Hepatic outcomes among adults taking duloxetine: a retrospective cohort study in a US health care claims database

BMC Gastroenterology

David D. Dore³  Curtis Liming Chang²  Hu Li¹  David G. Perahia⁴  Arie Regev¹  Heather Norman⁵  Nancy D. Lin⁵ 

[1]Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA

[2]Eli Lilly and Company, and Ditmanson Medical Foundation Chiayi Christian Hospital, Chiayi City, Taiwan

[3]Departments of Health Services, Policy, & Practice, and Epidemiology, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, RI, USA

[4]Eli Lilly and Company, Windlesham, Surrey, UK

[5]Optum Epidemiology, Waltham, MA, USA

关键词: Pharmacoepidemiology;    Safety;    Hepatic injury;    Duloxetine;   

Others  :  1234376
DOI  :  10.1186/s12876-015-0373-4

 received in 2014-09-11, accepted in 2015-10-09,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Hepatic injury has been reported following duloxetine use. This study further examines the hepatic safety of duloxetine in a large US health insurance database.

Methods

In this propensity score-matched cohort analysis in a US commercially insured population (01 August 2004 to 31 December 2010), we compared individuals with depression and without liver disease who initiated duloxetine to comparators (venlafaxine or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors [SSRIs], and individuals with pharmacologically untreated depression). We estimated incidence rates (IR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI) for medical record-confirmed hepatic-related death, liver failure, and other clinically significant hepatic injury.

Results

Among 30,844 duloxetine initiators, 21,000 were matched to venlafaxine initiators, 28,479 to SSRI initiators, and 22,714 to untreated patients. There were no cases of hepatic-related death or liver failure. IRs of other clinically significant hepatic injury without documented alternate etiologies were higher but not statistically significant among duloxetine initiators compared to initiators of venlafaxine (0.7/1000 person-years [PY] [95 % CI: 0.2 − 1.5] vs. 0.0/1000 PY [95 % CI: 0.0 − 0.3]) and SSRIs (0.4/1000 PY [95 % CI: 0.1 − 1.0] vs. 0.0/1000 PY [95 % CI: 0.0 − 0.3]). IRs were similar among duloxetine and untreated patients (0.5/1000 PY [95 % CI: 0.1 − 1.3] vs. 0.5/1000 PY [95 % CI: 0.1 − 1.5]). When hepatic outcomes were considered irrespective of alternate etiologies, similar results were observed.

Conclusions

Our findings, while not statistically significant, may suggest a higher incidence of hepatic injury other than hepatic-related death or liver failure among duloxetine initiators compared to venlafaxine and possibly SSRIs, but not untreated patients. These differences remain consistent with chance, and an elevated risk cannot be ruled in or out.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Lin et al.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Lee WM: Drug-induced hepatotoxicity. N Engl J Med 2003, 349:474-85.
• [2]Temple RJ, Himmel MH: Safety of newly approved drugs: implications for prescribing. JAMA 2002, 287:2273-5.
• [3]Wernicke J, Pangallo B, Wang F, Murray I, Henck JW, Knadler MP, et al. Hepatic effects of duloxetine-I: non-clinical and clinical trial data. Curr Drug Saf. 2008;3:132–42.
• [4]Wernicke J, Acharya N, Strombom I, Gahimer JL, D’Souza DN, DiPietro N, et al. Hepatic effects of duloxetine-II: spontaneous reports and epidemiology of hepatic events. Curr Drug Saf. 2008;3:143–53.
• [5]Vuppalanchi R, Hayashi PH, Chalasani N, Fontana RJ, Bonkovsky H, Saxena R, et al. Duloxetine hepatotoxicity: a case-series from the drug-induced liver injury network. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2010;32:1174–83.
• [6]DeSanty KP, Amabile CM: Antidepressant-induced liver injury. Ann Pharmacother 2007, 41:1201-11.
• [7]Cipriani A, Koesters M, Furukawa TA, Nose M, Purgato M, Omori IM, et al. Duloxetine versus other anti-depressive agents for depression. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;10:CD006533. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006533.pub2.
• [8]Xue F, Strombom I, Turnbull B, Zhu S, Seeger JD. Duloxetine for depression and the incidence of hepatic events in adults. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2011;31:517–22.
• [9]Chalasani N, Fontana RJ, Bonkovsky HL, Watkins PB, Davern T, Serrano J, et al. Causes, clinical features, and outcomes from a prospective study of drug-induced liver injury in the United States. Gastroenterology. 1934;2008(135):1924–34.
• [10]de Abajo FJ, Montero D, Madurga M, Garcia Rodriguez LA. Acute and clinically relevant drug-induced liver injury: a population based case–control study. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2004;58:71–80.
• [11]NCHS/CDC: National Death Index Users Guide.. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ndi/NDI_Users_Guide.pdf webcite
• [12]D’Agostino RB Jr: Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. Stat Med 1998, 17:2265-81.
• [13]Rubin DB, Thomas N: Matching using estimated propensity scores: relating theory to practice. Biometrics 1996, 52:249-64.
• [14]Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB: The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 1983, 70:41-55.
• [15]Glynn RJ, Schneeweiss S, Sturmer T: Indications for propensity scores and review of their use in pharmacoepidemiology. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol 2006, 98:253-9.
• [16]Parsons LS: Reducing bias in a propensity-score matched-pair sample using greedy matching techniques. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Annual SAS Users Group International Conference, 2001. SAS Institute Inc., Cary; 2001. Paper 214–26
• [17]Austin PC, Grootendorst P, Anderson GM: A comparison of the ability of different propensity score models to balance measured variables between treated and untreated subjects: a Monte Carlo study. Stat Med 2007, 26:734-53.
• [18]Austin PC: Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples. Stat Med 2009, 28:3083-107.
• [19]Rothman KJ, Ray W: Should cases with a ‘known’ cause of their disease be excluded from study? (commentary). Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2002, 11:11-4.
• [20]Shin J, Hunt CM, Suzuki A, Papay JI, Beach KJ, Cheetham TC. Characterizing phenotypes and outcomes of drug-associated liver injury using electronic medical record data. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2013;22:190–8.
• [21]Jinjuvadia K, Kwan W, Fontana RJ: Searching for a needle in a haystack: use of ICD-9-CM codes in drug-induced liver injury. Am J Gastroenterol 2007, 102:2437-43.
• [22]Udo R, Maitland-van der Zee AH, Egberts TC, den Breeijen JH, Leufkens HG, van Solinge WW, et al.: Validity of diagnostic codes and laboratory measurements to identify patients with idiopathic acute liver injury in a hospital database. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2015. doi:. 10.1002/pds.3824 webcite
• [23]Cymbalta [package insert]. Indianapolis, IN: Eli Lilly and Company; 2012.