Abstract
Background/Objectives
Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) can result in morbidity, mortality, and higher healthcare costs. Given the limited information available on ADRs associated with antirheumatic medications, this study aims to analyse and compare ADR reporting for these drugs in the pharmacovigilance datasets of Western Australia (WA) and the United States (US).
Methods
Therapeutic Goods Administration provided WA pharmacovigilance data of selected antirheumatic drugs to from 1995 to 2015. The proportional reporting ratio (PRR) for WA case reports was compared to corresponding USA pharmacovigilance data by assessing the disproportionality of each ADR. clinically significant or true ADRs were determined using the Evans 2001 criteria (n > 2, chi-square > 4, PRR > 2).
Results
A total of 232 reports were found in WA, mostly on sixty-nine women aged 45 to 69. Methotrexate, leflunomide, azathioprine, sulfasalazine, and infliximab had the highest reported ADRs, related to gastrointestinal disorders. Patients who used biological agents in WA had 2.7 times the likelihood of reporting true ADRs compared to conventional antirheumatic drugs. The ADR rates in the two datasets were comparable over the study period.
Conclusions
The PRR values of ADRs were consistent between WA and US databases. Methotrexate and infliximab use were commonly associated with ADR reports in WA females, with incidence rates comparable to the US; while patients using biological agents were more likely to report true ADRs than those on conventional antirheumatic drugs in WA.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are potentially avoidable causes of morbidity, mortality, and healthcare utilisation [1]. The Quality in Australian Healthcare study estimated that 51% of ADRs were preventable, 18% of ADRs spent more than 10 extra days in the hospital (range 0–120 days), and 19% of ADRs resulting in permanent disabilities, such as kidney, liver, neurological, and cardiovascular complications [2]. In the UK, the median length of stay (LOS) for patient episodes with ADRs was 20 days (IQR 12–35 days), significantly longer than the median LOS of 8 days (IQR 5–13 days) for episodes without ADRs (p < 0.01). ADRs directly increased LOS in 27.0% of episodes, accounting for 4.0% of all inpatient episodes and 1.9% of bed days. The median increase in LOS for these episodes was 4 days (2–7 days) [3]. A recent systematic review revealed that, in high-income countries, the average cost per ADR case ranged from USD 2908.7 to USD 12,129.9, and in low-income countries, from USD 65.0 to USD 581.7 [4].
Disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) play a crucial role in the management of a wide range of autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic Diseases, including but not limited to Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA), Psoriatic Arthritis, Systemic Lupus Erythematosus, Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis, and Inflammatory Bowel Disease. These drugs have demonstrated good efficacy and their utilisation has increased over time [5]. RA has the highest prevalence, utilisation of DMARDs, and reports of ADRs compared to other rheumatic diseases. A study of 12,626 cases in a rheumatologic outpatient clinic found that the most common rheumatic diseases were RA (47.30%), spondyloarthropathies (17.23%), SLE (8.10%), gout (7.84%), and vasculitis (6.83%) [6].
ADRs are the second leading cause of discontinuing disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in RA patients. With up to 27% of RA patients, leading to exacerbated RA symptoms, inflammation, and the potential requirement of expensive medications [7, 8]. Consequently, it is essential to identify, address, and prevent ADRs in order to effectively assist rheumatic patients, especially those suffering from RA [9]. However, real-world data on ADRs in RA patients is scarce, making difficult to identify ADRs, determine risk factors, and tailored preventive strategies [10]. Without understanding ADRs in RA patients, it is a challenge to enhance care, plan treatments, and ensure RA is managed safely [11].
The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) in Australia is responsible for managing the Drug Adverse Event Notifications (DAEN) [12]. The DAEN database was assembled from ADR reports obtained from health professionals, individuals, and manufacturers [12]. It is an excellent source for tracing and assessing ADRs in individuals with autoimmune rheumatic diseases, such as RA, who were prescribed DMARDs. Researchers can employ it to determine the prevalence of ADRs, identify risk factors and any trends.
Similarly, Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) in the United States (US) can monitor and take apart the safety aspects of drugs and medical products [13]. The aim of this study is to determine ADR data related to anti-rheumatics drugs, evaluate the consistency of ADR reporting, and detect any discrepancies in the safety profiles of DMARDs between Australia and the US by comparing the data from the Australian DAEN database with the US FAERS.
Methods
This a retrospective comparative study and we applied the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines [14] to ensure the accuracy and completeness of reporting (Online Resource 1). Individual case reports for selected DMARDs were obtained for the DAEN database in Western Australia from 1995 and 2015 (Table 1). This time frame was selected to capture a substantial amount of data and provide a comprehensive analysis of the association between DMARDs and ADRs. By examining a two-decade period, the study aims to identify any long-term patterns or trends in medication safety. The DAEN database includes de-identified case reports that contain information on the sex, age, potential adverse reactions to medications relationship (“suspected”, “concomitant”, and “interacting”), causality, individual case safety report (ICSR) status, case narrative, sender details, year, and state [12]. Each of the 232 separate reports in the DAEN includes multiple ADRs and involves multiple medications classified by the TGA as suspected, concomitant, or interacting.
Also, we compared DAEN data with the US FAERS to measure the disproportionality using the Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR) for each DMARD reported ADRs versus all other drugs registered [15]. The data in FAERS are divided into seven groups, which include patient demographic and administrative information, drug information, preferred terms for the events (PTs), patient outcomes for the event, indications of use for the reported drugs, therapy start dates and end dates, and report sources for the event [16].
Participants
The study included 232 patients from Western Australia who had used TGA approved DMARDs for treatment of immune-mediated conditions. The study was sufficiently powered to detect statistically significant associations between specific DMARDs and ADRs.
Statistical methods
Non-parametric variables were reported as median values with an interquartile range. Continuous variables are analysed using the Kruskal–Wallis test (for non-normally distributed data). While categorical variables were compared using the chi-square test for independence. In the study's disproportionality analysis, the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) was used to classify cases of ADRs linked to the use of DMARDs in the Western Australian DAEN databases and US FAERS.
The Proportional Reporting Ratios (PRR) was employed to investigate reporting associations between DMARDs and ADRs [15]. It is calculated by dividing the proportion of reports for a specific drug-event combination by the proportion of reports for all other drug–event combinations [16]. An association was considered statistically significant when the lower limit of the 95% CI was above 1.0, indicating a higher-than-expected reporting of the ADR for the specific drug.
The ADRs considered clinically significant according to the criteria of Evans (n > 2, Chi-square > 4, PRR > 2) [15] are referred to as "True ADRs". Spearman's correlation coefficient was used to examine the association between US FAERS pharmacovigilance data PRRs and Western Australia DAEN based on the Shapiro–Wilk test results. The assumption of normality was assessed with the Shapiro–Wilk test for both datasets. The Mann–Whitney U test was used to compare statistically between US FAERS pharmacovigilance data PRRs and Western Australia DAEN as well as the distribution of ADRs count between conventional and biological DMARDs in Western Australia DAEN. All statistical analyses were performed in R version 4.3.0, with statistical significance set at P-value < 0.05.
Ethics
The data used in this study were obtained from the Australian TGA and US FDA public domains, which are administered by the Australian Government Department of Health and the US Department of Health and Human Services, respectively. The data are de-identified, publicly available and did not identify any patient, so ethics approval was not required.
Results
Reports in DAEN involved 58.2% females with median age of 61 years old (IQR: 49, 69) (Table 2). The majority of reported ADRs were possibly causally related to DMARD use, with 82.7% of cases classified as serious ICSR. Serious adverse events increased with age, primarily in ≤ 19 years, those aged 70–79, and individuals over 85. However, these age groups had the lowest rates of ADRs reported. Health professionals were the primary reporting source of ADRs (82.7%).
In the 232 separate DAEN reports, each ICSR contributes to multiple ADRs and involved multiple medications classified as suspected, concomitant, or interacting. Accordingly, the study analysed the association between 1551 ADRs and medications reported from the selected DMARDs (Online resource 2). Out of these, 637 ADRs (41.1%) were related to DMARDs approved for the treatment of rheumatic autoimmune diseases. Conventional and biologic DMARDs responsible for 25.9% and 15.2% of the ADRs involving 402 and 235 diverse types of ADRs (Online resource 3).
ADR incidence for conventional and biologic DMARDs
The highest incidence of ADRs DAEN was for four conventional DMARDs methotrexate, leflunomide, azathioprine, Sulfasalazine (Table 3). The ADRs most associated with methotrexate were attention disturbance, dyspnea, and headache, which a higher incidence in females (78.6%) than males (19.8%) (Online resource 4). Among biologics, Infliximab had the highest number of ADRs reported. The most frequently ADRs linked to Infliximab were flashing and nausea, both more commonly observed in older females (aged 60–69) and younger males (≤ 19) over the study period (Online resource 5).
The top ten reported ADRs in DAEN were pyrexia, diarrhea, paraesthesia, and hepatic function abnormal levels, as compared to the US FAERS pharmacovigilance data during the same period (Table 4). The FAERS and the DAEN datasets were assessed for normality using the Shapiro–Wilk test, which returned p-values less than 0.05, indicating a non-normal distribution. Subsequently, Spearman's correlation analysis was conducted as appropriate method. PRR values from the FAERS data and the DAEN data (Fig. 1) showed a weak and negative relationship (Spearman's correlation coefficient = − 0.116, p = 0.504), suggesting that the PRR values in the two datasets differ. Each point in a scatter plot represents a combination of DMARD and ADR. The diagram confirms the weak negative association, but the scattered dots indicate its weakness.
The association analysis
DAEN and FAERS ADR associations are illustrated in Fig. 2. Azathioprine is strongly associated with “pyrexia” in DAEN, with a PRR of 4.2 across the study period (Fig. 2). While the lowest PRR was “vomiting” related with leflunomide (1.1). The highest PRR value in FAERS was for “Rash” related with methotrexate (5.0) over the same study period. In contrast, the lowest PRR in FAERS was for “disturbance in attention” associated with methotrexate use, with a PRR of 0.3.
FAERS data demonstrate a substantial relationship with rash, pancytopenia, and mouth ulcers with methotrexate utilisation, whereas DAEN data suggest disruption in attention, dyspnea, and headache associated with methotrexate usage. Leflunomide had the greatest PRR (3.3) in the DAEN for hepatic function abnormalities, whereas sulfasalazine had the highest PRR for hepatic function abnormalities (4.6) in the FAERS. Based on matching US FAERS data, etanercept was most associated with pruritus (PRR = 3.8), while abatacept was strongly associated with paraesthesia (PRR = 3.8) in DAEN. There were no statistically significant differences in the PRR estimates derived from DAEN and FAERS (p = 0.15).
Trend analysis of ADRs associated with DMARDs overtime
The trend analysis of ADRs in DAEN is presented in (Fig. 3) showed no statistically significant difference in incidence of ADRs between conventional and biological DMARDs over time. Also, it shows different trendlines depicting the frequency of ADR occurrences for combinations of DMARDs over time. The graph clearly illustrates trends within each category and whether there are true ADRs or adverse events (AEs). It demonstrates the variation in total ADR counts for DMARD groups over time. For biological DMARDs, a clear trend was not observed until 2004. In 2001 and 2011, there was an increase in true ADRs for conventional and biological DMARDs, respectively. These spikes can be attributed to reported specific true ADRs with certain DMARDs. In 2001, there was an increased incidence of disturbance in attention and anemia reported with methotrexate and leflunomide use (Online resource 6). Similarly in 2011, paraesthesia and hypoesthesia were reported for Abatacept and methotrexate use (Online resource 7). In contrast, there was a decline in ADRs incidence for conventional and biological DMARDs in 2013.
Relationship between true ADRs and type of DMARDs
We examined the relationship between true ADRs and type of DMARDs by Chi-Squared test that resulting a significant association (p < 0.01) between the two variables (Online resource 8). The Odds Ratio (OR) is 2.71, with a 95% CI 1.72 and 4.26, showing that patients treated with biological DMARDs have about 2.7 times higher odds of reporting true ADRs compared to those treated with conventional DMARDs (Online resource 8).
Discussion
This first study examines the ADRs to DMARDs in Western Australia from 1995 to 2015. The study found 232 reports in the DAEN, involving women aged 45–69. Methotrexate, leflunomide, and azathioprine had the highest number of ADRs reported, mostly related to gastrointestinal issues. Patients treated with biological DMARDs had approximately 2.7 times higher odds of reporting true ADRs in DAEN compared to those treated with conventional DMARDs. The study also confirms consistency between the Western Australian DAEN and US FAERS data.
Over 20 years, the recorded number of ADRs related to DMARDs indicates a generally well-tolerated and manageable toxicity profile, although evidence of under-reporting [17]. In Australia, a retrospective analysis examined 1547 calls with an Australian medical call center involving both conventional and biologic DMARDs from September 2002 to June 2010 [18]. The study revealed that most patients' enquiries and concerns regarding DMARDs focused on their effectiveness and appropriate dosage rather than safety considerations [18]. Some studies suggest that DMARDs rarely cause ADRs [11, 19, 20]. Also, most AEs are minor and usually do not require stopping the treatment [19]. Positive experiences with DMARDs show that doctors can address patient concerns regarding potential harm and customise therapy based on patients' beliefs, lifestyles, and goals [20].
More than half of the DMARD patients in the ICSR were female (58.2%), raising questions about potential gender differences in ADR-related DMARD usage for RA patients, especially changes in treatment regimens indicating ADRs [21]. For instance, a study found that male RA patients responded better to methotrexate than females [22]. In our study, females reported a higher number of ADRs for methotrexate and infliximab compared to males. This suggests that females report more ADRs and report them more often to healthcare professionals [23].
Hormone levels and body functions in men and women may be responsible for the different reactions to DMARDs. [10, 24, 25]. A study has found that 72 females and 28 males out of 100 RA patients endured more severe ADRs [10]. Further confirmation of this came from studies conducted in 2023, which observed that female RA patients had a reduced response to DMARDs, implying that women may be more prone to ADRs [24].
It has been studied that around half of the ADRs require modifications to primary care treatment [21]. In the early treatment of RA, these ADRs altered treatment options, making distinctive treatments for men and women [24]. The MARI study showed that women were especially cautious when considering DMARDs [25]. Such findings help to distinguish gender-related risks from treatments.
Yet, the current DMARD doses do not take into consideration the potential for disparate responses between men and women to these medications [26]. EULAR has studied the safety of DMARDs over the years [27]; however, there is no research on the effect of gender on RA treatments [26]. In our study, approximately 83% of medical personnel recorded ADRs, demonstrating the importance of their part in monitoring and submitting these events. Nonetheless, the outlook of healthcare personnel in Australia and the U.S. may hinder ADRs reporting [28,29,30].
Methotrexate, a common DMARD, has been shown to cause liver damage, bone marrow suppression, and gastrointestinal disorders [31]. Similarly, infliximab may possibly cause serious infections and reactions [32]. Our study into the toxicity of DMARDs ascertained a high prevalence of ADRs. Nevertheless, these drugs are often prescribed to those with severe autoimmune illnesses like RA, as the benefits usually surpass the hazards. The characteristics of patients, multiple medication uses, and drug responses can all modify how DMARDs respond adversely [33, 34]. To avoid these risks, practitioners must monitor their patients and adjust their treatment [35].
This highlights the importance of healthcare professionals being aware of and actively managing the ADRs of DMARDs. This includes comprehensive assessment [36], safe prescribing [37], risk communications [36], monitoring [35], education [36], post-marketing surveillance [38], and reporting ADRs to the relevant authorities.
The PRR values in both the DAEN and FARES databases revealed no major discrepancies, indicating consistent detection of ADRs. Azathioprine had the highest number of true ADRs, based on Evans’ criteria and previous studies [11, 39]. A Pan American Journal of Public Health study reported a higher incidence of ADRs with Azathioprine than other DMARDs [11]. Similarly, a Cochrane Database System Review found more ADRs with azathioprine compared to other DMARDs [39].
Several elements can be associated with specific ADRs to DMARDs, including gene expression regulation, clinical characteristics, non-adherence, comorbidities, and patient differences in epigenetics [34, 40]. Some drugs have properties that could increase the chance of having ADRs [41]. Understanding these areas could help practitioners predict ADRs and enhance therapy choices. More research is needed to understand the association between certain ADRs and DMARDs. Applying these signs could facilitate the formation of tools or models to predict who could be at elevated risk [41]. In our study, patients using biological DMARDs reported true ADRs 2.7 times more than those on conventional DMARDs. This aligns with a retrospective cohort study's conclusion that biological DMARDs have more ADRs than non-biological DMARDs [11]. Moreover, certain biologic DMARDs, such as tocilizumab, rituximab, and infliximab, displayed a greater association with ADRs [11]. It is critical to determine if biological DMARDs cause severe gastrointestinal disturbances and frequent hospital ADRs. This data can be of aid when making decisions about treatment and tracking patients taking conventional and biological DMARDs. Obtaining further data from Western Australian hospitals might expose the range and intensity of DMARD-related ADRs that could have an impact on treatment decisions, patient monitoring, and outcomes.
Strengths
The study emphasised the importance of pharmacovigilance in Australia and the USA for monitoring medication safety when using DMARDs for RA treatment. The Australian DAEN and US FAERS databases provided comprehensive patient data on ADRs, ensuring a diverse representation of patients, and improving the study’s generalisability. Using these data sources, the study avoided potential biases associated with participant recruitment and selection in clinical trials.
Limitations
The DAEN from Australia and the FAERS from the US have several limitations. Such data may be influenced by individuals voluntary reporting. Furthermore, severe or rare ADRs are more likely to be overestimated. Minor or less severe AEs may not be reported sufficiently. Keeping track of the quality and completeness of the data can be challenging. Also, discrepancies in the accuracy and uniformity of reports reduce their reliability. RA medications endorsed in Western Australia may not be compatible with other populations or locations. To validate these findings, larger and more varied groups of patients need to be studied. Medical personnel typically detect these AEs more often. Hence, patients may be less likely to report incidents. Possible side effects could be identified with the reporting platform of Western Australia's DAEN. Additionally, reporting to the Western Australian DAEN may not capture all ADRs. Therefore, it's essential to interpret the findings cautiously and consider other data sources for validation. The reliability of PRR estimates is influenced by factors, such as database size, ADR report quality, and the prevalence of ADRs and DMARDs in the population. Therefore, PRR should be used alongside other evidence and clinical judgment. The decrease in adverse ADRs on conventional and biological DMARDs in 2013 remains unexplained. We observed a corresponding decline in DMARDs usage in our previous study in Western Australia [42] and nationally [43].
Conclusion
Methotrexate and infliximab are commonly reported ADRs in female than males in Western Australia, but less severe compared with other conventional DMARDs such as Azathioprine. Although there was no significant difference in incidence of ADRs between conventional and biological DMARD treatment over study period, patients treated with biological DMARDs are 2.7 times likely to report the true ADRs compared to those treated with conventional DMARDs. To ensure the validity and generalisability of our findings, it is crucial to conduct further research using larger sample sizes and linked data from more diverse populations.
Data availability
In line with the principles of open data sharing, the data used in this study may be made available for further research upon reasonable request to the corresponding author.
References
Zazzara MB, Palmer K, Vetrano DL, Carfi A, Onder G (2021) Adverse drug reactions in older adults: a narrative review of the literature. Eur Geriatr Med 12(3):463–473. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41999-021-00481-9
Li R, Curtis K, Zaidi STR, Van C, Thomson A, Castelino R (2021) Prevalence, characteristics, and reporting of adverse drug reactions in an Australian hospital: a retrospective review of hospital admissions due to adverse drug reactions. Expert Opin Drug Saf 20(10):1267–1274. https://doi.org/10.1080/14740338.2021.1938539
Davies EC, Green CF, Taylor S, Williamson PR, Mottram DR, Pirmohamed M (2009) Adverse drug reactions in hospital in-patients: a prospective analysis of 3695 patient-episodes. PLoS ONE 4(2):e4439. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0004439
Abu SF, Shafie AA, Chandriah H (2024) Cost estimations of managing adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a systematic review of study methods and their influences. Pharmacoepidemiology 2(2):120–139. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharma2020012
Anghel L-A, Leucuta D-C, Farcas AM, Oprean RN (2019) Utilization patterns of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDS) in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases. Farmacia 67(1):184–192. https://doi.org/10.31925/farmacia.2019.1.25
Jokar M, Jokar M (2018) Prevalence of inflammatory rheumatic diseases in a rheumatologic outpatient clinic: Analysis of 12626 cases. Rheumatol Res 3(1):21–27. https://doi.org/10.22631/rr.2017.69997.1037
de Lucena Valim JM, Goncalves Chaer FG, Guimaraes da Silveira FD, da Silva ELVP, Batista de Souza BD (2019) Switching of biological therapies in Brazilian patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Future Sci OA 5(1):355. https://doi.org/10.4155/fsoa-2018-0025
Velthuis K, Jessurun NT, Nguyen TDM, Scholl J, Jansen JRG, van Lint JA et al (2024) First-time adverse drug reactions, survival analysis, and the share of adverse drug reactions in treatment discontinuation in real-world rheumatoid arthritis patients: a comparison of first-time treatment with adalimumab and etanercept. Expert Opin Drug Saf 22(6):485–492. https://doi.org/10.1080/14740338.2023.2172157
Costello R, David T, Jani M (2019) Impact of adverse events associated with medications in the treatment and prevention of rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Ther 41(7):1376–1396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2019.04.030
Giraud EL, Jessurun NT, van Hunsel F, van Puijenbroek EP, van Tubergen A, Ten Klooster PM et al (2020) Frequency of real-world reported adverse drug reactions in rheumatoid arthritis patients. Expert Opin Drug Saf 19(12):1617–1624. https://doi.org/10.1080/14740338.2020.1830058
Machado-Alba JE, Ruiz AF, Machado-Duque ME (2014) Adverse drug reactions associated with the use of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Rev Panam Salud Publica 36(6):396–401
Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (2022) The drug adverse event notification. https://daen.tga.gov.au/medicines-terms-condition/
The United State Food and Drug Administration (2022) Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS). https://www.fda.gov/drugs/questions-and-answers-fdas-adverse-event-reporting-system-faers/fda-adverse-event-reporting-system-faers-public-dashboard
von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP (2007) The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet 370(9596):1453–1457. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(07)61602-x
Evans SJ, Waller PC, Davis S (2001) Use of proportional reporting ratios (PRRs) for signal generation from spontaneous adverse drug reaction reports. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 10(6):483–486. https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.677
Böhm R, von Hehn L, Herdegen T, Klein H-J, Bruhn O, Petri H et al (2016) OpenVigil FDA–inspection of US American adverse drug events pharmacovigilance data and novel clinical applications. PLoS ONE 11(6):e0157753. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0157753
Andersen KM, Kelly A, Lyddiatt A, Bingham CO, Bykerk VP, Batterman A et al (2019) Patient perspectives on DMARD safety concerns in rheumatology trials: results from inflammatory arthritis patient focus groups and OMERACT attendees discussion. J Rheumatol 46(9):1168–1172. https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.181185
El Masri H, Hollingworth SA, Van Driel M, Benham H, McGuire TM (2020) Real-world questions and concerns about disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs): a retrospective analysis of questions to a medicine call center. BMC Rheumatol 4:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41927-020-00126-7
Mucke J, Simon H-U, Burmester G-R (2022) The safety of antirheumatic drugs. Dtsch Arztebl Int 119(6):81–87. https://doi.org/10.3238/arztebl.m2021.0389
Kelly A, Tymms K, Tunnicliffe DJ, Sumpton D, Perera C, Fallon K et al (2018) Patients’ attitudes and experiences of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in rheumatoid arthritis and spondyloarthritis: A qualitative synthesis. Arthritis Care Res 70(4):525–532. https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.23329
Insani WN, Whittlesea C, Alwafi H, Man KKC, Chapman S, Wei L (2021) Prevalence of adverse drug reactions in the primary care setting: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 16(5):e0252161. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252161
Hoekstra M, van Ede AE, Haagsma CJ, van de Laar MA, Huizinga TW, Kruijsen MW et al (2003) Factors associated with toxicity, final dose, and efficacy of methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 62(5):423–426. https://doi.org/10.1136/ard.62.5.423
Brabete AC, Greaves L, Maximos M, Huber E, Li A, Le ML (2022) A sex- and gender-based analysis of adverse drug reactions: a scoping review of pharmacovigilance databases. Pharmaceuticals 15(3):298. https://doi.org/10.3390/ph15030298
Velthuis K, Poppelaars F, Ten Klooster PM, Vonkeman HE, Jessurun NT (2023) Impact of adverse drug reactions on the treatment pathways of early rheumatoid arthritis patients: a prospective observational cohort study. Expert Opin Drug Saf 22(8):753–762. https://doi.org/10.1080/14740338.2023.2194628
Giusti A, Epis OM, Migliore A, Ricioppo A, Sainaghi PP, Di Matteo L et al (2019) The effect of gender on methotrexate prescription attitudes in Italian rheumatoid arthritis patients: the MARI study. Clin Exp Rheumatol 37(6):1003–1009
Maranini B, Bortoluzzi A, Silvagni E, Govoni M (2022) Focus on sex and gender: what we need to know in the management of rheumatoid arthritis. J Pers Med. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm12030499
Sepriano A, Kerschbaumer A, Bergstra SA, Smolen JS, van der Heijde D, Caporali R et al (2023) Safety of synthetic and biological DMARDs: a systematic literature review informing the 2022 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 82(1):107–118. https://doi.org/10.1136/ard-2022-223357
Li R, Curtain C, Bereznicki L, Zaidi S (2018) Community pharmacists’ knowledge and perspectives of reporting adverse drug reactions in Australia: a cross-sectional survey. Int J Clin Pharm 40(4):878–889. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-018-0700-2
Alatawi YM, Hansen RA (2017) Empirical estimation of under-reporting in the US Food and Drug Administration adverse event reporting system (FAERS). Expert Opin Drug Saf 16(7):761–767. https://doi.org/10.1080/14740338.2017.1323867
Garcia-Abeijon P, Costa C, Taracido M, Herdeiro MT, Torre C, Figueiras A (2023) Factors associated with underreporting of adverse drug reactions by health care professionals: a systematic review update. Drug Saf 46(7):625–636. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-023-01302-7
Hamed KM, Dighriri IM, Baomar AF, Alharthy BT, Alenazi FE, Alali GH et al (2022) Overview of methotrexate toxicity: a comprehensive literature review. Cureus 14(9):e29518. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.29518
Singh S, Facciorusso A, Dulai PS, Jairath V, Sandborn WJ (2020) Comparative risk of serious infections with biologic and/or immunosuppressive therapy in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 18(1):69-81 e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2019.02.044
Ingrasciotta Y, Jin Y, Foti SS, Landon JE, Tari M, Mattace-Raso F et al (2023) Real-world patient characteristics and use of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: A cross-national study. Clin Rheumatol 42(4):1047–1059. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-022-06478-4
Alomar MJ (2014) Factors affecting the development of adverse drug reactions (review article). Saudi Pharm J 22(2):83–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsps.2013.02.003
Conley B, Bunzli S, Bullen J, O’Brien P, Persaud J, Gunatillake T et al (2023) What are the core recommendations for rheumatoid arthritis care? Systematic review of clinical practice guidelines. Clin Rheumatol 42(9):2267–2278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-023-06654-0
Aung AK, Walker S, Khu YL, Tang MJ, Lee JI, Graudins LV (2022) Adverse drug reaction management in hospital settings: review on practice variations, quality indicators and education focus. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 78(5):781–791. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-022-03287-1
Coleman JJ, Pontefract SK (2016) Adverse drug reactions. Clin Med 16(5):481–485. https://doi.org/10.7861/clinmedicine.16-5-481
Burmester GR, Coates LC, Cohen SB, Tanaka Y, Vranic I, Nagy E et al (2023) Post-marketing safety surveillance of tofacitinib over 9 years in patients with psoriatic arthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatol Ther 10(5):1255–1276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40744-023-00576-8
Suarez-Almazor ME, Spooner C, Belseck E, Group CM (2010) (2000) Azathioprine for treating rheumatoid arthritis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:CD001461. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001461
Roodenrijs NMT, Welsing PMJ, van Roon J, Schoneveld JLM, van der Goes MC, Nagy G et al (2022) Mechanisms underlying DMARD inefficacy in difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis: a narrative review with systematic literature search. Rheumatology 61(9):3552–3566. https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/keac114
Dey S, Luo H, Fokoue A, Hu J, Zhang P (2018) Predicting adverse drug reactions through interpretable deep learning framework. BMC Bioinf 19(Suppl 21):476. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12859-018-2544-0
Almutairi K, Nossent J, Preen DB, Keen H, Inderjeeth C (2022) The temporal association between hospital admissions, biological therapy usage and direct health care costs in rheumatoid arthritis patients. Rheumatol Int 42(11):2027–2037. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-021-04985-2
Donges E, Staatz CE, Benham H, Kubler P, Hollingworth SA (2017) Patterns in use and costs of conventional and biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in Australia. Clin Exp Rheumatol 35(6):907–912
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the Australian Rheumatology Association, and Arthritis & Osteoporosis in WA for their financial support.
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions. Dr Khalid Almutairi was supported by the Australian Rheumatology Association WA Research Fellowship Award, and Arthritis & Osteoporosis WA postdoctoral Fellow.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors made substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data; and the drafting of the manuscript or revising it critically for important intellectual content. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Khalid Almutairi, and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript to be published and agreed to take accountability for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors report no declarations of interest.
Ethical approval
The data used in this study were obtained from the Australian TGA and US FDA, which are administered by the Australian Government Department of Health and the US Department of Health and Human Services, respectively. The data are de-identified, publicly available and did not identify any patient, so ethics approval was not required.
Informed consent
All authors agreed to publish in Rheumatology International Journal.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Almutairi, K.B., Inderjeeth, C.A., Preen, D.B. et al. The temporal association between adverse drug reactions and antirheumatic drugs utilisation in Western Australia: a retrospective study from real-world data (1995–2015). Rheumatol Int 44, 1089–1099 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-024-05588-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-024-05588-3