. 2005;39(8):709–716.

Badalov

Baradarian

Iswara

Steinberg

Tenner

. Drug-induced acute pancreatitis: an evidence-based review. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007;5(6):648–661; quiz 644.

Hung

Abreu Lanfranco

. Contemporary review of drug-induced pancreatitis: a different perspective. World J Gastrointest Pathophysiol. 2014;5(4):405–415.

Jones

Hall

Kaye

. Drug-induced acute pancreatitis: a review. Ochsner J. 2015;15(1):45–51.

10.

Nango

Hirose

Goto

Echizen

. Analysis of the association of administration of various glucocorticoids with development of acute pancreatitis using US Food and Drug Administration adverse event reporting system (FAERS). J Pharm Health Care Sci. 2019;5:5.

11.

Hosohata

Inada

Oyama

Furushima

Yamada

Iwanaga

. Surveillance of drugs that most frequently induce acute kidney injury: a pharmacovigilance approach. J Clin Phary Ther. 2019;44(1):49–53.

12.

Hosohata

Matsuoka

Inada

, et al. Differential profiles of adverse events associated with mycophenolate mofetil between adult and pediatric renal transplant patients. Jour Int Med Res. 2018;46(11):4617–4623.

13.

Oyama

Hosohata

Inada

, et al. Drug-induced tubulointerstitial nephritis in a retrospective study using spontaneous reporting system database. Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2018;14:1599–1604.

14.

Inada

Hosohata

Oyama

, et al. Evaluation of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw using the Japanese Adverse Drug Event Report database. Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2019;15:59–64.

15.

Hosohata

Inada

Oyama

Niinomi

Wakabayashi

Iwanaga

. Adverse cutaneous drug reactions associated with old- and new- generation antiepileptic drugs using the Japanese pharmacovigilance database. Clin Drug Investig. 2019;39(4):363–368.

16.

Bate

Evans

. Quantitative signal detection using spontaneous ADR reporting. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2009;18(6):427–436.

17.

Nitsche

Maertin

Scheiber

Ritter

Lerch

Mayerle

. Drug-induced pancreatitis. Curr Gastroenterol Rep. 2012;14(2):131–138.

18.

Agarwal

George

Padhan

, et al. Reduction in mortality in severe acute pancreatitis: a time trend analysis over 16 years. Pancreatology. 2016;16(2):194–199.

19.

Razavi

Lindblad

Bexelius

Oskarsson

Sadr-Azodi

Ljung

. Polypharmacy and risk of acute pancreatitis. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2016;25(11):1337–1341.

20.

Treepongkaruna

Thongpak

Pakakasama

Pienvichit

Sirachainan

Hongeng

. Acute pancreatitis in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia after chemotherapy. J Pediatr Hematol/Oncol. 2009;31(11):812–815.

21.

Fernandez

Sala

Panes

Feu

Navarro

Teres

. Acute pancreatitis after long-term 5-aminosalicylic acid therapy. Am J Gastroenterol. 1997;92(12):2302–2303.

22.

Scheen

. Gliptins (dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors) and risk of acute pancreatitis. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2013;12(4):545–557.

23.

Knezevich

Crnic

Kershaw

Drincic

. Liraglutide-associated acute pancreatitis. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2012;69(5):386–389.

24.

Singh

Chang

Richards

Weiner

Clark

Segal

. Glucagonlike peptide 1-based therapies and risk of hospitalization for acute pancreatitis in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a population-based matched case-control study. JAMA Intern Medi. 2013;173(7):534–539.

25.

Elashoff

Matveyenko

Gier

Elashoff

Butler

. Pancreatitis, pancreatic, and thyroid cancer with glucagon-like peptide-1-based therapies. Gastroenterology. 2011;141(1):150–156.

26.

Azoulay

Filion

Platt

, et al. Association between incretin-based drugs and the risk of acute pancreatitis. JAMA Intern Medi. 2016;176(10):1464–1473.

27.

Hatahira

Abe

Hane

, et al. Drug-induced gingival hyperplasia: a retrospective study using spontaneous reporting system databases. J Pharml Health Care Sci. 2017;3:19.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.06 MB

0.03 MB