Evidence Hub

SGLT2 inhibitors associated pancreatitis: signal identification through disproportionality analysis of spontaneous reports and review of case reports

Palapra H, Viswam SK, Kalaiselvan V, Undela K

International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2022

52 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In recent times, pancreatitis has been one of the most frequently reported adverse events for sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors.

AIM: To evaluate the potential association between SGLT2 inhibitors and the risk of pancreatitis by analyzing the spontaneous reports through disproportionality analysis and reviewing case reports.

METHOD: A retrospective case/non-case study was conducted using spontaneous reports from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS), VigiBase, and the Canadian Adverse Reaction Database (CARD). Disproportionality analysis was performed by calculating the Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR), Reporting Odds Ratio (ROR), and the Information Component (IC). In parallel, a review of case reports was conducted on SGLT2 inhibitors-induced pancreatitis.

RESULTS: A total of 524, 510, and 40 spontaneous reports of pancreatitis suspected to be caused by SGLT2 inhibitors were identified from FAERS, VigiBase, and CARD, respectively. Through the disproportionality analysis of FAERS data, a signal was identified between the SGLT2 inhibitors and pancreatitis, with empagliflozin having highest risk [PRR = 3.9; Lower Bound (LB) ROR = 3.4; IC025 = 1.7], followed by canagliflozin [PRR = 3.6; LB ROR = 3.2; IC025 = 1.6], and dapagliflozin [PRR = 3.2; LB ROR = 2.7; IC025 = 1.4]. VigiBase and CARD data analyses reiterated the findings of FAERS. Thirteen case reports identified from a systematic literature search strengthened these findings and…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case report, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free