Literature DB >> 25420896

Paraesthesia after local anaesthetics: an analysis of reports to the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System.

Carlo Piccinni1, Davide B Gissi2, Andrea Gabusi2, Lucio Montebugnoli2, Elisabetta Poluzzi1.   

Abstract

This study was aimed to evaluate the possible alert signals of paraesthesia by local anaesthetics, focusing on those used in dentistry. A case/non-case study of spontaneous adverse events recorded in FAERS (FDA Adverse Event Reporting System) between 2004 and 2011 was performed. Cases were represented by the reports of reactions grouped under the term 'Paraesthesias and dysaesthesias' involving local anaesthetics (ATC: N01B*); non-cases were all other reports of the same drugs. Reporting odds ratios (ROR) with the relevant 95% confidence intervals (95CI) were calculated. Alert signal was considered when number of cases >3 and lower limit of ROR 95CI > 1. To estimate the specificity of signals for dentistry, the analysis was restricted to the specific term "Oral Paraesthesia" and to reports concerning dental practice. Overall, 528 reports of 'Paraesthesias and dysaesthesias' were retrieved, corresponding to 573 drug-reaction pairs (247 lidocaine, 99 bupivacaine, 85 articaine, 30 prilocaine, 112 others). The signal was significant only for articaine (ROR=18.38; 95CI = 13.95-24.21) and prilocaine (2.66; 1.82-3.90). The analysis of the specific term "Oral Paraesthesia" retrieved 82 reports corresponding to 90 drug-reaction pairs (37 articaine, 19 lidocaine, 14 prilocaine, 7 bupivacaine, 13 others) and confirmed the signal for articaine (58.77; 37.82-91.31) and prilocaine (8.73; 4.89-15.57). The analysis of reports concerning dental procedures retrieved a signal for articaine, both for any procedures (8.84; 2.79-27.97) and for non-surgical ones (15.79; 1.87-133.46). In conclusion, among local anaesthetics, only articaine and prilocaine generated a signal of paraesthesia, especially when used in dentistry.
© 2015 Nordic Association for the Publication of BCPT (former Nordic Pharmacological Society).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25420896     DOI: 10.1111/bcpt.12357

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol        ISSN: 1742-7835            Impact factor:   4.080


  5 in total

1.  Muscular Adverse Drug Reactions Associated with Proton Pump Inhibitors: A Disproportionality Analysis Using the Italian National Network of Pharmacovigilance Database.

Authors:  Alice Capogrosso Sansone; Irma Convertino; Maria Teresa Galiulo; Stefano Salvadori; Stefania Pieroni; Tamara Knezevic; Stefania Mantarro; Alessandra Marino; Manfred Hauben; Corrado Blandizzi; Marco Tuccori
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 5.606

2.  Comparison of anesthetic efficacy of 2 and 4 % articaine in inferior alveolar nerve block for tooth extraction-a double-blinded randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  P W Kämmerer; D Schneider; V Palarie; E Schiegnitz; M Daubländer
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2016-03-28       Impact factor: 3.573

Review 3.  Articaine and neurotoxicity - a review.

Authors:  A J G Hopman; J A Baart; H S Brand
Journal:  Br Dent J       Date:  2017-10-03       Impact factor: 1.626

4.  Articaine: friend or foe?

Authors: 
Journal:  Br Dent J       Date:  2017-10-13       Impact factor: 1.626

Review 5.  A Systematic Review on Nerve-Related Adverse Effects following Mandibular Nerve Block Anesthesia.

Authors:  Luca Aquilanti; Marco Mascitti; Lucrezia Togni; Maria Contaldo; Giorgio Rappelli; Andrea Santarelli
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-01-31       Impact factor: 3.390

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.