Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 7, 2026

In Vitro Methods for Comparing Target Binding and CDC Induction Between Therapeutic Antibodies: Applications in Biosimilarity Analysis
Published on: May 4, 2017
Comparative safety profiles of risankizumab versus guselkumab: a pharmacovigilance study based on the FAERS database
Shiyi Wang1, Yongyi Xu2, Hangjuan Lin3
1Department of Gastroenterology, Ningbo Municipal Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Ningbo, China.
Background:
Risankizumab and guselkumab are two leading interleukin-23 (IL-23) inhibitors for treating immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. While effective, a direct comparison of their real-world safety profiles is lacking. Understanding the distinct differences in their adverse event (AE) profiles is crucial for clinicians to make appropriate treatment decisions.
Research Design And Methods:
We conducted a disproportionality analysis on post-marketing data obtained from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database from Q3 2017 to Q2 2025 to detect and compare the AE signals of guselkumab and risankizumab.
Results:
A total of 22,470 and 48,141 AE reports for guselkumab and risankizumab, respectively, were analyzed. The analysis revealed markedly different safety profiles. Risankizumab showed significant signals for skin cancer (particularly in patients ≥65 years), intestinal obstruction, and other newly identified serious events such as myocardial infarction and cerebrovascular accident. In contrast, guselkumab's primary signals were dominated by medication management issues like "product dose omission issue" and "accidental exposure to product," which correlated with reports of decreased therapeutic effect. Unique, unlabeled signals for guselkumab included a different spectrum of AEs, such as Hodgkin's disease, pemphigoid, and autoimmune thyroiditis. Furthermore, the median time-to-onset was significantly shorter for guselkumab (62 days) compared to risankizumab (168 days).
Conclusion:
Guselkumab and risankizumab exhibit divergent real-world safety profiles, challenging the notion of a uniform class effect. Clinicians should be vigilant for malignancies and serious systemic events with risankizumab, particularly in the elderly, while prioritizing patient education for guselkumab to prevent administration errors. These findings support individualized treatment strategies to minimize drug-specific risks.
More Related Videos
06:19Author Spotlight: A Novel Protocol for Intracameral Injections to Enhance Precision in Rodent Ophthalmology
Published on: May 31, 2024
06:37Using Reference Reagents to Confirm Robustness of Cytokine Release Assays for the Prediction of Monoclonal Antibody Safety
Published on: September 15, 2023
Related Concept Videos
Pharmacovigilance
This process, termed pharmacovigilance, aims to detect, evaluate, and minimize harmful effects related to medication use. The data collection for pharmacovigilance depends on spontaneous reporting systems, where healthcare professionals or patients voluntarily report suspected ADRs.
In some cases, there...
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
Bioequivalence studies: Biowaivers
Bioavailability Study Design: Absolute Versus Relative Bioavailability
Antiepileptic Drugs: Potassium Channel Activators
Ezogabine has gained approval as an adjunctive treatment...
Relative Risk