ArticleWorld journal of urology2026
Comparative safety analysis of enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab: monotherapy vs. combination therapy insights from FDA adverse event reporting system data.
Article in World journal of urology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
objectiveTo analyze adverse events (AEs) associated with enfortumab vedotin (EV) and pembrolizumab (PB) monotherapy and combination therapy using the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System database (FAERS).
methodsA retrospective pharmacovigilance study was conducted using FAERS data. Data were classified into EV monotherapy, PB monotherapy, and combination therapy groups. Disproportionality analysis was conducted to identify the overall distribution and specific AEs. The results were compared with drug labels for cross-validation. High-evidence positive signal AEs were obtained by matching the signals from the MHRA integrated method and the MGPS method, and differences between monotherapy and the combination therapy were compared.
resultsThe results compared with the package inserts showed that the results well reflected the AEs reported in the package inserts. In addition, 40 new AEs with dual positive signals were identified in the combination therapy, which were not reported or had significantly lower signal intensity in monotherapy, including various infections and inflammations, blood pressure fluctuations, taste loss, and neurological issues. There were 27 AEs with dual positive signals in EV and PB monotherapy, but the signal intensity of these AEs was significantly reduced in combination therapy, like adrenal cortical insufficiency, bone marrow suppression, skin and subcutaneous tissue diseases, and gastrointestinal ulcers and perforations.
conclusionsThe overall safety of the combination therapy may be superior to that of monotherapy, suggesting that the synergistic effect of combination may also operate in the safety dimension. Some newly identified AEs with positive signals reported only in combination therapy required attention and verification through further studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41618990What 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.