Urotoxicity of Cyclophosphamide: A Comparison Across Neoplastic, Autoimmune, and Transplant Indications
2024

Urotoxicity of Cyclophosphamide: A Comparison Across Neoplastic, Autoimmune, and Transplant Indications

Sample size: 197185 publication 10 minutes Evidence: high

Author Information

Author(s): Muacevic Alexander, Adler John R, Gu Joyce H, Samarneh Mark

Hypothesis

How does the urotoxicity of cyclophosphamide and ifosfamide compare across different patient populations?

Conclusion

Transplant patients show increased susceptibility to cyclophosphamide urotoxicity compared to other patient groups.

Supporting Evidence

  • Transplant patients had a higher risk of bladder toxicity from cyclophosphamide.
  • Use of MESNA showed a protective effect against urotoxicity.
  • Bladder toxicity reports included various adverse effects like hemorrhagic cystitis and urinary tract infections.
  • Statistical analysis revealed significant associations for severe bladder toxicity manifestations.
  • Prior studies had limited sample sizes compared to this large-scale analysis.

Takeaway

Cyclophosphamide can hurt the bladder, especially in patients getting transplants, but a medicine called MESNA can help protect against this.

Methodology

A disproportionality analysis using the FAERS database from Q4 2012 to Q2 2024.

Potential Biases

Potential selection bias due to reliance on reported adverse events.

Limitations

The study relies on spontaneous reporting, which may introduce bias and does not capture all adverse events.

Participant Demographics

{"CYC":{"total":197185,"female":96879,"male":64145,"unknown_sex":36161,"age_distribution":{"<18":18784,"18-24":4727,"25-64":80325,"≥65":40742,"unknown_age":52607}},"IFO":{"total":20998,"female":6650,"male":9624,"unknown_sex":4724,"age_distribution":{"<18":4292,"18-24":1313,"25-64":6882,"≥65":1897,"unknown_age":6614}}}

Statistical Information

Confidence Interval

{"CYC":"1.26 [1.23, 1.29]","IFO":"0.95 [0.88, 1.04]"}

Statistical Significance

p<0.05

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.7759/cureus.75180

Want to read the original?

Access the complete publication on the publisher's website

View Original Publication