Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39263575›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2024

A real-world pharmacovigilance study of KRAS G12C mutation inhibitors based on the food and drug administration adverse event reporting system.

Lisha Wu, Maosheng Xu, Xueqin Li, Dilinuer Aierken, Jinxiu Yu, Tao Qin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Lisha Wu *Department of Oncology, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Maosheng Xu *Department of Oncology, Shenshan Medical Center, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Shanwei, Guangdong, China.
Xueqin LiDepartment of Oncology, Shenshan Medical Center, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Shanwei, Guangdong, China.
Dilinuer AierkenDepartment of Oncology, Shenshan Medical Center, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Shanwei, Guangdong, China.
Jinxiu YuDepartment of Neurosurgery, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Tao QinDepartment of Oncology, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Sotorasib and adagrasib have been widely used for the non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients harboring Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog (KRAS) G12C mutation. It's necessary to assess their safety profiles in the real-world population. Methods: A retrospective pharmacovigilance was conducted to examine adverse events (AEs) associated with sotorasib and adagrasib therapies using the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS). Disproportionality analysis was performed employing Venn analysis and four data-mining algorithms, including the reporting odds ratio (ROR), the proportional reporting ratio (PRR), the Bayesian confidence propagation neural network (BCPNN), and the multi-item gamma Poisson shrinker (MGPS). Results: The most commonly reported system organ classes (SOCs) for both adagrasib and sororasib were general, gastrointestinal, and investigations disorders. Notably, sotorasib exhibited significant signals for neoplasms and hepatobiliary disorders in four algorithms. Specifically, AEs related to neoplasms were predominantly associated with lung malignancies, all of which were consistent with the therapeutic indications of KRAS G12C mutation inhibitor. A total of 19 common AEs were identified in sotorasib and adagrasib, spanning gastrointestinal, general, hepatobiliary, investigations, metabolism, musculoskeletal, neoplasms, and respiratory disorders. 4 severe AEs (SAEs) were identified in sotorasib, with 3 SAEs displaying significant signals in four algorithms, including drug-induced liver injury, pancreatitis, and hepatic failure. In adagrasib, only 2 SAEs were detected, with renal failure showing significant signals in four algorithms. Conclusion: This study offers a comprehensive evaluation of the major safety signals associated with sotorasib and adagrasib, providing valuable information for clinicians regarding drug selection and safety considerations, thereby facilitating the design of future prospective safety studies.

Indexed as

adagrasibadverse eventsdisproportionality analysisFAERSpharmacovigilancesotorasib

Identifiers

PMID39263575
PMCPMC11387170

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.