ArticleAlzheimer's research & therapy2025
Response to Xing et al.: post-marketing safety concerns with Lecanemab: a pharmacovigilance study based on the FDA adverse event reporting system database.
Article in Alzheimer's research & therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Regulatory, clinical, and post-marketing challenges of lecanemab for Alzheimer's disease: insights from real-world data.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026Pooled it
- Lecanemab use in Chinese patients with Alzheimer's disease: a 12-month multicenter real-world study.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2026Observational
- Cardiovascular adverse event reporting profile of tirzepatide: a real-world pharmacovigilance analysis of heart failure, arrhythmias, and ischemic events.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- Imaging for anti-amyloid therapy eligibility: Comparing GRE and SWI in detecting microhemorrhages and superficial siderosis.Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A recent paper published a lecanemab analysis with data from the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database. While the authors mention the limitations of FAERS, such as "voluntary (underreporting), the inability to establish causality, reporting bias, data quality issues, and the absence of a denominator, which precludes calculating incidence rates", they proceed with generalizations, clinical conclusions, and even treatment recommendations based on the crude disproportionality analysis. Consideration of post-marketing safety reports, including those found in the FAERS database, is an essential component of pharmacovigilance. However, FDA guidance [2, 3] highlights that: (1) "Rates of occurrence cannot be established with reports," (2) "Documenting one or more of these outcomes in a report does not necessarily mean that the suspect product(s) named in the report was the cause of the outcomes," and (3) "Importantly, the FAERS data by themselves are not an indicator of the safety profile of the drug." The FAERS database includes reports from many sources, including reports by companies, as well as from health care professionals and consumers. The reports in the FDA database have significant limitations, including submission of incomplete, inaccurate, untimely, duplicate, relatedness to drug uncertainty, and/or unverified information. Therefore, broader generalizations, clinical conclusions, and treatment recommendations should not be made based solely on FAERS databases analyses.
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.