IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0185654.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of the adverse event profiles of conventional and liposomal formulations of doxorubicin using the FDA adverse event reporting system

Author

Listed:
  • Akiho Fukuda
  • Kohei Tahara
  • Yuuki Hane
  • Toshinobu Matsui
  • Sayaka Sasaoka
  • Haruna Hatahira
  • Yumi Motooka
  • Shiori Hasegawa
  • Misa Naganuma
  • Junko Abe
  • Satoshi Nakao
  • Hirofumi Takeuchi
  • Mitsuhiro Nakamura

Abstract

Doxorubicin (DOX) is an anthracycline widely used for the treatment of solid and hematological tumors. The aim of this study was to assess the adverse event profiles of conventional DOX and liposomal DOX. This is the first study to evaluate the effect of a liposomal formulation of DOX using spontaneous reporting system (SRS) databases. The SRS used was the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS). This study relied on definitions of preferred terms provided by the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) and the standardized MedDRA Queries (SMQ) database. We also calculated the reporting odds ratios (RORs) of suspected drugs (conventional DOX; PEGylated-liposome DOX; non-PEGylated-liposome DOX). The FAERS database contained 7,561,254 reports from January 2004 to December 2015. The number of reported AE cases for conventional DOX, PEGylated-liposome DOX, and non-PEGylated-liposome DOX was 5039, 3780, and 349, respectively. Conventional DOX and liposomal DOX have potential risks of causing myelosuppression, cardiotoxicity, alopecia, nausea, and vomiting, among other effects. The RORs (95% CI) from SMQ for haematopoietic leucopenia associated with conventional DOX, PEGylated-liposome DOX, and non-PEGylated-liposome DOX were 12.75 (11.89–13.68), 6.43 (5.81–7.13), and 14.73 (11.42–18.99), respectively. Liposomal DOX formulations were associated with lower RORs with regard to myelosuppression, cardiotoxicity, and alopecia than the conventional DOX was. The RORs (95% CI) for palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (PPE) associated with conventional DOX, PEGylated-liposome DOX, and non-PEGylated-liposome DOX were 6.56 (4.74–9.07), 64.77 (56.84–73.80), and 28.76 (15.77–52.45), respectively. This study is the first to evaluate the relationship between DOX liposomal formulations and their adverse event profiles. The results indicate that careful observation for PPE is recommended with the use of liposomal DOX, especially PEGylated-liposome DOX formulations.

Suggested Citation

  • Akiho Fukuda & Kohei Tahara & Yuuki Hane & Toshinobu Matsui & Sayaka Sasaoka & Haruna Hatahira & Yumi Motooka & Shiori Hasegawa & Misa Naganuma & Junko Abe & Satoshi Nakao & Hirofumi Takeuchi & Mitsuh, 2017. "Comparison of the adverse event profiles of conventional and liposomal formulations of doxorubicin using the FDA adverse event reporting system," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(9), pages 1-11, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0185654
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0185654
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185654
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185654&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0185654?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0185654. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.