ArticleScientific reports2025
Safety evaluation of selective estrogen receptor degraders (SERDs) using real-world evidence from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS).
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- From Concept to Clinic: Vepdegestrant (ARV 471) Becomes the First Approved PROTAC Drug.Pharmaceutics · 2026Review
- Article
- Case Report: Trastuzumab deruxtecan combined with fulvestrant in a patient with HR+/HER2-low metastatic breast cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- An integrative pharmacovigilance, network toxicology and molecular docking study on drug-induced cheilitis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
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
This study aims to evaluate post-marketing adverse event data for two selective estrogen receptor degraders (SERDs) in a real-world context, identify potential risk signals, and offer insights for clinical pharmacovigilance. Data were extracted from the U.S. FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database, covering the period from Q1 2004 to Q4 2024. The analysis commenced with elacestrant (2022) and fulvestrant (2004), concluding in the fourth quarter of 2024. Data standardization was achieved using MedDRA version 27.0. Signal detection employed four methodologies: Reporting Odds Ratio (ROR), Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR), Bayesian Confidence Propagation Neural Network (BCPNN), and Multi-item Gamma Poisson Shrinker (MGPS). A total of 6,636 adverse event (AE) reports identified elacestrant as the primary suspected drug, while 9,120 reports identified fulvestrant as the primary suspected drug. Both drugs commonly induced adverse reactions such as nausea, vomiting, disease progression, elevated liver enzymes, and hot flashes. Elacestrant was frequently associated with abnormal tumor markers and esophageal-related reactions. In contrast, fulvestrant was linked to a higher incidence of tumor metastasis and may also affect the hematological and lymphatic systems, as well as the cardiovascular and respiratory systems. Both classes of SERDs demonstrated a generally favorable overall safety profile, although differences were noted in their specific adverse reaction profiles. For elacestrant, particular attention should be given to dehydration, abnormal tumor markers, and esophageal-related reactions. For fulvestrant, increased vigilance is necessary regarding cancer metastasis and adverse events impacting the hematological and lymphatic systems. It is recommended that targeted monitoring be enhanced in clinical practice in accordance with the distinct characteristics of each drug.
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.