双特异性t细胞介入治疗后的实际肝胆毒性:美国食品和药物管理局不良事件报告系统和世界卫生组织全球个案安全报告数据库的10年歧化分析。

IF 3.6 4区 医学 Q2 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Rong Hu, Junyi Shen, Peng Luo, Hui Zhang, Yingyi He
{"title":"双特异性t细胞介入治疗后的实际肝胆毒性:美国食品和药物管理局不良事件报告系统和世界卫生组织全球个案安全报告数据库的10年歧化分析。","authors":"Rong Hu, Junyi Shen, Peng Luo, Hui Zhang, Yingyi He","doi":"10.1016/j.clinthera.2025.09.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Relapsed/refractory hematological malignancies increasingly utilize bispecific T-cell engagers (BiTEs), yet their postmarketing hepatobiliary toxicity profiles remain inadequately characterized. This study aimed to bridge this knowledge gap by conducting the first comprehensive pharmacovigilance analysis of BiTE-associated hepatobiliary toxicity using real-world data from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) and the World Health Organization's global Individual Case Safety Report database (VigiBase).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Hepatobiliary reports were extracted from patients with hematological malignancy deposited in FAERS and VigiBase (2015-2024). Disproportionality analyses, multivariate logistic regression analyses, and time-to-onset analyses were employed to identify safety signals across CD19, non-CD19-targeting BiTE, and non-BiTE receivers, characterize hepatobiliary toxicity, and assess their impact on patients' survival.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Sixteen safety signals emerged, including four previously under-reported adverse events beyond package insert documentation: ascites, hepatobiliary disease, graft-versus-host disease in liver, and veno-occlusive liver disease. This analysis revealed that non-CD19 BiTEs were relatively safe in terms of hepatobiliary toxicities, whereas CD19 BiTE receivers had significantly earlier hepatobiliary toxicity onset (median: 6 vs 14 days; P = 0.002) and higher mortality rate compared with non-BiTE users (OR<sub>FAERS</sub> = 3.28 [2.8-3.82]; P<sub>FAERS</sub> = 2.05E-16; OR<sub>VigiBase</sub> = 3.13 [2.60-3.76]; P<sub>VigiBase</sub> = 2.0E-16).</p><p><strong>Implications: </strong>These real-world insights complement clinical trial data; however, the disproportionality analyses employed are susceptible to reporting and utilization biases due to the lack of denominator data. The reported odds ratios and significance should be interpreted as measures of reporting association rather than true risk.</p>","PeriodicalId":10699,"journal":{"name":"Clinical therapeutics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Real-world Hepatobiliary Toxicity After Bispecific T-Cell Engager Therapy: A 10-Year Disproportionality Analysis of the Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System and the World Health Organization's Global Individual Case Safety Report Database.\",\"authors\":\"Rong Hu, Junyi Shen, Peng Luo, Hui Zhang, Yingyi He\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.clinthera.2025.09.001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Relapsed/refractory hematological malignancies increasingly utilize bispecific T-cell engagers (BiTEs), yet their postmarketing hepatobiliary toxicity profiles remain inadequately characterized. This study aimed to bridge this knowledge gap by conducting the first comprehensive pharmacovigilance analysis of BiTE-associated hepatobiliary toxicity using real-world data from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) and the World Health Organization's global Individual Case Safety Report database (VigiBase).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Hepatobiliary reports were extracted from patients with hematological malignancy deposited in FAERS and VigiBase (2015-2024). Disproportionality analyses, multivariate logistic regression analyses, and time-to-onset analyses were employed to identify safety signals across CD19, non-CD19-targeting BiTE, and non-BiTE receivers, characterize hepatobiliary toxicity, and assess their impact on patients' survival.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Sixteen safety signals emerged, including four previously under-reported adverse events beyond package insert documentation: ascites, hepatobiliary disease, graft-versus-host disease in liver, and veno-occlusive liver disease. This analysis revealed that non-CD19 BiTEs were relatively safe in terms of hepatobiliary toxicities, whereas CD19 BiTE receivers had significantly earlier hepatobiliary toxicity onset (median: 6 vs 14 days; P = 0.002) and higher mortality rate compared with non-BiTE users (OR<sub>FAERS</sub> = 3.28 [2.8-3.82]; P<sub>FAERS</sub> = 2.05E-16; OR<sub>VigiBase</sub> = 3.13 [2.60-3.76]; P<sub>VigiBase</sub> = 2.0E-16).</p><p><strong>Implications: </strong>These real-world insights complement clinical trial data; however, the disproportionality analyses employed are susceptible to reporting and utilization biases due to the lack of denominator data. The reported odds ratios and significance should be interpreted as measures of reporting association rather than true risk.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10699,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical therapeutics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical therapeutics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2025.09.001\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical therapeutics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2025.09.001","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:复发/难治性血液恶性肿瘤越来越多地使用双特异性t细胞结合物(BiTEs),但其上市后肝胆毒性谱仍未充分表征。本研究旨在通过使用来自美国食品和药物管理局(FDA)不良事件报告系统(FAERS)和世界卫生组织全球个案安全报告数据库(VigiBase)的真实数据,对咬伤相关的肝胆毒性进行首次全面的药物警戒分析,从而弥合这一知识差距。方法:从FAERS和VigiBase(2015-2024)存储的血液学恶性肿瘤患者中提取肝胆报告。采用歧化分析、多变量logistic回归分析和发病时间分析来确定CD19、非CD19靶向BiTE和非BiTE受体的安全信号,表征肝胆毒性,并评估其对患者生存的影响。结果:出现了16个安全信号,包括4个先前未被报道的不良事件:腹水、肝胆疾病、肝脏移植物抗宿主病和静脉闭塞性肝病。该分析显示,非CD19 BiTE在肝胆毒性方面相对安全,而CD19 BiTE受体与非BiTE使用者相比,其肝胆毒性发作明显更早(中位数:6 vs 14天;P = 0.002),死亡率更高(ORFAERS = 3.28 [2.8-3.82]; PFAERS = 2.05E-16; ORVigiBase = 3.13 [2.60-3.76]; PVigiBase = 2.0E-16)。启示:这些现实世界的见解补充了临床试验数据;然而,由于缺乏分母数据,所采用的歧化分析容易受到报告和利用偏差的影响。报告的优势比和显著性应被解释为报告相关性的措施,而不是真正的风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Real-world Hepatobiliary Toxicity After Bispecific T-Cell Engager Therapy: A 10-Year Disproportionality Analysis of the Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System and the World Health Organization's Global Individual Case Safety Report Database.

Purpose: Relapsed/refractory hematological malignancies increasingly utilize bispecific T-cell engagers (BiTEs), yet their postmarketing hepatobiliary toxicity profiles remain inadequately characterized. This study aimed to bridge this knowledge gap by conducting the first comprehensive pharmacovigilance analysis of BiTE-associated hepatobiliary toxicity using real-world data from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) and the World Health Organization's global Individual Case Safety Report database (VigiBase).

Methods: Hepatobiliary reports were extracted from patients with hematological malignancy deposited in FAERS and VigiBase (2015-2024). Disproportionality analyses, multivariate logistic regression analyses, and time-to-onset analyses were employed to identify safety signals across CD19, non-CD19-targeting BiTE, and non-BiTE receivers, characterize hepatobiliary toxicity, and assess their impact on patients' survival.

Findings: Sixteen safety signals emerged, including four previously under-reported adverse events beyond package insert documentation: ascites, hepatobiliary disease, graft-versus-host disease in liver, and veno-occlusive liver disease. This analysis revealed that non-CD19 BiTEs were relatively safe in terms of hepatobiliary toxicities, whereas CD19 BiTE receivers had significantly earlier hepatobiliary toxicity onset (median: 6 vs 14 days; P = 0.002) and higher mortality rate compared with non-BiTE users (ORFAERS = 3.28 [2.8-3.82]; PFAERS = 2.05E-16; ORVigiBase = 3.13 [2.60-3.76]; PVigiBase = 2.0E-16).

Implications: These real-world insights complement clinical trial data; however, the disproportionality analyses employed are susceptible to reporting and utilization biases due to the lack of denominator data. The reported odds ratios and significance should be interpreted as measures of reporting association rather than true risk.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical therapeutics
Clinical therapeutics 医学-药学
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
3.10%
发文量
154
审稿时长
9 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical Therapeutics provides peer-reviewed, rapid publication of recent developments in drug and other therapies as well as in diagnostics, pharmacoeconomics, health policy, treatment outcomes, and innovations in drug and biologics research. In addition Clinical Therapeutics features updates on specific topics collated by expert Topic Editors. Clinical Therapeutics is read by a large international audience of scientists and clinicians in a variety of research, academic, and clinical practice settings. Articles are indexed by all major biomedical abstracting databases.
×
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