ArticleCancer medicine2026
Target-Specific Dermatological Adverse Event Reporting With T-Cell-Engaging Bispecific Antibodies: A Pharmacovigilance Analysis of FAERS and Canada Vigilance, 2016-2026.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundT-cell-engaging bispecific antibodies are increasingly utilised in haematological malignancies and are beginning to be adopted in solid-tumour treatment protocols. Cytokine release syndrome and neurotoxicity are well recognised, but target-specific dermatological adverse event reporting patterns remain poorly defined.
methodsWe analysed 12,333,305 deduplicated FAERS reports from 2016Q1 to 2026Q1, including 23,386 reports exposed to ten T-cell-engaging bispecific antibodies grouped by target: CD19, CD20, BCMA, GPRC5D and DLL3. A disease-matched haematologic-oncology comparator cohort contained 1,062,195 reports. Canada Vigilance provided a secondary directional comparison using 755,911 reports from 2016Q1 to 2025Q4 including 662 unique exposed reports. Outcomes were any cutaneous adverse event, broad severe cutaneous adverse reaction, and narrow Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis. Multivariable models adjusted for age, sex, cancer indication, polypharmacy and classical culprit drugs. Cox models assessed target-specific timing.
resultsAmong exposed FAERS reports, 1394 (5.96%) included any cutaneous adverse event, 61 (0.26%) broad severe cutaneous adverse reaction and 9 (0.04%) narrow Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis. After disease matching, no clear class-level excess of severe cutaneous reaction reporting was observed. Talquetamab had the highest cutaneous reporting proportion (471/1822; 25.8%) and an elevated timing estimate (hazard ratio 1.34; 95% CI, 1.06-1.69), with enrichment for skin, hair, sweat-gland and rash phenotypes. Tarlatamab showed an exploratory early-onset pattern (hazard ratio 3.36; 95% CI, 1.68-6.72; median onset, 4 days), based on only eight reports with usable latency data. Canada Vigilance showed a similar direction of reporting for GPRC5D/any cutaneous adverse events.
conclusionsT-cell-engaging bispecific antibodies did not show clear class-level excess in severe cutaneous adverse-event reporting after disease matching. Talquetamab showed higher reporting of skin changes, hyperhidrosis, hair abnormalities and rash, whereas tarlatamab showed a possible early-onset cutaneous reporting pattern based on a small number of reports with usable timing data. These findings support target- and timing-aware dermatological monitoring and require prospective confirmation.
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.