Response to Xing et al.: post-marketing safety concerns with Lecanemab: a pharmacovigilance study based on the FDA adverse event reporting system database.

IF 7.9 1区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Michael Irizarry, Ilona Surick, Ari Michael, Lynn D Kramer
{"title":"Response to Xing et al.: post-marketing safety concerns with Lecanemab: a pharmacovigilance study based on the FDA adverse event reporting system database.","authors":"Michael Irizarry, Ilona Surick, Ari Michael, Lynn D Kramer","doi":"10.1186/s13195-025-01735-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A recent paper published a lecanemab analysis with data from the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database. While the authors mention the limitations of FAERS, such as \"voluntary (underreporting), the inability to establish causality, reporting bias, data quality issues, and the absence of a denominator, which precludes calculating incidence rates\", they proceed with generalizations, clinical conclusions, and even treatment recommendations based on the crude disproportionality analysis. Consideration of post-marketing safety reports, including those found in the FAERS database, is an essential component of pharmacovigilance. However, FDA guidance [2, 3] highlights that: (1) \"Rates of occurrence cannot be established with reports,\" (2) \"Documenting one or more of these outcomes in a report does not necessarily mean that the suspect product(s) named in the report was the cause of the outcomes,\" and (3) \"Importantly, the FAERS data by themselves are not an indicator of the safety profile of the drug.\" The FAERS database includes reports from many sources, including reports by companies, as well as from health care professionals and consumers. The reports in the FDA database have significant limitations, including submission of incomplete, inaccurate, untimely, duplicate, relatedness to drug uncertainty, and/or unverified information. Therefore, broader generalizations, clinical conclusions, and treatment recommendations should not be made based solely on FAERS databases analyses.</p>","PeriodicalId":7516,"journal":{"name":"Alzheimer's Research & Therapy","volume":"17 1","pages":"92"},"PeriodicalIF":7.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12023665/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Alzheimer's Research & Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-025-01735-5","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A recent paper published a lecanemab analysis with data from the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database. While the authors mention the limitations of FAERS, such as "voluntary (underreporting), the inability to establish causality, reporting bias, data quality issues, and the absence of a denominator, which precludes calculating incidence rates", they proceed with generalizations, clinical conclusions, and even treatment recommendations based on the crude disproportionality analysis. Consideration of post-marketing safety reports, including those found in the FAERS database, is an essential component of pharmacovigilance. However, FDA guidance [2, 3] highlights that: (1) "Rates of occurrence cannot be established with reports," (2) "Documenting one or more of these outcomes in a report does not necessarily mean that the suspect product(s) named in the report was the cause of the outcomes," and (3) "Importantly, the FAERS data by themselves are not an indicator of the safety profile of the drug." The FAERS database includes reports from many sources, including reports by companies, as well as from health care professionals and consumers. The reports in the FDA database have significant limitations, including submission of incomplete, inaccurate, untimely, duplicate, relatedness to drug uncertainty, and/or unverified information. Therefore, broader generalizations, clinical conclusions, and treatment recommendations should not be made based solely on FAERS databases analyses.

对Xing等人的回应:利卡耐单抗上市后的安全性问题:一项基于FDA不良事件报告系统数据库的药物警戒研究。
最近的一篇论文发表了一项lecanemab分析,数据来自美国食品和药物管理局(FDA)不良事件报告系统(FAERS)数据库。虽然作者提到FAERS的局限性,如“自愿(少报),无法建立因果关系,报告偏差,数据质量问题,以及缺乏分母,这排除了计算发病率”,但他们继续进行概括,临床结论,甚至是基于粗糙的歧化分析的治疗建议。考虑上市后安全报告,包括在FAERS数据库中发现的报告,是药物警戒的重要组成部分。然而,FDA指南[2,3]强调:(1)“发生率不能通过报告确定,”(2)“在报告中记录一个或多个这些结果并不一定意味着报告中提到的可疑产品是导致这些结果的原因,”以及(3)“重要的是,FAERS数据本身并不是药物安全性的指标。”FAERS数据库包括许多来源的报告,包括公司的报告,以及卫生保健专业人员和消费者的报告。FDA数据库中的报告有明显的局限性,包括提交不完整、不准确、不及时、重复、与药物不确定性相关和/或未经验证的信息。因此,更广泛的概括、临床结论和治疗建议不应仅仅基于FAERS数据库分析。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Alzheimer's Research & Therapy
Alzheimer's Research & Therapy 医学-神经病学
CiteScore
13.10
自引率
3.30%
发文量
172
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Alzheimer's Research & Therapy is an international peer-reviewed journal that focuses on translational research into Alzheimer's disease and other neurodegenerative diseases. It publishes open-access basic research, clinical trials, drug discovery and development studies, and epidemiologic studies. The journal also includes reviews, viewpoints, commentaries, debates, and reports. All articles published in Alzheimer's Research & Therapy are included in several reputable databases such as CAS, Current contents, DOAJ, Embase, Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition, MEDLINE, PubMed, PubMed Central, Science Citation Index Expanded (Web of Science) and Scopus.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信