Multi-Database Pharmacovigilance Analysis of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Associated with GLP-1 Receptor Agonists: A Cross-National Signal Validation Study

Le résumé fourni par la source

Background/Aims: Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are widely prescribed for type 2 diabetes and obesity. Gastrointestinal adverse events are common; however, the association with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) has not been validated across diverse populations. We aimed to assess GERD signals associated with GLP-1 RAs using disproportionality analysis across three national adverse event reporting systems. Methods: We analyzed FAERS, JADER, and Canada Vigilance. GLP-1 RAs were compared against dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors as active comparators. GERD was identified using MedDRA preferred terms. Reporting odds ratios (RORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Subgroup analyses were performed by drug, age, and sex. Results: Among 260,417 GLP-1 RA reports, significant GERD signals were detected across all databases: FAERS (ROR, 2.83; 95% CI, 2.39 to 3.35; 9,245 vs 139), JADER (4.76; 95% CI, 2.45 to 9.27; 19 vs 16), and Canada Vigilance (2.91; 95% CI, 1.97 to 4.31; 206 vs 29). All signals met both ROR and proportional reporting ratio detection criteria. Drug-specific analyses revealed the strongest signals for semaglutide across all databases (3.44 to 6.93), followed by liraglutide (2.36 to 5.90), tirzepatide (2.76 to 5.77), and dulaglutide (2.35 to 3.32). Exenatide showed an inverse association in FAERS (ROR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.77). Age-stratified analysis demonstrated increasing signal strength with age (≥65 years: ROR, 3.01; p-trend=0.028). Sensitivity analysis confirmed consistent signal directions. Conclusions: This first multi-database pharmacovigilance analysis confirms consistent GERD signals for GLP-1 RAs across Western and Asian populations, demonstrating approximately 2- to 5-fold higher reporting. Clinicians need to monitor for reflux symptoms during GLP-1 RA therapy, particularly in elderly patients.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.