Comparative Analysis of Reported Adverse Events with Nirsevimab and Palivizumab: A FAERS Observational Study.

Kansas journal of medicine Pub Date : 2026-04-22 eCollection Date: 2026-03-01 DOI:10.17161/kjm.vol19.25389
Ibrahim Touffaha, Elizabeth Ablah, Hayrettin Okut, Gretchen Homan
{"title":"Comparative Analysis of Reported Adverse Events with Nirsevimab and Palivizumab: A FAERS Observational Study.","authors":"Ibrahim Touffaha, Elizabeth Ablah, Hayrettin Okut, Gretchen Homan","doi":"10.17161/kjm.vol19.25389","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a leading cause of hospitalization among infants worldwide. Passive immunization remains central to prevention. Palivizumab has been used for over two decades, whereas nirsevimab, approved in 2023, provides extended protection with a single dose. However, comparative post-marketing safety data between these agents remain limited. Authors compared post-marketing adverse event profiles of nirsevimab and palivizumab using the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>FAERS reports from July 2023 to March 2025 were analyzed. Reports were included if patients were ≤2 years of age and either nirsevimab or palivizumab was listed as the primary suspect drug. Duplicate and incomplete records were excluded. Adverse events were classified using Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) System Organ Class (SOC) categories. Group comparisons were performed using chi-square or Fisher's exact tests as appropriate. Logistic regression was used to identify SOCs disproportionately associated with each drug.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 2,021 reports met inclusion criteria (nirsevimab = 641; palivizumab = 1,380). Hospitalization was reported in 50% of nirsevimab cases and 70% of palivizumab cases, while deaths were reported in 5.9% and 9.8% of cases, respectively. Logistic regression identified three SOCs reported more frequently with nirsevimab: injury, poisoning, and procedural complications (OR 11.9, p < 0.0001), nervous system disorders (OR 2.9, p = 0.029), and skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders (OR 4.5, p = 0.002). No SOCs were reported more frequently with palivizumab.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Nirsevimab and palivizumab demonstrated broadly comparable post-marketing safety profiles. Higher reporting of administration-related adverse events for nirsevimab likely reflects its recent introduction and reporting patterns rather than inherent differences in safety.</p>","PeriodicalId":94121,"journal":{"name":"Kansas journal of medicine","volume":"19 Suppl 1","pages":"20"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13171024/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Kansas journal of medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17161/kjm.vol19.25389","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/3/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a leading cause of hospitalization among infants worldwide. Passive immunization remains central to prevention. Palivizumab has been used for over two decades, whereas nirsevimab, approved in 2023, provides extended protection with a single dose. However, comparative post-marketing safety data between these agents remain limited. Authors compared post-marketing adverse event profiles of nirsevimab and palivizumab using the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS).

Methods: FAERS reports from July 2023 to March 2025 were analyzed. Reports were included if patients were ≤2 years of age and either nirsevimab or palivizumab was listed as the primary suspect drug. Duplicate and incomplete records were excluded. Adverse events were classified using Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) System Organ Class (SOC) categories. Group comparisons were performed using chi-square or Fisher's exact tests as appropriate. Logistic regression was used to identify SOCs disproportionately associated with each drug.

Results: A total of 2,021 reports met inclusion criteria (nirsevimab = 641; palivizumab = 1,380). Hospitalization was reported in 50% of nirsevimab cases and 70% of palivizumab cases, while deaths were reported in 5.9% and 9.8% of cases, respectively. Logistic regression identified three SOCs reported more frequently with nirsevimab: injury, poisoning, and procedural complications (OR 11.9, p < 0.0001), nervous system disorders (OR 2.9, p = 0.029), and skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders (OR 4.5, p = 0.002). No SOCs were reported more frequently with palivizumab.

Conclusions: Nirsevimab and palivizumab demonstrated broadly comparable post-marketing safety profiles. Higher reporting of administration-related adverse events for nirsevimab likely reflects its recent introduction and reporting patterns rather than inherent differences in safety.

尼瑟维单抗和帕利珠单抗不良事件报告的比较分析:FAERS观察性研究。
呼吸道合胞病毒(RSV)是全世界婴儿住院的主要原因。被动免疫仍然是预防的核心。Palivizumab已经使用了20多年,而2023年批准的nirseimab通过单次剂量提供延长的保护。然而,这些药物上市后安全性的比较数据仍然有限。作者使用美国食品和药物管理局不良事件报告系统(FAERS)比较了尼瑟维单抗和帕利珠单抗上市后的不良事件概况。方法:对2023年7月至2025年3月的FAERS报告进行分析。如果患者年龄≤2岁,且nirseimab或palvizumab被列为主要可疑药物,则纳入报告。排除重复和不完整的记录。不良事件的分类采用MedDRA系统器官分类(SOC)。组间比较酌情采用卡方检验或Fisher精确检验。使用逻辑回归来确定与每种药物不成比例相关的soc。结果:共有2021份报告符合纳入标准(nirsevimab = 641; palivizumab = 1380)。50%的尼塞维单抗病例和70%的帕利珠单抗病例报告住院,而分别有5.9%和9.8%的病例报告死亡。Logistic回归确定了奈塞维单抗更常报告的三种soc:损伤、中毒和手术并发症(OR 11.9, p < 0.0001),神经系统疾病(OR 2.9, p = 0.029),皮肤和皮下组织疾病(OR 4.5, p = 0.002)。帕利珠单抗组无更频繁的soc报告。结论:nirseimab和palvizumab在上市后的安全性表现出广泛的可比性。nirsevimab较高的用药相关不良事件报告可能反映了其最近的引入和报告模式,而不是安全性的内在差异。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书