ArticleBMC pharmacology & toxicology2025
A real-world pharmacovigilance study of netarsudil based on the FDA adverse event reporting system (FAERS).
Article in BMC pharmacology & toxicology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Safety profile of entrectinib in NSCLC: Multi-source pharmacovigilance analysis using FAERS and JADER.PloS one · 2026Article
- Exploring risk signals of association between drugs and suicide: a retrospective investigation from 2004 to 2024.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- A Comprehensive Review of the Role of Rho-Kinase Inhibitors in Corneal Diseases.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe safety information of netarsudil primarily comes from clinical trials experience. This study aimed to explore the ocular and systemic safety of netarsudil through data mining the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database.
methodsAdverse event (AE) reports submitted to FAERS between January 2018 and September 2024 were extracted. The reporting odd ratio was used to identify netarsudil-related AE signals. Subgroup analysis, time to onset (TTO) analysis and sensitivity analysis were conducted to comprehensively assess the safety profile of netarsudil.
resultsA total of 63 AE signals were identified. Thirty-eight were ocular AEs listed in netarsudil's label, with conjunctival hyperemia, vision blurred and eye irritation ranking the top three in reporting frequency. Twenty-one were new ocular AE signals, including allergic blepharitis, eye pruritus, dacryostenosis, myopic shift, corneal hemorrhage, etc. The rest four were unexpected systemic AE signals, including hypersensitivity, swelling face, dermatitis allergic and dermatitis contact. Subgroup analysis showed that patients ≥ 65 years were more likely to develop inflammation-related AEs, whereas the other adult patients were more prone to experience cataract subcapsular, dry eye, refraction disorder and ocular discomfort. The median TTO of netarsudil-related AEs was 1 day (IQR: 0-13 days), with the majority of AEs (82.65%) occurring within the first month of netarsudil administration. Weibull distribution analysis indicated an early failure type, indicating the incidence of AEs decreased over time.
conclusionThis pharmacovigilance study uncovered new ocular and systemic AE signals associated with netarsudil, and found netarsudil-related AEs were more likely to arise shortly after drug administration, offering valuable insights for clinical monitoring, risk identification and future research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.