Skip to content
2000
Volume 32, Issue 10
  • ISSN: 1381-6128
  • E-ISSN: 1873-4286

Abstract

Introduction

Statins are widely prescribed for cardiovascular disease prevention, but their potential to increase diabetes risk has prompted regulatory warnings. Different statin drugs have varying physicochemical properties, yet comprehensive comparative assessments of their individual diabetes-related safety profiles remain limited in post-marketing surveillance data. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate and compare the risk of diabetes-related adverse events among different statin drugs using pharmacovigilance data.

Methods

We analyzed adverse event reports from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database from 2004 to 2022. Diabetes-related adverse events were identified using relevant MedDRA Preferred Terms. Four pharmacovigilance algorithms—Reporting Odds Ratio (ROR), Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) standard method, Bayesian Confidence Propagation Neural Network, and Multi-Item Gamma Poisson Shrinkage—were employed to detect signals. Positive signals were defined when all four methods showed significance. Outcome severity and time-to-event were also analyzed.

Results

Among 13,438,409 ADE reports, 63,583 identified statins as primary suspect drugs, with 11,562 reporting diabetes-related events. Positive signals were detected for atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, simvastatin, pravastatin, and pitavastatin. Signal strength ranking showed atorvastatin had the strongest association (ROR 36.70; 95% CI 35.92-37.51), followed by rosuvastatin (ROR 9.63; 95% CI 9.10-10.19), pitavastatin (ROR 5.46; 95% CI 4.03-7.41), simvastatin (ROR 2.96; 95% CI 2.54-3.45), and pravastatin (ROR 2.82; 95% CI 2.14-3.71). In patients under 45, only atorvastatin showed a positive signal. Atorvastatin was associated with a higher risk of serious adverse events (PRR=1.37; 95% CI: 1.09-1.71) with a median time to event of 1,012 days.

Discussion

Our findings revealed differences in diabetes-related risk profiles among statins, with atorvastatin demonstrating the strongest signals across different age groups. The observed risk hierarchy may be attributed to differences in lipophilicity, potency, and metabolic effects. The age-dependent patterns and extended time-to-event for diabetic events underscore the importance of long-term monitoring, complementing clinical trial data with post-marketing surveillance evidence for improved statin selection.

Conclusion

Different statins demonstrate varying associations with diabetes-related adverse events, with atorvastatin showing the strongest signal across age groups. These findings may inform clinical decision-making when prescribing statins, particularly for patients with pre-existing diabetes risk factors.

© 2026 Bentham Science Publishers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/cpd/10.2174/0113816128430202250902074509
2025-09-19
2026-03-02

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/cpd/10.2174/0113816128430202250902074509
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. ChongB. JayabaskaranJ. JauhariS.M. The Global syndemic of modifiable cardiovascular risk factors projected from 2025 to 2050.J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.202586316517710.1016/j.jacc.2025.04.061 40669954
     [Google Scholar]
  2. VogelB. AcevedoM. AppelmanY. The Lancet women and cardiovascular disease Commission: Reducing the global burden by 2030.Lancet2021397102922385243810.1016/S0140‑6736(21)00684‑X 34010613
     [Google Scholar]
  3. NedkoffL. BriffaT. ZemedikunD. HerringtonS. WrightF.L. Global trends in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.Clin. Ther.202345111087109110.1016/j.clinthera.2023.09.020 37914585
     [Google Scholar]
  4. CollinsR. ReithC. EmbersonJ. Interpretation of the evidence for the efficacy and safety of statin therapy.Lancet2016388100592532256110.1016/S0140‑6736(16)31357‑5 27616593
     [Google Scholar]
  5. MachF. BaigentC. CatapanoA.L. 2019 ESC/EAS Guidelines for the management of dyslipidaemias: lipid modification to reduce cardiovascular risk.Eur. Heart J.202041111118810.1093/eurheartj/ehz455 31504418
     [Google Scholar]
  6. RasmussenP. YandrapalliS. AronowW. Statin therapy for primary cardiovascular prevention in adults older than 75 years.Kardiol. Pol.2021791182410.33963/KP.15743 33427435
     [Google Scholar]
  7. StrandbergT.E. Benefits and limitations of statin use in primary cardiovascular prevention: recent advances.Polish Archiv Int Med202213251625810.20452/pamw.16258 35635404
     [Google Scholar]
  8. BaigentC. BlackwellL. EmbersonJ. Efficacy and safety of more intensive lowering of LDL cholesterol: A meta-analysis of data from 170 000 participants in 26 randomised trials.Lancet201037697531670168110.1016/S0140‑6736(10)61350‑5 21067804
     [Google Scholar]
  9. CasulaM. MozzanicaF. ScottiL. Statin use and risk of new-onset diabetes: A meta-analysis of observational studies.Nutr. Metab. Cardiovasc. Dis.201727539640610.1016/j.numecd.2017.03.001 28416099
     [Google Scholar]
  10. ReithC. PreissD. BlackwellL. Effects of statin therapy on diagnoses of new-onset diabetes and worsening glycaemia in large-scale randomised blinded statin trials: An individual participant data meta-analysis.Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol.202412530631910.1016/S2213‑8587(24)00040‑8 38554713
     [Google Scholar]
  11. CederbergH. StančákováA. YaluriN. ModiS. KuusistoJ. LaaksoM. Increased risk of diabetes with statin treatment is associated with impaired insulin sensitivity and insulin secretion: A 6 year follow-up study of the METSIM cohort.Diabetologia20155851109111710.1007/s00125‑015‑3528‑5 25754552
     [Google Scholar]
  12. AbbasiF. LamendolaC. HarrisC.S. Statins are associated with increased insulin resistance and secretion.Arterioscler. Thromb. Vasc. Biol.202141112786279710.1161/ATVBAHA.121.316159 34433298
     [Google Scholar]
  13. NaliniR. RamyaJ.E. KarthickR. Evaluation of glycemic status among hypercholesterolemic patients on atorvastatin in a tertiary care hospital: A retrospective study.Indian J. Pharmacol.202254316517010.4103/ijp.ijp_943_20 35848686
     [Google Scholar]
  14. RochlaniY. KattoorA.J. PothineniN.V. PalagiriR.D.R. RomeoF. MehtaJ.L. Balancing primary prevention and statin-induced diabetes mellitus prevention.Am. J. Cardiol.201712071122112810.1016/j.amjcard.2017.06.054 28797470
     [Google Scholar]
  15. SattarN.A. GinsbergH. RayK. The use of statins in people at risk of developing diabetes mellitus: Evidence and guidance for clinical practice.Atheroscler. Suppl.201415111510.1016/j.atherosclerosissup.2014.04.001 24840509
     [Google Scholar]
  16. AlvesC. MarquesF.B. MacedoA.F. Drug-safety alerts issued by regulatory authorities: usefulness of meta-analysis in predicting risks earlier.Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol.201470674575610.1007/s00228‑014‑1670‑5 24691786
     [Google Scholar]
  17. ChogtuB. MagazineR. BairyK.L. Statin use and risk of diabetes mellitus.World J. Diabetes20156235235710.4239/wjd.v6.i2.352 25789118
     [Google Scholar]
  18. RamkumarS. RaghunathA. RaghunathS. Statin therapy: Review of safety and potential side effects.Zhonghua Minguo Xinzangxue Hui Zazhi201632663163910.6515/acs20160611a 27899849
     [Google Scholar]
  19. LiJ. GongJ. LiuZ. LiuY. HeA. WangZ. Safety profile of statins for post-marketing adverse cardiovascular events: A real-world pharmacovigilance analysis.Endocr. Metab. Immune Disord. Drug Targets202525974675610.2174/0118715303324204240905111835 39473255
     [Google Scholar]
  20. AlqasrawiM.N. Al-MahayriZ.N. AlblooshiH. AlsafarH. AliB.R. Utilizing pharmacogenomic data for a safer use of statins among the Emirati population.Curr. Vasc. Pharmacol.202422321822910.2174/0115701611283841231227064343 38284696
     [Google Scholar]
  21. ShitaraY. SugiyamaY. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic alterations of 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitors: Drug–drug interactions and interindividual differences in transporter and metabolic enzyme functions.Pharmacol. Ther.200611217110510.1016/j.pharmthera.2006.03.003 16714062
     [Google Scholar]
  22. BalasubramanianR. MaideenN.M.P. HMG-CoA Reductase Inhibitors (Statins) and their Drug Interactions Involving CYP Enzymes, P-glycoprotein and OATP Transporters-An Overview.Curr. Drug Metab.202122532834110.2174/18755453MTEz9MzEj5 33459228
     [Google Scholar]
  23. JeetuG. AnushaG. Pharmacovigilance: a worldwide master key for drug safety monitoring.J. Young Pharm.20102331532010.4103/0975‑1483.66802 21042493
     [Google Scholar]
  24. BeningerP. Pharmacovigilance: An Overview.Clin. Ther.201840121991200410.1016/j.clinthera.2018.07.012 30126707
     [Google Scholar]
  25. KumarA. Pharmacovigilance: Importance, concepts, and processes.Am. J. Health Syst. Pharm.201774860661210.2146/ajhp151031 28235869
     [Google Scholar]
  26. VentolaCL Big data and pharmacovigilance: Data mining for adverse drug events and interactions.201843634051 29896033
     [Google Scholar]
  27. LavertuA. VoraB. GiacominiK.M. AltmanR. RensiS. A new era in pharmacovigilance: Toward real‐world data and digital monitoring.Clin. Pharmacol. Ther.202110951197120210.1002/cpt.2172 33492663
     [Google Scholar]
  28. XiaoC. LiY. BaytasI.M. ZhouJ. WangF. An MCEM framework for drug safety signal detection and combination from heterogeneous real world evidence.Sci. Rep.201881180610.1038/s41598‑018‑19979‑7 29379048
     [Google Scholar]
  29. RaschiE. La PlacaM. PoluzziE. De PontiF. The value of case reports and spontaneous reporting systems for pharmacovigilance and clinical practice.Br. J. Dermatol.2021184358158310.1111/bjd.19677 33184850
     [Google Scholar]
  30. DhodapkarM.M. ShiX. RamachandranR. ChenE.M. WallachJ.D. RossJ.S. Characterization and corroboration of safety signals identified from the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System, 2008-19: cross sectional study.BMJ2022379e07175210.1136/bmj‑2022‑071752 36198428
     [Google Scholar]
  31. KniselyB.M. HatimQ. Vaughn-CookeM. Utilizing deep learning for detecting adverse drug events in structured and unstructured regulatory drug data sets.Pharmaceut. Med.202236530731710.1007/s40290‑022‑00434‑y 35871475
     [Google Scholar]
  32. WeaverJ. WillyM. AviganM. Informatic tools and approaches in postmarketing pharmacovigilance used by FDA.AAPS J.2008101354110.1208/s12248‑007‑9004‑5 18446503
     [Google Scholar]
  33. ShaoQ. XuY. LiM. ChuX. LiuW. Research on beers criteria and STOPP/START criteria based on the FDA FAERS database.Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol.20217781147115610.1007/s00228‑021‑03175‑0 34170370
     [Google Scholar]
  34. BattiniV. Van ManenR.P. GringeriM. The potential antidepressant effect of antidiabetic agents: New insights from a pharmacovigilance study based on data from the reporting system databases FAERS and VigiBase.Front. Pharmacol.202314112838710.3389/fphar.2023.1128387 36873988
     [Google Scholar]
  35. HeS. ChenB. LiC. Drug-induced liver injury associated with atypical generation antipsychotics from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS).BMC Pharmacol. Toxicol.20242515910.1186/s40360‑024‑00782‑2 39215339
     [Google Scholar]
  36. ZhouS. Application of adverse drug reaction of data mining in pharmacovigilance.Chin J Mod Appl Pharmacy20246864870
     [Google Scholar]
  37. LiY. HanY. GaoP. Safety profile of lanreotide: A retrospective post-marketing pharmacovigilance study based on the real-world data from FAERS database.Endocrine202589393094110.1007/s12020‑025‑04301‑z 40468101
     [Google Scholar]
  38. FukazawaC. HinomuraY. KanekoM. NarukawaM. Significance of data mining in routine signal detection: Analysis based on the safety signals identified by the FDA.Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf.201827121402140810.1002/pds.4672 30324671
     [Google Scholar]
  39. ChaiS. ZhanJ.L. ZhaoL.M. LiuX.D. Safety of triazole antifungals: A pharmacovigilance study from 2004 to 2021 based on FAERS.Ther. Adv. Drug Saf.2022132042098622114326610.1177/20420986221143266 36545565
     [Google Scholar]
  40. VandenbrouckeJ.P. von ElmE. AltmanD.G. Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and elaboration.PLoS Med.2007410e29710.1371/journal.pmed.0040297 17941715
     [Google Scholar]
  41. JiangM. WuY. ShahA. PriyankaP. DennyJ.C. XuH. Extracting and standardizing medication information in clinical text - the MedEx-UIMA system.AMIA Jt. Summits Transl. Sci. Proc.201420143742 25954575
     [Google Scholar]
  42. YuZ. ZhuH. ChenH. ZhuL. LiaoX. Gastrointestinal perforation associated with novel antineoplastic agents: A real-world study based on the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System.J. Pharm. Pharm. Sci.2023261123510.3389/jpps.2023.11235 36942297
     [Google Scholar]
  43. RaschiE. FusaroliM. MassariF. The changing face of drug-induced adrenal insufficiency in the food and drug administration adverse event reporting system.J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab.20221078e3107e311410.1210/clinem/dgac359 35704533
     [Google Scholar]
  44. QD FTS Y. Comparative study on drug signal detection and evaluation at home and abroad.Chin. J. Pharm.2022191112181222
     [Google Scholar]
  45. van PuijenbroekE.P. BateA. LeufkensH.G.M. LindquistM. OrreR. EgbertsA.C.G. A comparison of measures of disproportionality for signal detection in spontaneous reporting systems for adverse drug reactions.Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf.200211131010.1002/pds.668 11998548
     [Google Scholar]
  46. EvansS.J.W. WallerP.C. DavisS. Use of proportional reporting ratios (PRRs) for signal generation from spontaneous adverse drug reaction reports.Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf.200110648348610.1002/pds.677 11828828
     [Google Scholar]
  47. BateA. LindquistM. EdwardsI.R. A Bayesian neural network method for adverse drug reaction signal generation.Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol.199854431532110.1007/s002280050466 9696956
     [Google Scholar]
  48. SzarfmanA. MachadoS.G. O’NeillR.T. Use of screening algorithms and computer systems to efficiently signal higher-than-expected combinations of drugs and events in the US FDA’s spontaneous reports database.Drug Saf.200225638139210.2165/00002018‑200225060‑00001 12071774
     [Google Scholar]
  49. GuoD. TangB. LuoP. A real-world pharmacovigilance study and pharmacological analysis of sulfasalazine based on the FDA adverse event reporting system (FAERS) database.Expert Opin. Drug Saf.202520251910.1080/14740338.2025.2488241 40222949
     [Google Scholar]
  50. ShuY. DingY. HeX. LiuY. WuP. ZhangQ. Hematological toxicities in PARP inhibitors: A real-world study using FDA adverse event reporting system (FAERS) database.Cancer Med.20231233365337510.1002/cam4.5062 35871395
     [Google Scholar]
  51. LiuL. ChenJ. WangL. ChenC. ChenL. Association between different GLP-1 receptor agonists and gastrointestinal adverse reactions: A real-world disproportionality study based on FDA adverse event reporting system database.Front. Endocrinol. (Lausanne)202213104378910.3389/fendo.2022.1043789 36568085
     [Google Scholar]
  52. ZigmontV.A. ShobenA.B. LuB. Statin users have an elevated risk of dysglycemia and new‐onset‐diabetes.Diabetes Metab. Res. Rev.2019358e318910.1002/dmrr.3189 31125480
     [Google Scholar]
  53. OlotuB.S. ShepherdM.D. NovakS. Use of statins and the risk of incident diabetes: A retrospective cohort study.Am. J. Cardiovasc. Drugs201616537739010.1007/s40256‑016‑0176‑1 27272032
     [Google Scholar]
  54. CarterA.A. GomesT. CamachoX. JuurlinkD.N. ShahB.R. MamdaniM.M. Risk of incident diabetes among patients treated with statins: Population based study.BMJ20133464f261010.1136/bmj.f2610 23704171
     [Google Scholar]
  55. CasigliaE. TikhonoffV. Cardiovascular prevention with statins: epidemiological considerations.Eur. J. Prev. Cardiol.202229141827182910.1093/eurjpc/zwac119 35767312
     [Google Scholar]
  56. ChouR. CantorA. DanaT. Statin use for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in adults.JAMA2022328875477110.1001/jama.2022.12138 35997724
     [Google Scholar]
  57. SeoW.W. SeoS.I. KimY. Impact of pitavastatin on new-onset diabetes mellitus compared to atorvastatin and rosuvastatin: A distributed network analysis of 10 real-world databases.Cardiovasc. Diabetol.20222118210.1186/s12933‑022‑01524‑6 35606846
     [Google Scholar]
  58. EngedaJ.C. StackhouseA. WhiteM. Evidence of heterogeneity in statin-associated type 2 diabetes mellitus risk: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and observational studies.Diabetes Res. Clin. Pract.20191519610510.1016/j.diabres.2019.04.005 30954511
     [Google Scholar]
  59. AgouridisA.P. KostapanosM.S. ElisafM.S. Statins and their increased risk of inducing diabetes.Expert Opin. Drug Saf.201514121835184410.1517/14740338.2015.1096343 26437128
     [Google Scholar]
  60. YoonD. SheenS.S. LeeS. ChoiY.J. ParkR.W. LimH.S. Statins and risk for new-onset diabetes mellitus.Medicine (Baltimore)20169546e542910.1097/MD.0000000000005429 27861386
     [Google Scholar]
  61. NakataM. NagasakaS. KusakaI. MatsuokaH. IshibashiS. YadaT. Effects of statins on the adipocyte maturation and expression of glucose transporter 4 (SLC2A4): Implications in glycaemic control.Diabetologia20064981881189210.1007/s00125‑006‑0269‑5 16685502
     [Google Scholar]
  62. GanesanS. ItoM.K. Coenzyme Q10 ameliorates the reduction in GLUT4 transporter expression induced by simvastatin in 3T3-L1 adipocytes.Metab. Syndr. Relat. Disord.201311425125510.1089/met.2012.0177 23496027
     [Google Scholar]
  63. LaaksoM. Fernandes SilvaL. Statins and risk of type 2 diabetes: Mechanism and clinical implications.Front. Endocrinol. (Lausanne)202314123933510.3389/fendo.2023.1239335 37795366
     [Google Scholar]
  64. WigginsB.S. SaseenJ.J. PageR.L. Recommendations for management of clinically significant drug-drug interactions with statins and select agents used in patients with cardiovascular disease: A scientific statement from the American Heart Association.Circulation201613421e468e49510.1161/CIR.0000000000000456 27754879
     [Google Scholar]
  65. MaronD.J. FazioS. LintonM.F. Current perspectives on statins.Circulation2000101220721310.1161/01.CIR.101.2.207 10637210
     [Google Scholar]
  66. LiuL. WuS. WeiL. XiaZ. JiJ. HuangD. Romosozumab adverse event profile: A pharmacovigilance analysis based on the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) from 2019 to 2023.Aging Clin. Exp. Res.20253712310.1007/s40520‑024‑02921‑5 39808360
     [Google Scholar]
  67. BhattacharyyaM. MillerL.E. MillerA.L. BhattacharyyaR. Mortality and serious adverse events associated with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists: A pharmacovigilance study using the FDA adverse event reporting system.Cureus2024168e6598910.7759/cureus.65989 39221363
     [Google Scholar]
  68. NoctorE. DunneF.P. Type 2 diabetes after gestational diabetes: The influence of changing diagnostic criteria.World J. Diabetes20156223424410.4239/wjd.v6.i2.234 25789105
     [Google Scholar]
  69. ShepardB.D. Sex differences in diabetes and kidney disease: mechanisms and consequences.Am. J. Physiol. Renal Physiol.20193172F456F46210.1152/ajprenal.00249.2019 31241989
     [Google Scholar]
  70. FornasierG. FrancesconS. LeoneR. BaldoP. An historical overview over Pharmacovigilance.Int. J. Clin. Pharm.201840474474710.1007/s11096‑018‑0657‑1 29948743
     [Google Scholar]
  71. WiktorowiczM. LexchinJ. MoscouK. Pharmacovigilance in Europe and North America: Divergent approaches.Soc. Sci. Med.201275116517010.1016/j.socscimed.2011.11.046 22521677
     [Google Scholar]
  72. GaliguttaR.R. ThomasC. RathodM. Signal detection of ferric carboxymaltose-induced serious adverse events: disproportionality analysis of FAERS and VigiBase data and systematic review of case reports.Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol.20258171081109610.1007/s00228‑025‑03849‑z 40402208
     [Google Scholar]
  73. LinH. ZhuC. LiuS. BiY. HuJ. JuM. Post-market safety profile of cefiderocol: A real-world pharmacovigilance exploratory analysis based on U.S. FDA adverse event reporting system (FAERS).BMC Pharmacol. Toxicol.20252615810.1186/s40360‑025‑00894‑3 40069825
     [Google Scholar]
  74. SchollJ.H.G. van PuijenbroekE.P. The value of time‐to‐onset in statistical signal detection of adverse drug reactions: a comparison with disproportionality analysis in spontaneous reports from the Netherlands.Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf.201625121361136710.1002/pds.4115 27686554
     [Google Scholar]
  75. LindquistM. Use of triage strategies in the WHO signal-detection process.Drug Saf.200730763563710.2165/00002018‑200730070‑00014 17604420
     [Google Scholar]
  76. SzarfmanA. TonningJ.M. DoraiswamyP.M. Pharmacovigilance in the 21st century: New systematic tools for an old problem.Pharmacotherapy20042491099110410.1592/phco.24.13.1099.38090 15460169
     [Google Scholar]
  77. BrinkerA.D. LyndlyJ. TonningJ. MoenyD. LevineJ.G. AviganM.I. Profiling cumulative proportional reporting ratios of drug-induced liver injury in the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database.Drug Saf.201336121169117810.1007/s40264‑013‑0116‑9 24178291
     [Google Scholar]
  78. KhouriC. FusaroliM. SalvoF. RaschiE. Interpretation of pharmacovigilance disproportionality analyses.Clin. Pharmacol. Ther.2023114474574610.1002/cpt.2951 37248829
     [Google Scholar]
  79. FusaroliM. SalvoF. BegaudB. The reporting of a disproportionality analysis for drug safety signal detection using individual case safety reports in pharmacovigilance (READUS-PV): Development and statement.Drug Saf.202447657558410.1007/s40264‑024‑01421‑9 38713346
     [Google Scholar]
  80. ZhouY. XieW. ZhengC. LiuL. ChenZ. WangX. Hypoglycemia associated with direct‐acting anti‐hepatitis C virus drugs: An epidemiologic surveillance study of the FDA adverse event reporting system (FAERS).Clin. Endocrinol. (Oxf.)202296569069710.1111/cen.14660 34913180
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/cpd/10.2174/0113816128430202250902074509
Loading
Ranking the Diabetes-related Safety Profile of Different Statin Drugs
Curr. Pharm. Des. 32, 782 (2026); https://doi.org/10.2174/0113816128430202250902074509
/content/journals/cpd/10.2174/0113816128430202250902074509
/content/journals/cpd/10.2174/0113816128430202250902074509
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplements

Supplementary material is available on the publisher’s website along with the published article.

file format download Download

  • Article Type:     Research Article
Keyword(s): adverse drug event; diabetes mellitus; disproportionality analysis; drug safety; pharmacoepidemiology; Statins

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error
Please enter a valid_number test