Cited by 61Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug ReactionsSex and Gender in HealthcarePharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes

Gender differences in adverse event reports associated with antidiabetic drugs

Open access
Joung, Kyung-In, Jung, Gyu-Won, Park, Han-Heui, Lee, Hyesung, Park, So-Hee, Shin, Ju-Young·2020·Scientific Reports

Abstract

Little is known about gender-specific reporting of adverse events (AEs) associated with antidiabetic drugs. This study was to assess the gender-related difference in AEs reporting associated with antidiabetic agents. The number of antidiabetic drug-AE pairs associated was identified using the Korea Adverse Event Reporting System database. Prevalence of diabetes was estimated using the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service-National Patients Sample database. Reporting rate per 10,000 people was calculated by dividing drug-AE pairs with the number of antidiabetic drug users by gender. Gender difference was presented with risk ratio (reporting rate ratio) of women to men. Antidiabetic agent-associated AEs were more frequently reported by women than men throughout body organs and drug classes. 13 out of 17 system organ class level disorders with significant gender differences were reported more often by women than men. By drug class, gender-specific reporting rates were observed in most of the drug classes, especially in newer classes such as glucagon-like peptide-1 analog (GLP1-RA), sodium glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT2i), and thiazolidinedione (TZD). Looking into preferred term level for each drug class, women dominated the reports of class-specific AEs of newer antidiabetic drugs such as urinary tract/genital infection (all reported by women) in SGLT2i, edema in TZD (risk ratio (RR) 12.56), and hyperglycemia in insulin users (RR 15.35). Gender differences in antidiabetic-associated AE reporting often attributed to women. Explanations for these different report levels by gender should be further investigated.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41598-020-74000-4

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Women had a higher probability of experiencing headaches after treatment with GLP-1 RAs compared to men (risk ratio of 7.97).

    “Another interesting finding of this analysis was that women had a higher probability of experiencing headaches after treatment with GLP-1 RAs compared to men (risk ratio of 7.97) [76].”

    From Sex Differences in Response to Treatment with Glucagon-like Peptide 1 Receptor Agonists: Opportunities for a Tailored Approach to Diabetes and Obesity Care (2022) · cites this paper as [76]

    Table 4 in the Results reports a women-to-men risk ratio of 7.97 (95% CI 1.01–62.78) for headache reports associated with GLP-1 RAs. But the Discussion explicitly says reporting rates should not be viewed as a measure of adverse-event risk, so the paper does not establish that women had a higher probability of experiencing headaches. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • A study analyzing data from two national Korean databases concluded that females were approximately twice as likely as males to report any adverse events linked to GLP-1 RA use, with a reporting ratio of 2.34.

    “Further exploring this subject, a study analyzing data derived from two national Korean databases concluded that females were approximately twice as likely than males to report any adverse events linked to GLP-1 RA use, with a reporting ratio of 2.34 (reporting ratio: reporting rate of women/reporting rate of men).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Joung, K.-I., Jung, G.-W., Park, H.-H., Lee, H., Park, S.-H., & Shin, J.-Y.
Affiliations
Sungkyunkwan University (KR)
Corresponding author
Shin, Ju-Young
Venue
Scientific Reports
Published
2020-10-16
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
17545-17545
ISSN
2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3092746703
Cited by
61
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 3
FWCI
4.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Korea Health Industry Development Institute (HG18C0068)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Toxicology › Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Sex and Gender in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Keywords
gender differences, adverse drug reactions, antidiabetic drugs, pharmacovigilance, women, GLP-1 receptor agonists, SGLT2 inhibitors, thiazolidinediones, insulin, urinary tract infection, edema, hyperglycemia
MeSH terms
Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor, Sodium-Glucose Transporter 2 Inhibitors, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Diabetes Mellitus, Female, Humans, Hypoglycemic Agents, Insulin, Male, Middle Aged, Risk, Sex Factors, Databases, Factual, Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems, Thiazolidinediones, Republic of Korea

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