ArticleNaunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology2026
Variations between package inserts regarding gingival overgrowth causing drugs.
Article in Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Drug-induced gingival overgrowth (DIGO) is an increasingly relevant topic among dentists, physicians and patients as well. Due to high prescription rates of calcium channel blockers, anticonvulsants and immunosuppressants, the prevalence of this adverse effect should not be underestimated. In this paper, we compare the three groups of active substances mentioned and work out the drugs with the highest risk of triggering DIGO. Additionally, we compared package inserts (PIs) of the drugs in question to identify differences and missing references to this adverse drug reaction (ADR). It is a well-known problem that package inserts sometimes contain different information about adverse drug reactions and their frequencies. To find out what prevalence can actually be expected, we analysed various package inserts for different drugs that are known to cause DIGO. Moreover, we compared package inserts with summary of product characteristics (SmPCs) as an example. It turned out that both pieces of information shed light on the circumstances and problems of DIGO with roughly the same degree of imprecision and incompleteness. Furthermore, the given information in SmPCs are sometimes even worse than in the PIs. To find out the prevalence with which the various drugs potentially trigger DIGO, recent prescription figures must be taken into account. Using current data from the Arzneiverordnungsreport (drug prescription report, AVR) 2023 and the prevalences stated in PIs, we performed a model calculation of the expected number of patients in Germany developing DIGO per year. It turned out that substantial differences in the frequencies and the reported adverse drug reactions in the different package inserts can be found. Apart from this, the compared SmPC do not contain any further information on DIGO and its frequency. Surprisingly, long-term therapy with valproic acid is associated with the highest rate of DIGO compared to the other drugs. Despite the lower number of prescriptions, significantly more cases of DIGO must be expected with valproic acid therapy than with amlodipine or phenytoin, for example. To summarise, there are significant differences in the content of package inserts from different manufacturers. As a source of information for healthcare professionals, the SmPC unfortunately does not provide any detailed information on DIGO. In patients receiving long-term therapy with valproic acid, particular attention must be paid to the development of DIGO to initiate therapy at an early stage.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.