ArticleNaunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology2026
Beyond pooled analysis: sex-specific cardiovascular adverse event reporting signals with antiarrhythmic drugs in FAERS.
Article in Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sex differences in drug metabolism and cardiac electrophysiology may influence the cardiovascular safety profiles of antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs). However, pharmacovigilance studies often pool data, potentially obscuring sex-specific cardiovascular adverse event (CV-AE) reporting patterns. We aim to investigate sex-specific CV-AE reporting profiles associated with commonly used antiarrhythmic drugs using pharmacovigilance data. We analyzed 122,853 medication-role records representing 38,430 unique FAERS reports involving eight AADs. Disproportionality analyses defined index-drug exposure by the primary-suspect role, whereas the report-level XGBoost pipeline separately encoded primary-suspect drugs and secondary-suspect or concomitant medications. Analyses included pooled and sex-stratified disproportionality, drug-adjusted common odds ratios, and a gradient-boosting machine learning model to assess ventricular arrhythmia (VA) reporting patterns. Sex-stratified analysis uncovered "hidden" associations undetected in pooled data, including propafenone-QT prolongation in men and amiodarone-QT prolongation in women. Adverse event profiles were often drug-specific and opposing: cardiogenic shock showed higher reporting odds among males for sotalol, whereas flecainide showed higher reporting odds in females. After adjustment, women had higher odds of torsade de pointes and men of ventricular arrhythmia. However, a machine learning model for VA demonstrated that sex contributed modestly (1.4% SHAP contribution) compared with co-medications and the primary drug, though drug-specific associations differed. Sex-specific CV-AE profiles reporting patterns are often masked in pooled analyses, underscoring the need for sex-stratified pharmacovigilance to guide personalized antiarrhythmic therapy. The identified associations should be considered hypothesis-generating and require validation in datasets with richer clinical information.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42714472What 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.