Cited by 14Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug ReactionsDrug-Induced Hepatotoxicity and ProtectionComplementary and Alternative Medicine Studies

Hepatotoxicity associated with agomelatine and other antidepressants: Disproportionality analysis using pooled pharmacovigilance data from the Uppsala Monitoring Centre

Gahr, Maximilian, Zeiss, René, Lang, Dirk, Connemann, Bernhard J., Schönfeldt‐Lecuona, Carlos·2015·The Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

Abstract

Since its marketing approval, the attention to the hepatic side‐effect profile of the antidepressant agomelatine (AGM) has gradually increased. Several cases of severe hepatotoxic adverse drug reactions (ADR) have been reported and the European Medicines Agency has released a safety warning regarding AGM‐associated hepatotoxicity. However, there are insufficient data for an adequate safety assessment of AGM‐related hepatotoxicity. Therefore, we performed a quantitative signal detection analysis using pharmacovigilance data from the Uppsala Monitoring Centre from the WHO that records ADR data from worldwide sources; we calculated reporting odds ratios (ROR) as measures for disproportionality within a case/non‐case approach for AGM and several other antidepressants. AGM was statistically associated with an increased risk of hepatotoxicity (ROR 6.4 [95%CI 5.7–7.2]) as well as both positive controls: amineptine (ROR 38.4 [95%CI 33.8–43.6]) and nefazodone (ROR 3.2 [95%CI 3.0–3.5]). Following amineptine, AGM was associated with the second highest ROR, followed by tianeptine (ROR 4.4 [95%CI 3.6–5.3]), mianserin (ROR 3.6 [95%CI 3.3–3.9]), and nefazodone. These results support the hypothesis that AGM is associated with relevant hepatotoxicity. However, the used data and applied method do not allow a quantitative evaluation of hepatotoxicity or assessment of substance‐specific differences regarding the extent of hepatotoxicity.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jcph.475

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gahr, M., Zeiss, R., Lang, D., Connemann, B. J., & Schönfeldt‐Lecuona, C.
Affiliations
Universität Ulm (DE)
Corresponding author
Gahr, Maximilian
Venue
The Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-03-09
Volume
55
Issue
7
Pages
768-773
ISSN
  • 0021-9754 (ISSN-L)
  • 0091-2700
  • 1552-4604
OpenAlex
W1696796373
Cited by
14
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2
FWCI
2.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Journal of Clinical Pharmacology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Toxicology › Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Drug-Induced Hepatotoxicity and Protection
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Complementary and Alternative Medicine Studies
Keywords
agomelatine, hepatotoxicity, antidepressants, adverse drug reactions, disproportionality analysis, reporting odds ratio, amineptine, nefazodone, tianeptine, mianserin, drug safety, pharmacovigilance
MeSH terms
Acetamides, Antidepressive Agents, Humans, Naphthalenes, Sweden, Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems, Chemical and Drug Induced Liver Injury, Pharmacovigilance

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review