ArticleScientific reports2025
FAERS based disproportionality analysis and network pharmacology investigation of doxorubicin associated drug induced cardiotoxicity.
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.
- Comparative Pharmacovigilance Analysis of Selected Cardiotoxicity Signals Associated with Doxorubicin and Epirubicin Based on EudraVigilance Data.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Deciphering the Formulation-Dependent Neurotoxicity of Irinotecan: An Integrated Pharmacovigilance and Mechanistic Study.Journal of biochemical and molecular toxicology · 2026Article
- Heart failure induced by cancer therapies: focus on targeted agents, mechanisms, risk prediction, and clinical management.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Doxorubicin (DOX) is crucial for cancer treatment but its use is limited by cardiotoxicity. Liposomal doxorubicin (Lip-DOX) was designed to reduce this toxicity compared to conventional doxorubicin (Con-DOX). This study utilized the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database to compare the cardiotoxicity profiles of the two formulations through disproportionality analysis and to explore potential mechanisms using network pharmacology. We analyzed 10,695 adverse event reports for Con-DOX and 13,164 for Lip-DOX. Disproportionality analysis, measured by the reporting odds ratio (ROR) and 95% confidence intervals, demonstrated that Con-DOX was associated with a higher risk of cardiomyopathy (ROR 34.07) and cardiac failure (ROR 5.88) compared to Lip-DOX (ROR 18.39 and 3.80, respectively). Furthermore, Con-DOX generated safety signals for arrhythmias and myocarditis, while Lip-DOX did not. The rates of serious adverse events were high for both formulations (Con-DOX: 98.74%; Lip-DOX: 98.61%), with reported mortality rates of 26.21% and 23.15%, respectively, indicating no significant difference in the overall severity of reported cardiotoxicity or mortality. Network pharmacology analysis identified 113 overlapping targets associated with DOX-induced cardiotoxicity (DIC), which were refined to 10 core targets. Key enriched Gene Ontology (GO) biological processes included 'response to oxidative stress' and 'regulation of apoptotic signaling pathway'. Significant Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) pathways encompassed the HIF-1 signaling pathway, EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor resistance, and the fluid shear stress and atherosclerosis pathway. Our study indicates the cardiotoxic profiles and underlying mechanisms of the two DOX formulations, providing valuable insights for drug safety monitoring and clinical practice.
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.