Systematic reviewindependent cross-checkabstract checked I-LEG-108 standard review

Medicines and G6PD deficiency: what is the evidence?

Medications and glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency: an evidence-based review.

Overview

Youngster I et al.. Drug Saf 2010 · PMID 20701405 · DOI 10.2165/11536520-000000000-00000

Only seven medicines had solid evidence of causing haemolysis; many others were blamed wrongly.

Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: moderate

Original publication

Plain-language summary

Study explained simply
What did the researchers want to find out?

Review drug safety in G6PD deficiency.

How was the study done?

Literature review.

How many people, animals or samples were studied?

Published reports to 2009.

What was actually found?

Seven drugs clearly to avoid.

How large was the observed effect?

Not applicable.

What do the results mean in everyday life?

Most medicines are safe in normal doses, but a few must be avoided.

What are the study's limitations?

Abstract only; older.

What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

Limits the aspirin/antibiotic part of C-LEG-05.

Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

Universal.

What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

It does not cover foods other than drugs.

Scientific in-depth review

1. Full reference

Authors
Youngster I et al.
Journal
Drug Saf
Year
2010
Identifier
PMID 20701405 DOI 10.2165/11536520-000000000-00000
Verification
verified – PubMed efetch 2026-10-26 + Crossref works API
Retracted
no
Corrections
none
Extent checked
abstract only
Conflicts of interest and funding

Not stated in abstract.

2. Research question

Which medications should be avoided in G6PD deficiency based on evidence?

3. Study design and population

Study design
Systematic review – Evidence-based literature review of medications in G6PD deficiency (MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane, textbooks to May 2009)
Population

G6PD-deficient patients (literature)

Country

International (authors in Israel)

Period

Literature 1950-2009

Sample size

Not applicable

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Studies and case reports on medication use and G6PD deficiency.

4. Methods and endpoints

Exposure / intervention

Medications

Comparator

Not applicable

Endpoints

Haemolysis

Statistical methods

Qualitative classification into three groups

5. Actual results

Results

Solid evidence to prohibit only seven current medications: dapsone, methylthioninium chloride (methylene blue), nitrofurantoin, phenazopyridine, primaquine, rasburicase and tolonium chloride (toluidine blue); for other medications no evidence contravened use at normal therapeutic doses. Many drugs were probably wrongly cited because they were given during infection-related haemolysis.

Absolute risks

Not applicable

Authors' conclusion

Evidence-based global consensus on medication use is needed; many drugs have been wrongly blamed.

6. Strengths

  • Explicit search of several sources

7. Weaknesses

  • No formal quality appraisal described in abstract
  • Abstract only
  • Older (2009)

8. Risk of bias

Orienting tool
AMSTAR 2
Type of assessment
simplified assessment (abstract only)
Full formal assessment
no
Overall risk of bias
some concerns
Rationale

Review methods only partly described in abstract.

9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation

Not applicable.

10. Relevance to the specific claim

Contradicts the broad statement that aspirin and antibiotics trigger haemolysis; only specific agents (two antimicrobials: dapsone, nitrofurantoin) are well supported.

11. Independent contrary findings

Hospital leaflets list more drugs (I-LEG-110).

12. Transferability to Germany and Europe

Universal.

13. Overall methodological judgement

Consistent with the later CPIC guideline (I-LEG-107).

Multidimensional assessment
Multidimensional assessment
Authenticity of the sourceverified
Methodological qualitymoderate
Risk of biassome concerns
Precision of resultsnot applicable
Directnessdirect
Reproducibilityreplicated
Consistency with the overall evidenceconsistent
Regional transferabilityhigh
Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive)not applicable

14. Open questions

None specific.

15. Linked fact checks