Adverse drug reactions and their fatal outcomes in clozapine patients in VigiBase: Comparing the top four reporting countries (US, UK, Canada and Australia)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pharmacovigilance findings and box warnings in the clozapine package inserts have marked the history of clozapine. OBJECTIVE: This is the largest review of clozapine adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and their associated fatal outcomes. Reports to the World Health Organization's global pharmacovigilance database, VigiBase™, were analyzed, extending from clozapine's introduction to December 31, 2022. METHODS: The analysis focused on the top four reporting countries: United States (US), United Kingdom (UK), Canada and Australia (83 % of fatal outcomes worldwide). Attempts were made to control for population and clozapine prescription in each country. RESULTS: Clozapine ADRs worldwide accounted for 191,557 reports, with the highest number (53,505) in "blood and lymphatic system disorder". Of the 22,596 fatal outcomes reported in clozapine patients, 9587 were from the US, 6567 from the UK, 3623 from Canada and 1484 from Australia. The top category worldwide in fatal outcomes was nonspecifically labeled "death" with 46 % (range 22-62 %). "Pneumonia" was second with 30 % (range 17-45 %). Agranulocytosis was numerically only the 35th top clozapine ADR associated with fatal outcomes. On average, 2.3 clozapine ADRs were reported per fatal outcome. Infections were associated with 24.2 % of the UK fatal outcomes (9.4 %-11.9 % in the 3 other countries). CONCLUSIONS: The four countries appeared to report clozapine ADRs in different ways, making comparisons difficult. We estimated higher fatal outcomes in the UK and Canada after controlling for cross-sectional estimations of population and published clozapine use. This last hypothesis is limited by the lack of precise estimation of accumulated clozapine use in each country.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".