ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2026
Distinct renal adverse event profiles among CDK4/6 inhibitors: a comparative pharmacovigilance analysis.
Article in Frontiers in 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Renal adverse events associated with cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors have gained increasing attention in clinical practice. However, comparative real-world data regarding renal safety profiles among individual CDK4/6 inhibitors remain limited. This study aimed to characterize renal adverse event reporting associated with abemaciclib, palbociclib, and ribociclib and compare disproportionality signals among these agents using the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS). Methods: A retrospective pharmacovigilance analysis was conducted using FAERS reports submitted between January 2014 and March 2026. Renal adverse events were identified using Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) Preferred Terms within the Renal and Urinary Disorders System Organ Class. Reporting odds ratios (RORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to evaluate disproportionality signals for selected renal and electrolyte adverse events. Results: Following deduplication, 14,193 reports associated with abemaciclib, 91,359 with palbociclib, and 29,488 with ribociclib were identified. Renal adverse events were reported in 898, 2,636, and 1,826 reports, respectively. Acute kidney injury was more frequently reported with abemaciclib (35.7%) and ribociclib (19.7%) than with palbociclib (12.4%) (p < 0.001). Renal impairment/failure was the most commonly reported grouped renal adverse event category. Abemaciclib demonstrated the highest reporting odds for acute kidney injury (ROR 4.06, 95% CI 3.53-4.67), followed by ribociclib (ROR 1.94, 95% CI 1.69-2.22), whereas ribociclib showed the strongest disproportionality signals for decreased glomerular filtration rate, hypocalcemia, creatinine increased, hyponatremia, and hypokalemia. Overall, 65.6% of reports were serious and hospitalization occurred in 32.5% of cases. Conclusion: This large-scale pharmacovigilance analysis identified substantial differences in renal adverse event reporting patterns among CDK4/6 inhibitors. Abemaciclib was more frequently associated with acute kidney injury and adverse events suggestive of intrinsic renal injury, whereas ribociclib demonstrated stronger signals for laboratory indicators of renal dysfunction and electrolyte abnormalities. Although spontaneous reporting data cannot establish causality or estimate incidence, these findings suggest heterogeneous renal adverse event profiles among CDK4/6 inhibitors and support careful renal monitoring during treatment.
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.