Research Appraisalobservational

Drug-induced neutropenia: A comprehensive pharmacovigilance study of the FAERS database.

MedicineLi, Jie, Wang, Yilei, Gao, Liyuan et al.17 Apr 2026DOI

Clinical Snapshot

55CEBM
Evidence: Moderateobservational

PICO Framework

P — PopulationPatients with drug-induced neutropenia reported to FAERS database (2004-2024)
I — InterventionVarious pharmaceutical agents
C — ComparatorAll other drugs in FAERS database
O — OutcomesNeutropenia adverse events, reporting odds ratios, information component signals

Bottom Line

This pharmacovigilance study analysed over 220,000 neutropenia reports in FAERS, identifying 254 potentially associated drugs. While the findings align with known neutropenic agents (clozapine, chemotherapy drugs), the study's cross-sectional design and reliance on spontaneous reporting limit causal inference. The results serve as hypothesis-generating signals rather than definitive evidence. Clinicians should interpret these findings alongside established clinical knowledge, recognising that disproportionality analysis cannot replace controlled studies for establishing drug-neutropenia relationships. The study reinforces the importance of neutrophil monitoring for high-risk medications, particularly in oncology and psychiatry. Australian practitioners should continue following established monitoring protocols while remaining vigilant for neutropenia with the identified drug classes.

Evidence: Moderate

Key Findings

  • P Value: Not reported in abstract

  • Effect Size: Reporting odds ratios varied by drug (specific values not provided in abstract)

  • Primary Outcome: 254 drugs identified as potentially associated with neutropenia

  • Nnt Or Sensitivity: Top signal drugs: calcium levofolinate, vinorelbine, gemtuzumab ozogamicin, fludarabine, daunorubicin

  • Confidence Interval: Not reported in abstract

Clinical Application

Results can inform clinical monitoring protocols and prescribing decisions Relevant to Australian practice as most identified drugs are PBS-listed; findings support TGA pharmacovigilance and RACGP prescribing guidelines for neutropenia monitoring Patients receiving medications identified in the study, particularly oncology and immunosuppressed patients

Abstract

Drug-induced neutropenia (DIN) deserves both clinicians' and researchers' attention for the serious clinical consequences. This study aimed to conduct an exploratory analysis of DIN reports in the United States Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System database to identify drugs associated with neutropenia. A disproportionality analysis of DIN was conducted using reports submitted to the United States Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System from the first quarter of 2004 to the fourth quarter of 2024. Both the reporting odds ratio algorithms and the information component were applied to identify an association between target drugs and DIN events. A total of 223,736 DIN cases were found, and 254 drugs were identified as potentially associated with neutropenia. The top-ranked drug categories were "monoclonal antibodies and antibody-drug conjugates," "other antineoplastic agents," "protein kinase inhibitors," "direct-acting antivirals," "antimetabolites," "alkylating agents," and "immunosuppressants." The top 5 drugs ranked by number of cases were clozapine, lenalidomide, rituximab, palbociclib, and carboplatin. The top 5 drugs ranked by reporting odds ratio signal strength were calcium levofolinate, vinorelbine, gemtuzumab ozogamicin, fludarabine, and daunorubicin. This comprehensive pharmacovigilance study identified drugs potentially associated with neutropenia, which can help clinicians and researchers further understand DIN.

References

  1. 1.Li, J., Wang, Y., Gao, L., Jia, J., Liu, J., & Jiang, Z. (2026). Drug-induced neutropenia: A comprehensive pharmacovigilance study of the FAERS database. Medicine, 105(16), e48434. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000048434
Share:XLinkedIn

This content is for educational purposes for healthcare professionals only and does not constitute clinical advice. Clinical decisions should be based on individual patient assessment, current guidelines, and appropriate specialist consultation. Editorial Standards · Privacy Policy · Terms of Service