ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2026
Comparative real-world pharmacovigilance analysis of adverse event signals associated with six approved CAR-T products using the FAERS database.
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: Although several CAR-T products have been approved for hematologic malignancies, their post-marketing adverse-event reporting patterns may not be interchangeable. This study compared FAERS-derived positive signals across approved CAR-T products to distinguish recurrent class-related toxicities from product-skewed reporting patterns. Methods: FAERS reports from Q1 2014 to Q2 2025 were reviewed for CAR-T products. Demographic characteristics were summarized for seven products, whereas PT- and SOC-level signal analyses were restricted to six products with sufficient signal data: Breyanzi, Kymriah, Tecartus, Yescarta, Abecma, and Carvykti. Positive signals were detected using ROR, PRR, and BCPNN algorithms. After predefined exclusion of nonclinical or non-AE terms, indication- or disease-progression-related terms, procedure- or investigation-related terms, efficacy- or persistence-related terms, and product-quality-related terms, eligible signals were compared at the PT and SOC levels. Nonspecific MedDRA-coded PTs were retained if they met the predefined signal criteria, but they were interpreted descriptively and were not used to define product-level profile labels. Results: CRS was consistently among the leading PT-level signals across all six products. Yescarta and Tecartus showed higher reporting of ICANS and neurotoxicity-related PTs. Kymriah was more strongly represented by infection-, immune-, and hematologic-related signals, whereas Carvykti showed several neurologic PTs including Parkinsonism, cranial nerve paralysis, facial paralysis, and Bell's palsy. Abecma showed relatively high-ranking systemic symptom-related PTs, including fatigue, headache, and decreased appetite. At the SOC level, nervous system disorders and infections and infestations were among the most frequently represented categories, but their proportions differed across products. Conclusion: FAERS-based signal detection showed a common CAR-T reporting backbone centered on CRS, ICANS/neurotoxicity, hypotension, pyrexia, infection-related events, and hematologic events, together with product-skewed signal patterns. These findings represent disproportionality signals rather than comparative safety rankings, and FAERS data cannot establish causal relationships between CAR-T products and adverse events.
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.