ArticleFrontiers in neurology
Safety evaluation of Tofersen in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis based on the FAERS database.
Article in Frontiers in neurology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background: This study utilizes data from the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) to conduct a post-marketing safety evaluation of Tofersen. Methods: A systematic search of the FAERS database was performed to identify adverse event (AE) reports from Q1 2023 to Q4 2025 was performed. Multi-dimensional disproportionality analyses were conducted using the ROR, PRR, BCPNN, and MGPS method. Results: A total of 409 Tofersen-related reports were identified, revealing significant signals across 22 System Organ Class (SOC) categories and 369 Preferred Terms (PTs). At the SOC level, the most prominent safety signals were observed in injury, poisoning and procedural complications, nervous system disorders, and musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders. In contrast, ear and labyrinth disorders, as well as respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders, were not listed in the current product labeling and may warrant further investigation. At the PT level, neurological procedural complication, CSF red blood cell count positive, CSF white blood cell count increased, and CSF cell count increased exhibited the strongest signals, primarily reflecting cerebrospinal fluid cytological and biochemical abnormalities, as well as procedural-related adverse events such as post-lumbar puncture syndrome, procedural pain, and procedural headache. Although central nervous system-related events (e.g., increased intracranial pressure, peroneal nerve palsy, papilloedema, and facial paralysis) and infectious or inflammatory events (e.g., radiculopathy, myelitis, aspiration pneumonia, and meningitis) were less frequently reported, their relatively high disproportionality signals warrant clinical attention and systematic monitoring. Notably, a newly identified signal of pulmonary embolism suggests a potential thromboembolic risk in specific patient populations. Conclusion: These findings provide real-world evidence to inform the balance between the therapeutic potential and safety profile of Tofersen. Future clinical strategies should focus on mitigating central nervous system-related and procedure-related adverse events. Further mechanistic studies are crucial.
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.