ArticleScientific reports2025
A real-world pharmacovigilance study of Certolizumab pegol based on FAERS database.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- A multidimensional investigation of myelosuppression associated with sintilimab: integrating pharmacovigilance signal mining with real-world clinical evidence.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- Drug-associated postpartum hemorrhage: a comprehensive disproportionality analysis based on the FAERS database.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Article
- Analysis signals of disproportionate reporting associated with donanemab: A retrospective pharmacovigilance study using the FAERS database.Science progressArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Certolizumab pegol (CZP), a PEGylated anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) biologic, is approved for treating autoimmune disorders, including psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Despite its good therapeutic effects, its real-world safety remains limited. This study aims to evaluate the real-world safety of CZP using the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS). We collected FAERS data from Q2 2008 to Q4 2024 related to adverse event reports associated with CZP. Four disproportionality analysis methods were used to explore the relationship between CZP and adverse events (AEs), including: reporting odds ratio (ROR), proportional reporting ratio (PRR), Bayesian confidence propagation neural network (BCPNN), and multi-item gamma Poisson shrinker (MGPS). Additionally, the study analyzed the time to onset of AEs. A total of 78,143 reports listed CZP as the primary suspect (PS), with 216,522 associated AEs. CZP-induced AEs spanned 24 system organ classes (SOCs). The median time to onset for AEs was 92 days (interquartile range: 3-409 days). At the PT level, a total of 322 AE signals were identified as positive, with known positive events including infections and infestations, general disorders, administration site conditions, and musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders. Additionally, unexpected positive AEs, such as spontaneous abortion, premature birth, pemphigus, and basal cell carcinoma, were identified. This study systematically evaluated the safety of CZP using the FAERS database, confirming some known AEs and revealing unexpected AEs. This post-marketing safety evaluation has deepened our understanding of the safety profile of CZP, and prospective studies are needed to validate the findings of this study.
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.