ArticlePharmaceutical medicine2020
US Food and Drug Administration Safety Advisories and Reporting to the Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS).
Article in Pharmaceutical medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Adverse events associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors in combination with chemotherapy in lung cancer: a real-world analysis.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Heterogeneity in adverse events associated with lumateperone: a study on potential subgroup-specific differences.The international journal of neuropsychopharmacology · 2026Article
- Adverse events associated with tirzepatide: a focus on subgroup-specific differences.BMC pharmacology & toxicology · 2026Article
- Exploring the Relationship Between Atorvastatin and Memory Loss: A Comprehensive Analysis Integrating Real-World Pharmacovigilance and Mendelian Randomization.Drugs in R&D · 2024Article
- Post-marketing risk analysis of bendamustine: a real-world approach based on the FAERS database.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Article
- Association between atorvastatin and erectile dysfunction: a comprehensive analysis incorporating real-world pharmacovigilance and Mendelian randomization.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Article
- A descriptive analysis of concomitant opioid and benzodiazepine medication use and associated adverse drug events in United States adults between 2009 and 2018.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2022Article
- A real-world pharmacovigilance study of FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) events for venetoclax.PloS one · 2022Article
- Insights from the molecular docking analysis of SGLT2 and FIMH to combat uropathogenicity.Bioinformation · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other major regulators regularly issue safety advisories about licensed drugs with new adverse effects that have been documented through observational studies, clinical trials, and spontaneously reported adverse drug events.
objectiveTo assess the possible effects of a representative group of FDA Drug Safety Communications on the reporting of the specific adverse effect featured in the advisory on new cases reported to the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS).
methodsWe examined 16 FDA Drug Safety Communications issued from 2010 to 2015 that had not previously been the focus of advisories from regulators in the UK, Canada, or Australia. We compared the reports of the adverse effect in the 8 calendar quarters preceding the advisory and in the 4 quarters following. We measured change in reporting frequency by calculating the event reporting odds ratio (ROR) for the post-warning compared to the pre-warning periods. We defined a credible association of the advisory with increased reporting as a ROR ≥ 2.0 and p value of < 0.05 by Fisher's Exact Test.
resultsWe found statistically significant increased reporting for 4/16 advisories with RORs that ranged from 3.9 to 40.6. Three advisories had smaller but still statistically significant increases that were less than the ROR ≥ 2.0 threshold. For 7 advisories, we found no statistically significant changes in reporting.
conclusionsNo consistent pattern or effect was found on spontaneous reporting following these safety advisories. After results were available, we observed that some cases with the largest reporting increase also involved substantial numbers of legal claims. Changes in adverse event reporting following a warning need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32180152What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.