ArticleWorld journal of oncology2026
Comprehensive Analysis of Ozanimod-Related Adverse Events Based on the FAERS Database.
Article in World journal of oncology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Ozanimod, a selective sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor modulator, has been approved for the treatment of moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC) and relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (MS). However, its postmarketing adverse event (AE) reporting profile requires further characterization. Methods: AE reports involving ozanimod from Q2 2020 to Q1 2025 were retrieved from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database. Frequency-based and Bayesian disproportionality methods were applied, including the reporting odds ratio (ROR), proportional reporting ratio (PRR), Bayesian confidence propagation neural network (BCPNN), and empirical Bayesian geometric mean (EBGM), to identify pharmacovigilance reporting signals. Results: A total of 15,910 AE reports involving ozanimod were retrieved, of which 7,305 reports listed ozanimod as the primary suspected drug. Most reports involved patients aged 18-64 years (67.5%), and more reports were submitted for female patients than for male patients. Frequently reported events included fatigue, headache, dizziness, and back pain. Labeled or clinically recognized safety events, such as decreased lymphocyte count, decreased heart rate, hypertension, macular edema, and liver test abnormalities, were also detected as reporting signals. Disease-related Preferred Terms, including MS relapse, MS, UC, and proctitis ulcerative, showed strong disproportionality signals but may reflect underlying disease activity, treatment failure, indication, or reporting context rather than toxic adverse drug reactions. In addition, several hypothesis-generating FAERS signals not explicitly listed in current product labeling were observed, including depression, feeling of despair, decreased interest, penile swelling, and papillary thyroid cancer. These findings require cautious interpretation because FAERS cannot establish incidence, absolute risk, or causality. Conclusions: This study provides a postmarketing pharmacovigilance signal profile of AE reports involving ozanimod. The findings support continued monitoring of labeled safety concerns, careful interpretation of disease-activity-related reports, and further validation of selected unlabeled signals in prospective studies or better-controlled real-world datasets.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.