Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31411714›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2019

Adverse Events Associated With the Use of Sipuleucel-T Reported to the US Food and Drug Administration's Adverse Event Reporting System, 2010-2017.

Graça M Dores, Marthe Bryant-Genevier, Silvia Perez-Vilar

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Graça M DoresUS Food and Drug Administration, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Office of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Division of Epidemiology, Silver Spring, Maryland.
Marthe Bryant-GenevierUS Food and Drug Administration, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Office of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Division of Epidemiology, Silver Spring, Maryland.
Silvia Perez-VilarUS Food and Drug Administration, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Office of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Division of Epidemiology, Silver Spring, Maryland.
Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research · USUnited States Food and Drug Administration · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Sipuleucel-T was the first therapeutic cancer vaccine approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2010. Although almost a decade has passed since its approval for the treatment of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), there remains a paucity of literature describing safety data in the postmarketing period. Objective: To describe the postmarketing safety experience for sipuleucel-T. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this case series study, US reports for sipuleucel-T submitted to the FDA's Adverse Event Reporting System were searched and reviewed between April 29, 2010, and December 31, 2017. This system is a spontaneous safety surveillance database for drug and therapeutic biologic products. The analysis of 3216 reports and select case reviews were undertaken between February and November 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: Descriptive statistics were used to assess adverse event reports for sipuleucel-T. Empirical Bayes Geometric Means (EBGM) and their 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed to identify disproportionate (ie, at least twice the expected) reporting of sipuleucel-T-event pairs. Selected adverse events and death reports were individually reviewed. Results: In total, 3216 reports were identified for sipuleucel-T, of which 2014 (62.6%) were serious. For all included reports, the patients' median (interquartile range) age was 73 (67-79) years, and 3149 were specified to be males. Chills (n = 318), malaise (n = 196), pyrexia (n = 189), culture positive (n = 184), fatigue (n = 180), and nausea (n = 173) were among the most commonly reported adverse events. Infusion-related reactions (EBGM, 12.1; 90% CI, 9.4-15.3), infections, vascular events, and transient ischemic attacks (EBGM, 2.9; 90% CI, 2.2-3.9) were reported disproportionately. Among 249 deaths for which relevant dates were available, 128 (51.4%) were reported within 30 days of a sipuleucel-T infusion, of which 81.2% included a specified cause of death; of these 104 deaths, there were 37 neoplasms (35.6%), 25 cardiac disorders (24.0%), 18 nervous system disorders (17.3%), and 9 infections (8.7%). Conclusions and Relevance: Reported adverse events were generally consistent with the safety experience observed in prelicensure studies and described in the sipuleucel-T package insert. Off-label use among overtly symptomatic men with CRPC, reporting bias, or lack of product effectiveness may have influenced the reporting of deaths within 30 days of treatment initiation. With this overview of sipuleucel-T experience, the present study serves as a resource for health care professionals and patients as they weigh the risks and benefits of treatment in the context of all available therapeutic options for CRPC.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overCancer VaccinesDatabases, FactualHumansMaleMiddle AgedProduct Surveillance, PostmarketingProstatic Neoplasms, Castration-ResistantTissue ExtractsUnited StatesUnited States Department of AgricultureCancer Vaccinessipuleucel-TTissue Extracts

Identifiers

PMID31411714
PMCPMC6694390
OpenAlexW2968843497

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.