Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2026 Feb 11;21(2):e0342548. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0342548

Disproportionality analysis of fondaparinux associated adverse events based on the FDA adverse event reporting system

Fengjiao Kang 1,2, Yin Wang 1, Fengqun Cai 1, Liuyun Wu 1, Lizhu Han 1, Qinan Yin 1, Yuan Bian 1,*
Editor: Ignatius Ivan3
PMCID: PMC12893537  PMID: 41671250

Abstract

Fondaparinux is a widely used anticoagulant for treating venous thromboembolism and acute coronary syndrome by inhibiting factor Xa. However, it carries a risk of bleeding. This study analyzes its safety using the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database to guide clinical use and future research. Data from 2004 Q1 to 2024 Q3 were examined using Reporting Odds Ratio (ROR), Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR), Bayesian Confidence Propagation Neural Network (BCPNN), and Empirical Bayesian Geometric Mean (EBGM) methods. Among 21,483,491 reports, 5,788 were related to fondaparinux, with 17,523 adverse events (AEs). The most affected systems were vascular (n = 2046) and blood/lymphatic (n = 1125). Abnormal coagulation factor X concentration, thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome, and incision site hematoma had the strongest signals. AEs were more frequent in females and elderly patients, especially within the first month. Additional Preferred Term (PT)–level signals defined in MedDRA were observed, including heparin induced thrombocytopenia and eosinophilia. Heightened pharmacovigilance particularly in older adults may be warranted. This study enhances understanding of fondaparinux’s safety, providing insights for reducing risks and ensuring safer clinical application.

1. Introduction

Fondaparinux, a synthetic pentasaccharide anticoagulant, is widely used in clinical practice for the prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolic diseases, acute coronary syndrome, and other thrombotic disorders [15]. It exerts its anticoagulant activity by binding to antithrombin III (AT-III) with high selectivity [6], thereby enhancing AT III–mediated inhibition of coagulation factor Xa (FXa) by nearly 300 fold [7,8]. FXa represents a pivotal junction in the coagulation cascade, where both intrinsic and extrinsic pathways converge. By effectively inhibiting FXa, fondaparinux reduces thrombin generation and subsequently prevents the conversion of fibrinogen to fibrin, thereby achieving a potent anticoagulant effect [9].

Clinical guidelines have demonstrated that fondaparinux provides favorable efficacy and safety across diverse patient populations, including lactating women [10], patients with malignancy [11], obesity [12], lower extremity venous thrombosis [13], and those receiving prophylaxis against VTE [14] or COVID 19 associated thrombosis [15]. Despite these advantages, its interference with the coagulation process inherently increases bleeding risk, which remains the most frequently reported adverse event [1618]. Mild manifestations such as epistaxis, gingival bleeding, or subcutaneous petechiae are common, whereas severe cases may involve gastrointestinal or intracranial hemorrhage that can be life threatening.

Post marketing pharmacovigilance has therefore become essential to better define the real world safety profile of fondaparinux beyond controlled clinical trials. The FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS), established in 2004, is a publicly accessible spontaneous reporting database that serves as a cornerstone of global pharmacovigilance [19]. By collecting adverse event reports from varied healthcare settings, FAERS enables detection of rare, unexpected, or delayed reactions that may not emerge in premarketing studies [20].

In this study, we utilized the FAERS database to systematically characterize adverse drug events associated with fondaparinux using disproportionality analysis. The large, real world dataset allows identification of both expected and potential novel safety signals. Given the inherent limitations of spontaneous reporting systems such as underreporting, missing exposure data, and potential confounding our findings should be interpreted as hypothesis generating, warranting further validation through epidemiologic and mechanistic studies.

2. Methods

2.1. Source of data

This retrospective pharmacovigilance study was based on FAERS data covering the period from Q1 2004 to Q3 2024. FAERS is maintained by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and is publicly accessible via the FDA’s website [21]. The database includes adverse event reports submitted by a range of sources and is structured for international comparability. Reports were downloaded in ASCII format and processed using R Studio (v4.3). As FAERS contains de identified data, no ethical approval or informed consent was required.

2.2. Data processing

Following extraction, duplicate reports were identified based on identical case IDs and removed by retaining only the most recent version by report date. The primary analysis was restricted to records in which fondaparinux was coded as the primary suspect drug (role code “PS”) in the DRUG file [22]. Drug names were standardized using the Medex_UIMA_1.8.3 system, and adverse events were encoded using Preferred Terms (PTs) and System Organ Classes (SOCs) from MedDRA version 25.0 [23,24]. Some Preferred Terms (e.g., ‘thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome’) reflect standardized database terminology rather than distinct clinical entities.

Demographic and clinical features including age, sex, route of administration, geographic region, reporter type, and time to onset were extracted. Disproportionality analysis was then conducted using four established algorithms: Reporting Odds Ratio (ROR), Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR), Bayesian Confidence Propagation Neural Network (BCPNN), and Empirical Bayesian Geometric Mean (EBGM) [2429]. The 2 × 2 contingency framework used to quantify the disproportionality of fondaparinux related adverse events (AEs) compared with non drug related events is detailed in Supplementary Material 1. Signal detection was conducted using complementary algorithms with method specific threshold criteria to ensure broader coverage, cross validation of findings, and reduced false positives, thus enhancing the reliability of the detected safety signals. Thresholds were further adjusted to improve sensitivity for rare adverse events, with the corresponding formulas and criteria provided in Supplementary Material 1. All analyses were conducted using Microsoft Excel (version 2021, Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA, USA).

2.3. Signal filtering and classification

The initial screening included PTs with at least three fondaparinux related AE reports. MedDRA’s PTs and SOCs were used to encode, classify, and group the detected signals to identify the major organ systems involved. Similar PTs describing overlapping clinical entities were evaluated collectively to facilitate interpretation.

To ensure methodological transparency and reproducibility, all analytical procedures were implemented using a fully scripted workflow in R Studio. Data extraction, cleaning, and standardization were performed using base R and packages from the tidyverse ecosystem (readr, dplyr, stringr, tidyr).

Duplicate reports were identified by matching CASEID and primaryid, and only the most recent version of each case was retained. Disproportionality analyses were conducted through custom R functions built upon established packages: epiR and DescTools for ROR and PRR computation, bayesAB for BCPNN, and openEBGM (version 0.8.3) for EBGM estimation. Signal detection thresholds followed internationally recognized pharmacovigilance criteria (ROR lower 95% CI > 1, PRR ≥ 2 with χ² ≥ 4, IC025 > 0, EB05 > 1).

2.4. Stratified and exclusion analyses for concomitant therapy

To assess the potential influence of concomitant anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy, a stratified analysis was performed for key PTs related to bleeding and thrombocytopenia, including hematoma, haemorrhage, muscle haemorrhage, and heparin induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) like reactions.

The proportions of reports that included concomitant exposure to heparin/LMWH, warfarin, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), or antiplatelet agents were calculated to estimate the potential contribution of combination therapy.

Subsequently, a separate disproportionality analysis was conducted after excluding all reports containing concomitant anticoagulants or antiplatelet drugs, to evaluate whether the identified signals persisted independently of polypharmacy.

All calculations used the same four algorithms (ROR, PRR, BCPNN, and EBGM) and the same signal detection thresholds as in the main analysis.

2.5. Comparative disproportionality analysis across anticoagulant classes

To determine whether the observed bleeding and HIT related signals were drug specific or reflected class effects, a comparative disproportionality analysis was conducted across major anticoagulant classes.

The comparator drugs included enoxaparin, unfractionated heparin (UFH), and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs: apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban).

Individual FAERS reports for each agent were extracted using the same inclusion and exclusion criteria and MedDRA mapping procedures applied to fondaparinux. Adverse events related to haemorrhage, haematoma, and HIT were identified based on predefined PTs. Disproportionality was calculated using the same four algorithms (ROR, PRR, BCPNN, EBGM) and uniform signal detection thresholds.

Comparative interpretation focused on identifying whether positive signals occurred consistently across anticoagulant classes (suggesting a class effect) or appeared only with specific agents (indicating agent specific patterns). Rare events such as thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) were treated as hypothesis generating due to limited case counts.

2.6. Statistical software and tools

All data extraction, processing, statistical analyses, and visualization were performed using R Studio (version 4.3.0) and Microsoft Excel 2021. Custom R scripts were developed for data cleaning, duplicate removal, MedDRA term mapping, and computation of the four disproportionality algorithms (ROR, PRR, BCPNN, and EBGM). Data manipulation and plotting were implemented using the tidyverse ecosystem, including the dplyr, tidyr, and ggplot2 packages. All numerical results were cross checked using Excel for verification and tabulation.

2.7. Ethical approval

As FAERS data are de-identified and publicly available, this study did not require institutional ethics approval or informed consent.

3. Results

3.1. Basic information of the fondaparinux related AEs

A total of 21,483,491 reports were obtained from the FAERS database from the first quarter of 2004 to the third quarter of 2024. As the database is updated quarterly, some reports inevitably overlap with previously published ones, necessitating reprocessing. Following the guidance of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), a duplicate data removal process was conducted prior to statistical analysis, reducing the report count to 17,947,757. Among these, 5,788 reports related to fondaparinux with a “Primary Suspected (PS)” role were identified, involving 17,523 AEs. The screening process for fondaparinux related AEs is shown in Fig 1.

Fig 1. The flow diagram of selecting fondaparinux-related AEs from FAES database.

Fig 1

The flowchart illustrates the selection procedure of fondaparinux-associated adverse events from the FAERS database and the analytical framework applied for signal detection.

Among the 5,788 adverse event reports related to fondaparinux, 34.97% were male and 48.72% were female, indicating a higher proportion of females. The age distribution of patients showed that the majority were over 65 years old (39.24%). Analysis of the reporting time revealed a sharp increase in fondaparinux related adverse events starting in 2007, peaking at 400 cases in 2009, followed by a sharp decline to 206 cases in 2015, approximately 34% of the peak value. Fig 2 illustrates the quarterly trend of adverse event reports over the years.

Fig 2. Distribution of adverse reactions of fondaparinux in each year.

Fig 2

The line chart presents the yearly number of adverse event reports in which fondaparinux was identified as the primary suspect drug.

A substantial portion of reports (29.62%) lacked explicit outcome data, hindering a complete evaluation of the clinical consequences associated with fondaparinux use. Among cases where outcomes were reported, the three most frequently documented serious outcomes were hospital admissions (41.84%), medically significant events (29.62%), and fatalities (15.07%). Regarding geographic distribution, the United States contributed the largest number of cases (743), comprising 12.84% of the total. Combined, France, Ireland, and Italy accounted for 17.38% of the reports. However, over half of the cases (66.21%) originated from unspecified regions, which may obscure insights into geographical trends and population level risk patterns.

In terms of reporting identity, consumers were the primary reporters, accounting for 45.91% of the total, while physicians, pharmacists, and other healthcare professionals made up a relatively larger portion, accounting for 51.22%. Notably, the majority of adverse events (72.34%) occurred during subcutaneous injection. Given that fondaparinux has a molecular weight of 1728 Da, it is more readily absorbed through subcutaneous tissue, with a bioavailability close to 100% post subcutaneous injection, making it more convenient and safer compared to intravenous injection [24]. The clinical characteristics of AEs associated with fondaparinux are detailed in Table 1.

Table 1. Epidemiological characteristics of fondaparinux adverse event reports.

variable Total
Sex
female 2820(48.72)
male 2024(34.97)
unknown 944(16.31)
Age (years) 69.00(55.00,79.00)
Age group
<18 31(0.54)
18 ~ 65 1578(27.26)
>=65 2271(39.24)
unknow 1908(32.96)
Reporter type
Consumer 2657(45.91)
Physician 1919(33.15)
Pharmacist 525(9.07)
Other health-professional 521(9.00)
unknown 158(2.73)
Lawyer 4(0.07)
Registered Nurse 4(0.07)
Country of report
other 3832(66.21)
United States 743(12.84)
France 504(8.71)
Ireland 305(5.27)
Italy 197(3.40)
Germany 97(1.68)
Japan 59(1.02)
United Kingdom 51(0.88)
Route of administration
subcutaneous 4187(72.34)
other 1360(23.50)
intravenous 184(3.18)
oral 22(0.38)
transplacental 20(0.35)
intramuscular 15(0.26)
Outcomes
hospitalization 2829(41.84)
other serious 2003(29.62)
death 1019(15.07)
life threatening 654(9.67)
disability 201(2.97)
required intervention to Prevent Permanent Impairment/Damage 36(0.53)
congenital anomaly 20(0.30)
Time to onset (days) 5.00(1.00,14.00)
0 ~ 30 2497(57.48)
31 ~ 60 155(3.57)
61 ~ 90 64(1.47)
91 ~ 120 41(0.94)
121 ~ 150 26(0.60)
151 ~ 180 17(0.39)
181 ~ 360 66(1.52)
>360 52(1.20)
unknow 1426(32.83)

Values are presented as n (%) unless otherwise indicated. Continuous variables such as Age (years) and Time to onset (days) are expressed as median (interquartile range). Time to onset category represents the grouped distribution of onset intervals.

3.2. Signal detection of fondaparinux related AEs

3.2.1. Analysis by SOC level.

All reported adverse events were classified according to 25 distinct SOCs. A complete breakdown of the signal strengths across all SOC categories is provided in Table 2. Among these, only two SOCs demonstrated consistently elevated metrics across all four detection algorithms. Specifically, “vascular disorders” exhibited strong associations with fondaparinux, supported by 2,046 cases and corresponding values of ROR 5.82, PRR 5.26, IC 2.39, and EBGM 5.25. Likewise, “blood and lymphatic system disorders” emerged as another key domain, with 1,125 reported cases and signal indices of ROR 3.85, PRR 3.66, IC 1.87, and EBGM 3.66. A detailed comparison is shown in Table 2.

Table 2. The signal strength of AEs of fondaparinux at the SOC level in FAERS database.
SOC Case Reports ROR(95% CI) PRR(95% CI) chisq IC(IC025) EBGM(EBGM05)
vascular disorders 2046 5.82(5.56, 6.09) 5.26(5.06, 5.47) 7197.64 2.39(2.33) 5.25(5.05)
blood and lymphatic system disorders 1125 3.85(3.62, 4.09) 3.66(3.45, 3.88) 2214.47 1.87(1.78) 3.66(3.48)
investigations 1627 1.5(1.43, 1.58) 1.45(1.39, 1.51) 247.14 0.54(0.47) 1.45(1.39)
renal and urinary disorders 412 1.25(1.13, 1.38) 1.24(1.12, 1.37) 19.67 0.31(0.17) 1.24(1.14)
hepatobiliary disorders 194 1.18(1.02, 1.36) 1.18(1.03, 1.35) 5.12 0.23(0.03) 1.18(1.04)
pregnancy, puerperium and perinatal conditions 91 1.17(0.95, 1.44) 1.17(0.96, 1.42) 2.28 0.23(−0.07) 1.17(0.99)
gastrointestinal disorders 1769 1.16(1.11, 1.22) 1.15(1.11, 1.2) 36.54 0.2(0.13) 1.15(1.1)
injury, poisoning and procedural complications 1863 1.12(1.07, 1.18) 1.11(1.07, 1.15) 21.64 0.15(0.08) 1.11(1.06)
respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders 911 1.06(0.99, 1.14) 1.06(1, 1.12) 3.12 0.08(−0.01) 1.06(1)
cardiac disorders 500 1.04(0.95, 1.14) 1.04(0.96, 1.12) 0.77 0.06(−0.07) 1.04(0.96)
nervous system disorders 1582 1.04(0.98, 1.09) 1.03(0.99, 1.07) 1.89 0.05(−0.03) 1.03(0.99)
surgical and medical procedures 204 0.84(0.73, 0.96) 0.84(0.73, 0.96) 6.51 −0.26(−0.45) 0.84(0.75)
skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders 774 0.79(0.74, 0.85) 0.8(0.74, 0.87) 41.23 −0.32(−0.43) 0.8(0.75)
musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders 734 0.76(0.71, 0.82) 0.77(0.71, 0.83) 53.16 −0.38(−0.48) 0.77(0.72)
general disorders and administration site conditions 2292 0.69(0.66, 0.72) 0.73(0.7, 0.76) 277.78 −0.45(−0.52) 0.73(0.7)
congenital, familial and genetic disorders 32 0.57(0.41, 0.81) 0.57(0.4, 0.81) 10.14 −0.8(−1.29) 0.57(0.43)
endocrine disorders 25 0.55(0.37, 0.81) 0.55(0.37, 0.81) 9.45 −0.87(−1.43) 0.55(0.39)
reproductive system and breast disorders 76 0.51(0.41, 0.64) 0.51(0.41, 0.63) 35.81 −0.97(−1.29) 0.51(0.42)
neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps) 243 0.5(0.44, 0.57) 0.51(0.45, 0.57) 119.49 −0.98(−1.16) 0.51(0.46)
metabolism and nutrition disorders 175 0.45(0.38, 0.52) 0.45(0.38, 0.53) 119.1 −1.15(−1.36) 0.45(0.4)
immune system disorders 77 0.38(0.31, 0.48) 0.38(0.31, 0.47) 76.63 −1.38(−1.7) 0.38(0.32)
eye disorders 139 0.38(0.32, 0.45) 0.38(0.32, 0.44) 140.07 −1.38(−1.62) 0.38(0.33)
infections and infestations 359 0.37(0.33, 0.41) 0.38(0.34, 0.42) 388.07 −1.4(−1.55) 0.38(0.35)
ear and labyrinth disorders 28 0.36(0.25, 0.52) 0.36(0.25, 0.52) 32.01 −1.47(−2) 0.36(0.26)
psychiatric disorders 245 0.23(0.2, 0.26) 0.24(0.21, 0.27) 635 −2.07(−2.25) 0.24(0.21)

SOC = System Organ Class; ROR = reporting odds ratio; PRR = proportional reporting ratio; IC = information component (BCPNN method), with IC025 indicating its lower 95% credibility bound; EBGM = empirical Bayesian geometric mean, with EBGM05 indicating its lower confidence bound. Disproportionality metrics represent the relative reporting strength of AEs at the SOC level in the FAERS database.

3.2.2. Analysis by PT level.

After applying the predefined thresholds of all four disproportionality algorithms, a total of 259 PTs were found to be positively associated with fondaparinux use. These signals were distributed across 23 different SOCs. The complete list of PT level signals that met the criteria is presented in Supplementary Material 2. Among the individual PTs based on ROR values, two signals related to fondaparinux use were particularly prominent: abnormal coagulation factor X concentration (ROR 1792.1) and thrombosis with TTS (ROR 543.09). Clinically, this PT describes reports presenting concurrent thrombosis and thrombocytopenia, which may correspond to conditions such as HIT, vaccine induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT), or other PF4 related disorders. It is noteworthy that certain signals were based on a limited number of reports some appearing in just three or four cases making their clinical implications uncertain. Despite this, hematoma (582 cases), anemia (523), bleeding (341), pulmonary embolism (296), decreased hemoglobin (291), and muscle hematoma (206) were among the more frequently reported adverse events. Although the statistical signal strength for muscle hematoma was relatively lower compared to the others, the volume of reported cases still suggests that this event deserves clinical attention. Fig 3 visualizes the most frequently reported Preferred Terms within the most affected System Organ Classes.

Fig 3. The most relevant preferred terms within the most significant System Organ Classification in fondaparinux.

Fig 3

Panels A–F display the main adverse events detected for fondaparinux across different organ systems, including injury and procedural complications, gastrointestinal disorders, nervous system disorders, investigations, blood and lymphatic system disorders, and vascular disorders. The horizontal axis represents the measure of disproportionality, the vertical axis indicates statistical strength, and the bubble size reflects the number of reported cases.

3.2.3. Stratified and comparative analysis across anticoagulant exposures.

A stratified analysis was conducted to evaluate the potential influence of concomitant anticoagulant and antiplatelet exposure on major fondaparinux associated adverse events, including hematoma, haemorrhage, muscle haemorrhage,and thrombosis with thrombocytopenia events. Among hematoma reports (n = 582), 2.6% included heparin or low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), 3.3% warfarin, 0.9% DOACs, and 10.5% antiplatelet agents. For HIT (n = 115), 26.1% involved heparin/LMWH and 6.1% warfarin. In contrast, most reports of muscle haemorrhage (81.6%) and haemorrhage (84.5%) did not involve concomitant anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy, suggesting that these signals were not solely attributable to polypharmacy. The detailed distribution of concomitant drug exposures is presented in Table 3.

Table 3. Stratified analysis of concomitant anticoagulant and antiplatelet exposure in fondaparinux-related major adverse events.
Hematoma (N = 582) HIT (N = 115) TTS (N = 4) Muscle Haemorrhage (N = 206) Haemorrhage (N = 341)
Concomitant medication Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
Heparin/LMWH 15 2.6 30 26.1 1 25 3 1.5 10 2.9
Warfarin 19 3.3 7 6.1 2 50 4 1.9 18 5.3
DOACs 5 0.9 1 0.9 1 25 2 1 2 0.6
Other anticoagulants 0 0 5 4.3 3 75 0 0 1 0.3
Antiplatelets 61 10.5 6 5.2 0 0 32 15.5 28 8.2
No concomitant anticoagulant/antiplatelet 490 84.2 75 65.2 0 0 168 81.6 288 84.5

Concomitant medications were grouped as heparin/LMWH, warfarin, DOACs, other anticoagulants, and antiplatelet agents. Percentages indicate the proportion within each adverse event category. HIT = heparin induced thrombocytopenia; TTS = thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome.

To minimize confounding from background bleeding risks, a separate disproportionality analysis was performed after excluding all reports containing other anticoagulants or antiplatelet agents. Significant signals persisted across all major bleeding related PTs hematoma (ROR = 66.78 [60.99–73.12]), muscle haemorrhage (ROR = 161.13 [137.88–188.30]), and haemorrhage (ROR = 10.04 [8.94–11.28]) indicating that these associations were largely independent of combined therapy. Consistent results were confirmed across PRR, IC, and EBGM algorithms. For HIT (ROR = 52.00 [41.37–65.36]) and thrombosis with TTS (n = 4), the limited number of cases precluded robust estimation. Full results for the sensitivity analysis excluding concomitant anticoagulants and antiplatelets are summarized in Table 4.

Table 4. Disproportionality analysis of major fondaparinux-associated adverse events after excluding concomitant anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapies.
Hematoma (N = 582) Hit (N = 115) Tts (N = 4) Muscle Haemorrhage (N = 206) Haemorrhage (N = 341)
ROR(95% CI) 66.78(60.99,73.12) 52(41.37,65.36) 161.13(137.88,188.3) 10.04(8.94,11.28)
PRR(95% CI) 64.95(59.46,70.94) 51.78(41.23,65.03) 159.61(136.77,186.26) 9.89(8.82,11.1)
chisq 30226.3 3673.18 25168.36 2298.7
IC(IC025) 5.99(4.33) 5.67(4) 7.25(5.58) 3.3(1.64)
EBGM(EBGM05) 63.62(58.97) 50.94(42.06) 151.75(133.2) 9.86(8.95)

Analyses exclude reports involving any anticoagulant or antiplatelet drugs. ROR = reporting odds ratio; PRR = proportional reporting ratio; IC = information component; EBGM = empirical Bayesian geometric mean. “–” indicates insufficient data for computation.

To further characterize whether these signals represented drug specific or class wide effects, a comparative disproportionality analysis was performed across other anticoagulant classes, including enoxaparin, UFH, and DOACs (apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban). All agents demonstrated strong positive signals for haemorrhage and haematoma, with RORs generally ranging from 8 to 17 for DOACs, 17–70 for enoxaparin, and 8–13 for UFH, confirming a class effect associated with anticoagulant therapy. In contrast, disproportionate reporting of HIT related events was observed exclusively for fondaparinux (ROR ≈ 52) and UFH (ROR ≈ 1773), whereas DOACs showed no significant disproportionality (ROR ≈ 1). These findings reinforce that bleeding signals likely reflect a class wide anticoagulant effect, while heparin induced thrombocytopenia remains a heparin specific phenomenon. Detailed comparative results for each anticoagulant agent are provided in Supplementary Material 3.

3.2.4. Grouped by age.

To investigate the age related safety profile of fondaparinux, we performed a stratified analysis based on age categories. The findings across different age groups are summarized in Supplementary Material 4. Reports involving individuals under the age of 18 were excluded from detailed discussion due to the minimal number of cases, which limits interpretability and clinical relevance. This decision aligns with the drug’s prescribing information, which states that safety data are lacking for patients below 17 years of age.

Among adult patients, a total of 101 and 100 Preferred Terms were identified in the 18–65 and >65 year age groups, respectively. Hematoma was the most frequently reported adverse event across both age segments (413 cases), indicating its potential as a core safety concern in the adult population. Notably, in the 18–65 group, although TTS was reported in only four instances, it demonstrated the highest disproportionality signal (ROR 1102.84), far surpassing other PTs. Hematoma, however, remained the most common event (93 cases) in this group. In patients older than 65, hematoma also ranked highest in frequency (320 reports), while incision site hematoma presented the strongest signal (ROR 201.01). These results suggest that hematoma, regardless of age, warrants vigilant clinical monitoring in individuals receiving fondaparinux.

3.2.5. Grouped by gender.

Fig 4 illustrates the gender differences between the two treatment regimens, with detailed information provided in Supplementary Material 5 In the fondaparinux treatment group, Hematoma was identified as the most prominent adverse event across both sexes based on combined evaluation of signal strength and report counts. Notably, female patients reported this event more frequently (325 cases) than their male counterparts (166 cases). Additionally, muscle hematoma (120 cases) was more commonly reported in females, while anemia was more frequently observed in males (174 cases).

Fig 4. The primary adverse effects of fondaparinux treatment in men and women.

Fig 4

The plot compares the strength and frequency of reported adverse events between men and women receiving fondaparinux. Each point represents an individual event, with its position indicating the relative difference between the two sexes.

3.2.6. Time to onset analysis.

Among all AE reports, after excluding those with inaccurate or missing onset times, a total of 2,917 reports included information on the timing of AE onset. Fig 5 illustrates that most adverse events in both male and female patients occurred within the first month of initiating treatment. This pattern is consistent with the standard clinical duration of fondaparinux therapy. Although a small number of events were reported beyond the initial treatment period, these may reflect delayed reporting rather than delayed drug effects. Therefore, it remains important to maintain vigilance for adverse events during the active treatment phase and shortly after drug discontinuation.

Fig 5. Time to Onset of Adverse Reactions Associated with Fondaparinux.

Fig 5

The figure presents the number of adverse event reports grouped by the interval between treatment initiation and event onset. Most cases in both men and women occurred within the first 30 days after starting treatment.

4. Discussion

The FAERS database is a spontaneous reporting system that allows the detection of disproportional reporting signals but does not establish causal relationships between drug exposure and adverse events. Therefore, all findings in this study should be interpreted as associations rather than confirmed causality.

Previous studies on fondaparinux related AEs have primarily relied on clinical trials and case reports. However, clinical studies often have stringent trial designs and inclusion criteria, which may lead to underreporting of AEs, resulting in incomplete drug safety information. This study utilized a large real world dataset, analyzing fondaparinux related AEs over the past 20 years using the FAERS database. Additionally, we investigated the differences between AEs reported in the approved product label and those observed in real world settings, identifying rare and potential AEs.

To further distinguish between known and potentially novel adverse events, all significant PT level signals identified in this study were cross checked against the current FDA prescribing information for fondaparinux (label revision 2024). The key events such as hemorrhage, hematoma, and thrombocytopenia are consistent with labeled adverse reactions, confirming that FAERS based analyses can reliably capture known safety signals. In contrast, several rare PTs including abnormal coagulation factor X concentration and thrombosis associated with thrombocytopenia are not explicitly described in the FDA label, suggesting they may represent underrecognized or emerging adverse events. However, given the small number of reported cases and the inherent limitations of spontaneous reporting systems, these findings should be interpreted cautiously as hypothesis generating observations rather than confirmed risks [30]. Between 2007 and 2014, the volume of AE reports for fondaparinux peaked. This is likely due to the approval of fondaparinux by the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) in 2007 for the new indication of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) [31]. As clinical experience with fondaparinux continues to accumulate, its associated AEs have gained increasing attention, and corresponding preventive measures are gradually being improved. Existing studies have shown that, compared to low molecular weight heparin, fondaparinux offers greater efficacy in reducing the risk of perioperative venous thromboembolism. However, it is also associated with an increased risk of major bleeding [32]. The marked decline in fondaparinux related AE reporting after 2015 likely reflects two concurrent trends. First, clinical utilization of fondaparinux has progressively decreased as DOACs became the preferred anticoagulants in many thromboembolic indications. Second, spontaneous reporting typically diminishes once a drug becomes well established and its safety characteristics are familiar to prescribers, reducing the motivation to report. These factors together may explain the sustained downward trend observed in recent years.

In this study, the number of fondaparinux related AEs was similar in both males (2024 cases) and females (2820 cases). However, in the “vascular disorders” category, females had a higher number of reports for certain bleeding related AEs, such as hematoma, with 325 cases in females compared to only 166 in males. This difference may be related to factors such as the female physiological cycle and hormone levels [33]. Older patients aged 65 and above experienced a higher number of fondaparinux related AEs. In the elderly population, changes in the body’s hemostatic balance occur, with enhanced coagulation function and reduced fibrinolytic activity, leading to an increased risk of thrombosis. At the same time, the risk of bleeding is also higher during anticoagulant therapy [34,35]. Additionally, conditions such as blood stasis, vascular wall degeneration, and endothelial dysfunction are more prevalent in the elderly. These conditions lead to increased platelet activation, which in turn promotes arterial thrombosis, thereby raising the risk of bleeding [36,37]. Furthermore, elderly individuals often experience renal impairment, and since fondaparinux is mainly eliminated through renal excretion. Impaired kidney function may reduce clearance, thereby elevating the risk of bleeding.In Europe, for elderly patients with moderate renal impairment (creatinine clearance of 20–50 mL/min), a reduced dose of 1.5 mg/day has been approved for the prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) [31]. Studies have shown that this dosage provides good efficacy and safety; however, its effectiveness and safety in patients with severe renal impairment still require further validation. In the United States, fondaparinux is contraindicated in patients with severe renal impairment (creatinine clearance <30 mL/min) for VTE prevention and treatment [30,38].

The majority of AE reporters are consumers and physicians. This suggests that during clinical use, fondaparinux is closely monitored by healthcare professionals. Meanwhile, consumers, as direct users of the medication, are also proactive in reporting adverse reactions to ensure their own medication safety. Apart from reports from unknown sources, the United States has the highest number of submissions. The higher number of reports from the United States is primarily due to the use of FAERS, which is the spontaneous reporting system (SRS) database for the U.S. Only serious and/or unknown adverse events reported worldwide and collected in the WHO VigiBase are transferred to FAERS. In 2017, the global sales of fondaparinux injection reached approximately $190 million, with sales in the US market amounting to $69.53 million (IQVIA, 2018). This has resulted in a longer period of use and a broader clinical application base in the United States, where both physicians and patients have a relatively higher level of awareness and acceptance. In thrombosis prevention following major orthopedic surgeries, patients undergoing total hip or knee arthroplasty typically start fondaparinux treatment 6–8 hours post surgery, continuing for 5–10 days, while hip fracture surgery patients follow a 2–4 week regimen. Adverse reactions related to fondaparinux can still emerge during the first month of therapy. This underscores the importance of ongoing monitoring even after the initial phase of treatment.

Our findings confirm that the two most relevant SOCs associated with fondaparinux are vascular disorders and blood and lymphatic system disorders, which is largely consistent with what is mentioned in the drug’s prescribing information.

4.1. vascular disorders

In terms of correlation, hemorrhagic shock showed a ROR of 76.09 (65.38, 88.54) and a PRR of 75.34 (64.41, 88.13), both with relatively high values and narrow confidence intervals. This indicates a strong association between the use of fondaparinux and hemorrhagic shock. Such events are pharmacologically expected for anticoagulant agents and represent well established adverse reactions rather than novel safety signals. Despite clinical evidence indicating that fondaparinux carries a lower incidence of major bleeding compared to enoxaparin (2.1% versus 4.1%), fatal bleeding events such as hemorrhagic shock have still been reported, albeit infrequently (0.3%) [39]. Fondaparinux does not have a targeted antidote, and conventional agents such as vitamin K and protamine sulfate have proven ineffective in mitigating its anticoagulant activity [40]. Findings from in vitro coagulation studies indicate that partial reversal may be achieved through the administration of activated prothrombin complex concentrate (aPCC) or recombinant activated factor VII (rFVIIa), while dialysis appears to provide limited removal of the drug from circulation [41,42]. Among healthy individuals receiving standard therapeutic doses, a high concentration of rFVIIa (90 µg/kg) was shown to partially restore coagulation parameters, including activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT), endogenous thrombin potential, and markers of prothrombin activation [40]. Furthermore, a clinical case documented the onset of hemorrhagic shock following a 2.5 mg dose of fondaparinux, where hemostatic control was successfully achieved through the combined use of rFVIIa and tranexamic acid. [43].

In terms of the number of case reports, hematoma had the highest number of reports, reaching 582 cases. Fondaparinux reduces thrombin generation by inhibiting factor Xa, disrupting the coagulation cascade, and prolonging clotting time. Even at therapeutic doses, excessive suppression of coagulation can lead to spontaneous bleeding or bleeding after minor trauma, resulting in subcutaneous, muscular, or deep tissue hematomas. In a study of Asian populations for VTE prevention following total knee and total hip arthroplasty, fondaparinux showed a higher relative risk (RR) for minor bleeding: 2.71 (1.12, 6.56) [44], though its incidence varied across different surgeries and studies [45,46]. Hemorrhage had 341 case reports, also a relatively high number. Studies have shown that among adverse event reporting rates for heparins and their derivatives, hemorrhage has the highest incidence, ranging from 2.8 to 140.1/100,000 standard units (SU), with fondaparinux having a relatively higher reporting rate [47]. Similar to hematoma, the higher number of AE case reports provides real world evidence for further investigation into the mechanisms, risk factors, and effective hemostatic measures for bleeding.

4.2. blood and lymphatic system disorders

In terms of correlation, the ROR for TTS was 543.09 (187.13, 1576.17) and the PRR was 542.97 (188.42, 1564.71), both of which were extremely high, with relatively wide confidence intervals. This suggests a strong but uncertain association between this adverse event and the use of fondaparinux. Given the very limited number of reports, this finding should be regarded as an exploratory, hypothesis generating signal rather than a confirmed association. For patients suspected of developing thrombosis with thrombocytopenic syndrome, clinicians must thoroughly document the patient’s complete medication history, particularly the use of heparins and vaccines, as this condition shares clinical symptoms with HIT and VITT [48,49]. This will allow for the timely identification of the adverse reaction triggers and prevent recurrence.

In terms of case report numbers, anaemia was the most frequently reported adverse event, with 523 cases. A study investigating the effects of anticoagulants on anemia after total hip arthroplasty (THA) [50], reported that 24.4% of patients in the fondaparinux group (comprising 86 individuals) developed postoperative anemia, a finding that aligns with the results observed in the present study. Thrombocytopenia was reported in 150 cases. Platelets play a crucial role in coagulation, and the potent inhibition of factor Xa by fondaparinux alters the coagulation cascade, potentially indirectly affecting platelet activation, aggregation, and adhesion, which may lead to a reduction in platelet count [51]. These events are pharmacologically expected consequences of anticoagulant therapy and represent well established adverse reactions rather than new safety concerns. HIT was reported in 115 cases. HIT is an immune mediated response initiated by the formation of a complex between heparin and platelet factor 4 (PF4). This interaction results in platelet activation, aggregation, and depletion, accompanied by a heightened risk of thrombosis, distinguishing it from uncomplicated thrombocytopenia. Fondaparinux typically does not induce the classic HIT syndrome because its molecular structure lacks the key site that can specifically bind to PF4. However, although extremely rare, some case reports indicate that fondaparinux may induce HIT [5254]. Further investigations have found that the potential mechanism shares some similarities with delayed HIT. In these special cases, even after discontinuing heparin, antibodies triggered by prior heparin exposure or other unknown factors may still cause thrombocytopenia and thrombosis. Specifically, when antibodies produced by the body recognize PF4 bound to endogenous platelet related chondroitin sulfate, it triggers a complex immune cascade, leading to the release of more procoagulant substances and inflammatory mediators from platelets, further promoting platelet aggregation. Once HIT occurs, not only is platelet count reduced, but platelet activation may also occur, increasing the risk of thrombosis and causing severe thrombotic complications. Although this phenomenon appears to be extremely rare, it highlights a potential immunologic mechanism that warrants further investigation in future mechanistic or clinical studies.

To better differentiate drug specific effects from the confounding influence of co administered antithrombotics, a restricted disproportionality analysis was performed after excluding reports containing other anticoagulants (UFH, LMWH, warfarin, or DOACs) or antiplatelet agents. The signals for Haemorrhage and thrombocytopenia persisted with statistical significance, indicating that these associations are not merely consequences of combined therapy but may reflect an intrinsic hematologic impact of fondaparinux monotherapy. This finding aligns with post marketing pharmacovigilance studies showing that hematologic signals of fondaparinux remain detectable even after adjustment for concomitant heparin or warfarin exposure [55]. In contrast, signals such as HIT and TTS became less stable, suggesting that such rare immune mediated events are likely confounded by prior heparin sensitization or perioperative conditions rather than direct drug effect.

We also performed a stratified comparison of reports involving concomitant antiplatelet therapy (e.g., aspirin, clopidogrel, ticagrelor). In these reports, hemorrhagic and thrombocytopenia related signals appeared stronger than in fondaparinux monotherapy, suggesting a potential additive pharmacodynamic interaction affecting platelet function or hemostasis. This pattern may stem from overlapping mechanisms of platelet inhibition and anticoagulation [56]. Consistent observations have been described in clinical registries and pharmacovigilance analyses of combined antithrombotic therapy, indicating an overall trend toward increased bleeding and cytopenic risks relative to single agent use [57]. These findings reinforce the need for cautious use of fondaparinux in combination antithrombotic regimens, particularly in elderly or renally impaired patients.

From a regulatory perspective, both the U.S. FDA and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) include haemorrhage and thrombocytopenia in the safety labeling of fondaparinux and emphasize renal function monitoring and individualized risk assessment [30,58]. These requirements reflect the ongoing regulatory attention to hematologic safety profiles of factor Xa inhibitors in general, particularly in patients receiving concomitant antithrombotic therapy or with impaired renal function. The persistence of these hematologic signals in our monotherapy restricted analyses supports current recommendations for laboratory monitoring (e.g., hemoglobin, platelet count) during early treatment and provides complementary postmarketing evidence for the importance of individualized risk evaluation in clinical practice.

4.3. Rare reports

For clinicians, focusing solely on the significance at the SOC level may overlook specific but potentially serious adverse events. In this study, although only three reports described abnormal concentrations of coagulation factor X, an extremely high ROR (1792.1) was observed. This disproportionate signal is likely pharmacologically driven, as fondaparinux exerts its anticoagulant effect by selectively inhibiting factor Xa activity [59]. Likewise, thrombosis associated with thrombocytopenia was reported in four cases, with a markedly elevated ROR (543.09), possibly indicating an immune mediated mechanism that disrupts platelet and coagulation balance. However, because of the very limited number of cases and the wide confidence intervals, these findings should be interpreted as exploratory and hypothesis generating, pending confirmation in larger datasets or clinical investigations [60].

Through a comprehensive analysis of PT data, several adverse events not mentioned in the drug’s label were also identified, including eosinophilia (21 cases) [ROR 4.12 (2.69, 6.33), PRR 4.12 (2.68, 6.34)]. Eosinophilia may be associated with allergic reactions, parasitic infections, certain autoimmune diseases, and other conditions. Within the scope of blood and lymphatic system disorders, these findings may indicate that the medication triggered an immune reaction, resulting in an abnormal elevation of eosinophil levels [61,62]. Thrombocytosis was reported in 20 cases [ROR 19.15 (12.33, 29.72), PRR 19.12 (12.42, 29.43)]. Thrombocytosis generally increases the risk of thrombosis, and its occurrence may be related to the drug’s impact on bone marrow hematopoiesis or immune feedback regulation mechanisms [63]. The study also identified leukocytosis in 19 cases [ROR 3.55 (2.26, 5.57), PRR 3.55 (2.26, 5.57)], normochromic normocytic anemia in 13 cases [ROR 14 (8.12, 24.15), PRR 13.99 (8.08, 24.22)], and antiphospholipid syndrome in 6 cases [ROR 12.99 (5.82, 28.96), PRR 12.98 (5.81, 28.99)]. Although none of these associations have been documented in prior clinical studies, they represent weak, hypothesis generating signals that warrant pharmacovigilance attention and further mechanistic validation.

4.4. Clinical interpretation of time to onset patterns

The time to onset (TTO) analysis revealed that most fondaparinux related adverse events occurred within the first month after treatment initiation. This early onset clustering reflects that adverse events tend to emerge soon after therapy begins, although the pharmacokinetic profile of fondaparinux indicates an elimination half life of approximately 18 hours and near complete clearance within several days. Therefore, the observed time distribution likely represents the clinical treatment window during which the drug is actively administered, rather than a direct pharmacokinetic effect. Bleeding and hematoma events were mainly concentrated in this early phase, particularly among elderly patients or those with renal impairment, where delayed clearance and cumulative exposure may occur. These findings highlight the importance of close clinical and laboratory monitoring during the early treatment period, especially when fondaparinux is used concomitantly with other antithrombotic agents.

In contrast, a small number of delayed onset cases (> 30 days) were identified, which may be explained by prolonged reporting intervals, ongoing follow up after hospital discharge, or rare immune mediated mechanisms such as heparin independent thrombocytopenia. Although such events are uncommon, they highlight the necessity for continued vigilance and careful assessment of hematologic parameters even after discontinuation in selected high risk patients.

4.5. Limitations

This study has several limitations that should be acknowledged.

First, the FAERS database is a spontaneous reporting system that is inherently subject to underreporting, duplication, reporting bias, and missing clinical information. Because detailed patient level data (e.g., laboratory results, comorbidities, concomitant medications, and dosages) are unavailable, it is difficult to control for potential confounders or to establish causal relationships between fondaparinux and reported adverse events [64]. Therefore, the present findings can only indicate statistical associations rather than causality.

Second, the FAERS database does not provide drug exposure data (i.e., the number of patients who received fondaparinux); thus, the true incidence or relative risk of adverse events cannot be estimated. The disproportionality metrics applied in this study (ROR, PRR, BCPNN, and EBGM) are suitable for detecting disproportionate reporting patterns but should not be interpreted as direct measures of risk.

Third, the FAERS system lacks information on patients’ clinical backgrounds and treatment contexts, making it impossible to distinguish drug related events from those associated with underlying conditions or procedural risks. For instance, fondaparinux is frequently administered to surgical patients for thromboprophylaxis, among whom hematoma or hemorrhage is relatively common. Therefore, postoperative bleeding events cannot be clearly separated from drug specific adverse reactions in this dataset.

Fourth, several safety signals identified in this analysis were based on a small number of reports, limiting statistical power and the robustness of these findings. Such rare or exploratory signals should be interpreted cautiously and validated through prospective studies or analyses using electronic health records.

Fifth, potential reporting bias and confounding should be acknowledged. A large proportion of reports were submitted by consumers rather than healthcare professionals, which may affect data accuracy and clinical interpretation.

Sixth, approximately 30% of the included reports lacked outcome data, which may limit the interpretation of clinical severity and prognosis. This missing information reduces the completeness of the dataset and may affect the overall evaluation of safety signals.

Seventh, although stratified analyses by age, sex, and time to onset were performed, these results may partly reflect differential reporting behaviors rather than true pharmacological effects. Therefore, the observed demographic or temporal trends should be interpreted with caution and validated in datasets containing more detailed clinical information. Moreover, most reports originated from the United States and Europe, with limited representation from Asia and other regions, which may affect the generalizability of the results across diverse populations.

Eighth, the dataset was dominated by reports from the United States and Europe, whereas data from Asia and other regions were minimal. This geographical imbalance may lead to underrepresentation of regional prescribing practices and population specific characteristics, thereby limiting the global generalizability of the findings. Future studies should aim to include data from multiple pharmacovigilance systems to enhance external validity.

Ninth, because the analysis involved evaluating a large number of Preferred Terms (PTs), the study inherently includes multiple statistical comparisons. Although formal multiplicity corrections are not routinely applied in FAERS based pharmacovigilance research, this may increase the likelihood of false positive signals; therefore, such findings should be interpreted with caution.

Despite these limitations, this large scale real world analysis provides meaningful post marketing insights into the safety profile of fondaparinux and highlights areas requiring further clinical and mechanistic investigation.

5. Conclusion

This study conducted a comprehensive analysis of adverse drug events related to fondaparinux using the FAERS database and identified several safety signals not currently described in existing literature. Observed events such as eosinophilia and thrombocytosis may indicate potential immune mediated or hematopoietic effects of fondaparinux; however, these findings are exploratory and require further validation. Although the number of reports for certain signals, such as abnormal coagulation factor X concentration, was small, these observations warrant continued pharmacovigilance and follow up investigations.

By integrating large scale pharmacovigilance data with mechanistic considerations, this study provides an exploratory overview of the potential safety profile of fondaparinux. Nonetheless, inherent limitations of spontaneous reporting systems such as under reporting, incomplete data, and reporting bias should be acknowledged. The predominance of reports from Western countries and the small number of certain adverse events also restrict generalizability. Future multicenter, prospective studies are needed to validate these findings and clarify their clinical relevance.

Supporting information

S1 File. Methodological details for disproportionality analyses, including contingency table framework and formulas for ROR, PRR, BCPNN, and EBGM.

(DOCX)

pone.0342548.s001.docx (18.7KB, docx)
S2 File. Complete disproportionality results for fondaparinux associated Preferred Terms (PTs) in the FAERS database.

(XLSX)

pone.0342548.s002.xlsx (34.5KB, xlsx)
S3 File. Comparative disproportionality analysis of major bleeding and HIT related adverse events across anticoagulant classes.

(DOCX)

pone.0342548.s003.docx (17.3KB, docx)
S4 File. Age stratified disproportionality results for fondaparinux associated Preferred Terms (PTs) in FAERS.

(XLSX)

pone.0342548.s004.xlsx (50.7KB, xlsx)
S5 File. Demographic characteristics, geographic distribution, comorbidities, and concomitant medication profiles of fondaparinux associated FAERS reports.

(XLSX)

pone.0342548.s005.xlsx (31.8KB, xlsx)

Data Availability

All data is publicly available on the FDA website (https://fis.fda.gov/extensions/FPD-QDE FAERS/FPD-QDE-FAERS.html). The data and code supporting the findings of this study are available in the Figshare repository. The data can be accessed at https://figshare.com/articles/30630713, and the code can be found at https://figshare.com/articles/30630977.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the Sichuan Provincial Drug Administration (grant number 2024012), the Sichuan Provincial Health Care Committee (grant number Chuan Gan Yan 2021-226), the Chengdu Health Commission (grant number 2022005), and the Committee of Drug-Induced Diseases, Chinese Pharmacological Society (grant number ADR2024MS17). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Turpie AG, Gallus AS, Hoek JA, Pentasaccharide Investigators. A synthetic pentasaccharide for the prevention of deep-vein thrombosis after total hip replacement. N Engl J Med. 2001;344(9):619–25. doi: 10.1056/NEJM200103013440901 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Valgimigli M, Patrono C, Collet J-P, Mueller C, Roffi M. Questions and answers on coronary revascularization: a companion document of the 2015 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation. Eur Heart J. 2016;37(3):e8–14. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehv408 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Bangalore S, Toklu B, Kotwal A, Volodarskiy A, Sharma S, Kirtane AJ, et al. Anticoagulant therapy during primary percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis of randomized trials in the era of stents and P2Y12 inhibitors. BMJ. 2014;349:g6419. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g6419 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Roffi M, Patrono C, Collet J-P, Mueller C, Valgimigli M, Andreotti F, et al. 2015 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation: Task Force for the Management of Acute Coronary Syndromes in Patients Presenting without Persistent ST-Segment Elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J. 2016;37(3):267–315. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehv320 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Geerts WH, Bergqvist D, Pineo GF, Heit JA, Samama CM, Lassen MR, et al. Prevention of venous thromboembolism: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8th Edition). Chest. 2008;133(6 Suppl):381S–453S. doi: 10.1378/chest.08-0656 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Walenga JM, Jeske WP, Bara L, Samama MM, Fareed J. Biochemical and pharmacologic rationale for the development of a synthetic heparin pentasaccharide. Thromb Res. 1997;86(1):1–36. doi: 10.1016/s0049-3848(97)00042-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Porcari AR, Chi L, Leadley R. Recent advances in clinical trials of the direct and indirect selective Factor Xa inhibitors. Expert Opin Investig Drugs. 2000;9(7):1595–600. doi: 10.1517/13543784.9.7.1595 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Boneu B, Necciari J, Cariou R, Sié P, Gabaig AM, Kieffer G, et al. Pharmacokinetics and tolerance of the natural pentasaccharide (SR90107/Org31540) with high affinity to antithrombin III in man. Thromb Haemost. 1995;74(6):1468–73. doi: 10.1055/s-0038-1649967 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Treatment of proximal deep vein thrombosis with a novel synthetic compound (SR90107A/ORG31540) with pure anti-factor Xa activity: A phase II evaluation. The Rembrandt Investigators. Circulation. 2000;102(22):2726–31. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.102.22.2726 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Bates SM, Rajasekhar A, Middeldorp S, McLintock C, Rodger MA, James AH, et al. American Society of Hematology 2018 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: venous thromboembolism in the context of pregnancy. Blood Adv. 2018;2(22):3317–59. doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2018024802 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Lyman GH, Carrier M, Ay C, Di Nisio M, Hicks LK, Khorana AA, et al. American Society of Hematology 2021 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: prevention and treatment in patients with cancer. Blood Adv. 2021;5(4):927–74. doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2020003442 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Martin KA, Beyer-Westendorf J, Davidson BL, Huisman MV, Sandset PM, Moll S. Use of direct oral anticoagulants in patients with obesity for treatment and prevention of venous thromboembolism: Updated communication from the ISTH SSC Subcommittee on Control of Anticoagulation. J Thromb Haemost. 2021;19(8):1874–82. doi: 10.1111/jth.15358 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Kakkos SK, Gohel M, Baekgaard N, Bauersachs R, Bellmunt-Montoya S, Black SA, et al. Editor’s Choice - European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) 2021 Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Management of Venous Thrombosis. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2021;61(1):9–82. doi: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2020.09.023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Schünemann HJ, Cushman M, Burnett AE, Kahn SR, Beyer-Westendorf J, Spencer FA, et al. American Society of Hematology 2018 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: prophylaxis for hospitalized and nonhospitalized medical patients. Blood Adv. 2018;2(22):3198–225. doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2018022954 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.COVID-19 clinical management living guidance. World Health Organization. 2025. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/338882 [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Mastroiacovo D, Sala G, Dentali F. The safety of fondaparinux sodium for the treatment of venous thromboembolism. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2016;15(9):1259–65. doi: 10.1080/14740338.2016.1221395 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Castellucci LA, Cameron C, Le Gal G, Rodger MA, Coyle D, Wells PS, et al. Clinical and safety outcomes associated with treatment of acute venous thromboembolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2014;312(11):1122–35. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.10538 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Brito V, Ciapponi A, Kwong J. Factor Xa inhibitors for acute coronary syndromes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;(1):CD007038. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007038.pub2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Sakaeda T, Tamon A, Kadoyama K, Okuno Y. Data mining of the public version of the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System. Int J Med Sci. 2013;10(7):796–803. doi: 10.7150/ijms.6048 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Ooba N, Kubota K. Selected control events and reporting odds ratio in signal detection methodology. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2010;19(11):1159–65. doi: 10.1002/pds.2014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Yin Y, Shu Y, Zhu J, Li F, Li J. A real-world pharmacovigilance study of FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) events for osimertinib. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):19555. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-23834-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Hu Y, Gong J, Zhang L, Li X, Li X, Zhao B, et al. Colitis following the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors: A real-world analysis of spontaneous reports submitted to the FDA adverse event reporting system. Int Immunopharmacol. 2020;84:106601. doi: 10.1016/j.intimp.2020.106601 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Brown EG. Using MedDRA: implications for risk management. Drug Saf. 2004;27(8):591–602. doi: 10.2165/00002018-200427080-00010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Xu H, Stenner SP, Doan S, Johnson KB, Waitman LR, Denny JC. MedEx: a medication information extraction system for clinical narratives. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2010;17(1):19–24. doi: 10.1197/jamia.M3378 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.van Puijenbroek EP, Bate A, Leufkens HGM, Lindquist M, Orre R, Egberts ACG. A comparison of measures of disproportionality for signal detection in spontaneous reporting systems for adverse drug reactions. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2002;11(1):3–10. doi: 10.1002/pds.668 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Evans SJ, Waller PC, Davis S. Use of proportional reporting ratios (PRRs) for signal generation from spontaneous adverse drug reaction reports. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2001;10(6):483–6. doi: 10.1002/pds.677 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Bate A, Lindquist M, Edwards IR, Olsson S, Orre R, Lansner A, et al. A Bayesian neural network method for adverse drug reaction signal generation. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1998;54(4):315–21. doi: 10.1007/s002280050466 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Dumouchel W. Bayesian Data Mining in Large Frequency Tables, with an Application to the FDA Spontaneous Reporting System. The American Statistician. 1999;53(3):177–90. doi: 10.1080/00031305.1999.10474456 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Bate A, Evans SJW. Quantitative signal detection using spontaneous ADR reporting. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2009;18(6):427–36. doi: 10.1002/pds.1742 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Arixtra (fondaparinux sodium) injection: prescribing information. Silver Spring (MD): FDA. 2024. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2024/021345s052lbl.pdf [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Medicines Agency E. Arixtra. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/EPAR/arixtra#authorisation. 2008.
  • 32.Kumar A, Talwar A, Farley JF, Muzumdar J, Schommer JC, Balkrishnan R, et al. Fondaparinux Sodium Compared With Low-Molecular-Weight Heparins for Perioperative Surgical Thromboprophylaxis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J Am Heart Assoc. 2019;8(10):e012184. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.119.012184 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Pai M, Liu Y, Whittaker S, Arnold E, Seecharan JL, Moffat KA, et al. Gender Differences in Bleeding Problems and Implications for the Assessment of a Bleeding Disorder. Blood. 2007;110(11):2148–2148. doi: 10.1182/blood.v110.11.2148.214817537994 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Franchini M. Hemostasis and aging. Critical reviews in oncology/hematology. 2006;60(2):144–51. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Guo Y, Wu Q, Zhang L, Yang T, Zhu P, Gao W, et al. Antithrombotic therapy in very elderly patients with atrial fibrillation: is it enough to assess thromboembolic risk? Clin Interv Aging. 2010;5:157–62. doi: 10.2147/cia.s9399 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Brandes RP, Fleming I, Busse R. Endothelial aging. Cardiovasc Res. 2005;66(2):286–94. doi: 10.1016/j.cardiores.2004.12.027 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Loscalzo J. Nitric oxide insufficiency, platelet activation, and arterial thrombosis. Circ Res. 2001;88(8):756–62. doi: 10.1161/hh0801.089861 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Robert-Ebadi H, Le Gal G, Righini M. Use of anticoagulants in elderly patients: practical recommendations. Clin Interv Aging. 2009;4:165–77. doi: 10.2147/cia.s4308 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Mehta SR, Granger CB, Eikelboom JW, Bassand J-P, Wallentin L, Faxon DP, et al. Efficacy and safety of fondaparinux versus enoxaparin in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: results from the OASIS-5 trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;50(18):1742–51. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2007.07.042 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Bijsterveld NR, Moons AH, Boekholdt SM, van Aken BE, Fennema H, Peters RJG, et al. Ability of recombinant factor VIIa to reverse the anticoagulant effect of the pentasaccharide fondaparinux in healthy volunteers. Circulation. 2002;106(20):2550–4. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.0000038501.87442.02 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Frontera JA, Lewin JJ 3rd, Rabinstein AA, Aisiku IP, Alexandrov AW, Cook AM, et al. Guideline for Reversal of Antithrombotics in Intracranial Hemorrhage: A Statement for Healthcare Professionals from the Neurocritical Care Society and Society of Critical Care Medicine. Neurocrit Care. 2016;24(1):6–46. doi: 10.1007/s12028-015-0222-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Elmer J, Wittels KA. Emergency reversal of pentasaccharide anticoagulants: a systematic review of the literature. Transfus Med. 2012;22(2):108–15. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3148.2011.01125.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Huvers F, Slappendel R, Benraad B, van Hellemondt G, van Kraaij M. Treatment of postoperative bleeding after fondaparinux with rFVIIa and tranexamic acid. Neth J Med. 2005;63(5):184–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Xu S, Chen JY, Zheng Q, Shi L, Tan AHC. Is chemoprophylaxis required after total knee and total hip arthroplasty in the Asian population? A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Thromb Res. 2021;198:86–92. doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2020.11.033 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Di Nisio M, Wichers IM, Middeldorp S. Treatment for superficial thrombophlebitis of the leg. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;2(2):Cd004982. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Indirayani I, Kalok A, Nik Ismail NA, Shah SA, Lim PS, Mohamed Ismail NA, et al. Sodium pentosan polysulfate efficacy as thromboprophylaxis agent in high-risk women following gynecological surgery. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2018;44(8):1458–65. doi: 10.1111/jog.13686 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Wang Y, Gan LY, Sui Z, Wang M, Zuo L. Comparison of adverse drug reactions of heparin and its derivates in the European Economic Area based on data from EudraVigilance between 2017 and 2021. Clin Nephrol. 2025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Singh A, Toma F, Uzun G, Wagner TR, Pelzl L, Zlamal J, et al. The interaction between anti-PF4 antibodies and anticoagulants in vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia. Blood. 2022;139(23):3430–8. doi: 10.1182/blood.2021013839 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Thapa S, Jain AG, Kang L. Heparin Induced Thrombocytopenia (HIT). Non Neoplastic Hematologic Disorders: A Quick Review of Modern Diagnostic and Therapeutic Approaches. Springer. 2024:369–86. [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Izushi Y, Shiota N, Tetsunaga T, Shimada K, Egawa T, Kiuchi T, et al. The clinical impact of edoxaban for the patients with postoperative anemia after total hip arthroplasty. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2018;28(7):1349–58. doi: 10.1007/s00590-018-2212-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Chen L-Y, Khan N, Lindenbauer A, Nguyen T-H. When Will Fondaparinux Induce Thrombocytopenia? Bioconjug Chem. 2022;33(8):1574–83. doi: 10.1021/acs.bioconjchem.2c00316 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Warkentin TE. Clinical picture of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) and its differentiation from non-HIT thrombocytopenia. Thromb Haemost. 2016;116(5):813–22. doi: 10.1160/TH16-06-0435 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Bhatt VR, Aryal MR, Shrestha R, Armitage JO. Fondaparinux-associated heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. Eur J Haematol. 2013;91(5):437–41. doi: 10.1111/ejh.12179 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Warkentin TE, Maurer BT, Aster RH. Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia associated with fondaparinux. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(25):2653–5; discussion 2653-5. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc070346 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Wang L, Su Z, Xie C, Li R, Pan W, Xu L, et al. Efficacy and safety of fondaparinux in preventing venous thromboembolism in Chinese cancer patients: a single-arm, multicenter, retrospective study. Front Oncol. 2023;13:1165437. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1165437 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Gueret P, Krezel C, Fuseau E, van Giersbergen PLM, Petitou M, Neuhart E. EP42675, a synthetic parenteral dual-action anticoagulant: pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and absence of interactions with antiplatelet drugs. J Thromb Haemost. 2014;12(1):24–33. doi: 10.1111/jth.12453 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Lopes RD, Heizer G, Aronson R, Vora AN, Massaro T, Mehran R, et al. Antithrombotic Therapy after Acute Coronary Syndrome or PCI in Atrial Fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(16):1509–24. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1817083 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.European Medicines Agency. Arixtra: EPAR – product information. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/EPAR/arixtra. 2024.
  • 59.Favaloro EJ, Pasalic L. Routine Coagulation. Clin Lab Med. 2024;44(3):527–39. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Voigtlaender M, Langer F. Management of Vascular Thrombosis in Patients with Thrombocytopenia. Hamostaseologie. 2022;42(1):19–28. doi: 10.1055/a-1675-7824 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.De A, Rajagopalan M, Sarda A, Das S, Biswas P. Drug Reaction with Eosinophilia and Systemic Symptoms: An Update and Review of Recent Literature. Indian J Dermatol. 2018;63(1):30–40. doi: 10.4103/ijd.IJD_582_17 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Dezoteux F, Staumont-Salle D. DRESS (drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms): a possible prolonged course with sequelae. Eur J Dermatol. 2024;34(6):587–94. doi: 10.1684/ejd.2024.4801 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Vo QT, Thompson DF. A Review and Assessment of Drug-Induced Thrombocytosis. Ann Pharmacother. 2019;53(5):523–36. doi: 10.1177/1060028018819450 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Fusaroli M, Salvo F, Begaud B, AlShammari TM, Bate A, Battini V, et al. The REporting of A Disproportionality Analysis for DrUg Safety Signal Detection Using Individual Case Safety Reports in PharmacoVigilance (READUS-PV): Explanation and Elaboration. Drug Saf. 2024;47(6):585–99. doi: 10.1007/s40264-024-01423-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Ignatius Ivan

8 Oct 2025

Dear Dr. Bian,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 22 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ignatius Ivan, M.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please note that PLOS One has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, we expect all author-generated code to be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

National Key Research and Development Program of China (2020YFC2005500)

Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

NO authors have competing interests

Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests). If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. Thank you for uploading your study's underlying data set. Unfortunately, the repository you have noted in your Data Availability statement does not qualify as an acceptable data repository according to PLOS's standards.

At this time, please upload the minimal data set necessary to replicate your study's findings to a stable, public repository (such as figshare or Dryad) and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. For a list of recommended repositories and additional information on PLOS standards for data deposition, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories .

6. Please remove your figures from within your manuscript file, leaving only the individual TIFF/EPS image files, uploaded separately. These will be automatically included in the reviewers’ PDF.

7. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

8. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

Additional Editor Comments:

1. Methodological Clarity and Reproducibility

Issue: The methods section lacks clarity on the specific R scripts or packages used for data extraction, cleaning, and analysis (e.g., version numbers for openFDA API, R packages for BCPNN/EBGM computation).

Revision Suggestion: Provide detailed methodological transparency by specifying the analytical workflow (R functions or packages), data filters applied, and thresholds for signal detection. This will enhance reproducibility and compliance with pharmacovigilance reporting standards such as the CIOMS VIII guidelines.

2. Lack of Validation Against Comparator Drugs or Negative Controls

Issue: The study focuses solely on Fondaparinux without contextual comparison to similar anticoagulants (e.g., enoxaparin, dalteparin, rivaroxaban). This limits interpretability of the disproportionality signals.

Revision Suggestion: Consider adding a sensitivity analysis or discussion comparing signal magnitude and pattern to a pharmacologically similar agent. This would strengthen claims about the distinct safety profile of Fondaparinux.

3. Overinterpretation of Signal Strength (Causality vs. Association)

Issue: The discussion implies causal relationships (“Fondaparinux may induce HIT” or “should be included in the drug label”), which overstates the inferential capacity of FAERS data.

Revision Suggestion: Revise such statements to emphasize signal detection and hypothesis generation, not causation. A clearer distinction between statistical signal and clinical causality is needed throughout the discussion and conclusion.

4. Limited Consideration of Reporting Bias and Confounding

Issue: Although the paper mentions underreporting and bias briefly, it does not quantify or adjust for these biases. For instance, the large number of reports from consumers versus clinicians (45.91%) may distort clinical signal interpretation.

Revision Suggestion: Expand the Limitations section to discuss confounding by indication, stimulated reporting (e.g., post-ACS approval in 2007), and missing denominator data. Where possible, suggest statistical corrections or triangulation with other data sources (e.g., VigiBase, EudraVigilance).

5. Data Presentation and Consistency Issues

Issue: Figure 2 caption incorrectly refers to “Ambrisentan” instead of “Fondaparinux.” Inconsistent capitalization and redundant labeling also appear in tables and figures.

Revision Suggestion: Conduct thorough proofreading to correct labeling errors and ensure consistency between text, tables, and figures (e.g., Table 2 SOC classification titles, Figure 3 panel descriptions). Ensure all figures are clearly linked to the text narrative and include legends that are self-explanatory.

6. Clinical Interpretation of Rare Events

Issue: The discussion highlights rare events such as abnormal coagulation factor X concentration (n=3) and antiphospholipid syndrome (n=6) as potential novel signals but lacks adequate caution regarding the reliability of such small counts.

Revision Suggestion: Temper conclusions on rare AEs and explicitly discuss false-positive risks due to low event frequency and multiple testing. Emphasize the exploratory nature and the need for prospective validation.

7. Incomplete Integration with Existing Literature and Regulatory Implications

Issue: The discussion is largely descriptive and lacks engagement with contemporary pharmacovigilance literature or prior disproportionality analyses involving Fondaparinux or factor Xa inhibitors.

Revision Suggestion: Strengthen the discussion by comparing current findings with existing post-marketing surveillance studies and FDA/EMA safety updates. Include references on recent data-mining frameworks or label-change precedents to contextualize clinical and regulatory implications.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: This is a disproportionality analysis of the FAERS to identify potential safety signals of fondaparinux. The paper is clear and well-written. Please see below for a few suggestions.

1. The Abstract contains many abbreviations that are not defined (e.g., FAERS, ROR, PRR, BCPNN, EBGM). Ideally these should be defined with first use in both the Abstract and main text.

2. Figure 2 – The incorrect drug (ambrisentan) is listed in the figure title. Please ensure that the data apply to fondaparinux and not to ambrisentan.

3. Fondaparinux is capitalized throughout the manuscript. It should not be capitalized as it is a generic name.

4. Table 1 – For age, please specify what is being shown? Is it a mean or median? Is the range an IQR? Please also define “tto” and “ttoQ” in the table or table legend.

5. The authors write, “…most adverse events in both male and female patients occurred within the first month of treatment…” Would it be more accurate to say, “…within the first month of INITIATING treatment…”?

6. The authors write, “However, it remains necessary to continue safety monitoring throughout the entire treatment period and during the extended follow -up phase, potentially up to one year after drug discontinuation.” I disagree with this sentence. As one would expect, the authors identified bleeding as the main toxicity of fondaparinux. The half-life of fondaparinux is about 18 hours. Thus it is unrealistic to think that fondaparinux could contribute to bleeding more than a few days after stopping. I cannot think of any toxicities, identified by the authors, that could be expected to occur as a result of fondarinux months after it was stopped.

7. It is remarkable that AE reporting for fondaparinux has significantly decreased over the last several years. It would be interesting if the authors speculated as to why this might be. Is it because the drug is no longer new and there is thus less incentive to report adverse effects? Or could it be because it is used far less than it once was, possibly due to increased use of direct oral anticoagulants.

8. It is worth noting that hematologists do not recognize a single disorder called “thrombosis and thrombocytopenia syndrome”. Rather, this is a group of disorders associated with both thrombosis and thrombocytopenia including but not limited to heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, other PF4 disorders such as vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia, antiphospholipid syndrome, disseminated intravascular coagulation, and thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura.

Reviewer #2: The study addresses an important pharmacovigilance question on the safety profile of fondaparinux using FAERS data and multiple disproportionality algorithms (ROR, PRR, BCPNN, EBGM). The dataset is large, spanning 10 years, and the analysis identifies both known and novel safety signals. However, there are significant methodological, interpretational, and presentation issues that limit the scientific rigor and impact.

1. Title of the study should be revised.

2. Introduction is a bit short and avoid redundancy, revise accordingly

3. The manuscript often implies causal links, but FAERS can only generate signals, not establish causality. Stronger disclaimers are needed throughout, revise accordingly for better clarity and impact

4. FAERS reports are prone to underreporting, duplication, missing covariates, and confounding. Although limitations are mentioned, their implications for interpretation are underplayed. Discussion all the issues accordingly throughout the revised manuscript.

5. Cite reference for FAERS in method part.

6. Also cite relevant references in the method part i.e. Medex_UIMA_1.8.3 system, Preferred Terms, (PTs) and System Organ Classes (SOCs) from MedDRA, Reporting Odds Ratio (ROR), Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR), Bayesian Confidence Propagation Neural Network (BCPNN), and Empirical Bayesian Geometric Mean (EBGM) (20-23)

7. The chosen thresholds for disproportionality signals are not fully justified or compared with established best practices. Adjustments for multiple testing are not discussed.

8. Without exposure data (number of patients on fondaparinux), the relative risk cannot be estimated. This limitation should be emphasized more. This issue may cause negative impact on the generalizability of results.

9. Some signals are based on extremely few cases (e.g., abnormal factor X concentration, n=3 ), yet interpreted as meaningful. Such findings lack statistical power and clinical reliability.

10. While interesting, stratified results (age, gender, onset) may reflect reporting bias rather than true pharmacological effects. This caveat is insufficiently acknowledged.

11. The discussion part does not adequately distinguish between well-established adverse events (e.g., bleeding, hematoma) and weak, hypothesis-generating signals.

12. Several figures are descriptive but not critically analyzed. For example, time-to-onset curves are shown but not contextualized clinically.

13. Captions and legends of figures and tables should be standalone and self-explanatory, revise accordingly.

14. Table formatting is not good for publication, revise for better clarity, readership and impact.

15. Claims about “new” adverse events would benefit from a systematic side-by-side comparison with FDA/EMA product labelling.

16. Statements such as recommending monitoring of anti-PF4 antibodies and eosinophils are premature, given the weak evidence base. This is overinterpretation. Revise accordingly.

17. The dataset is dominated by US and European cases, with minimal Asian data . This limitation is noted but should be emphasized earlier.

18. The conclusion suggests changes to labeling and practice, but the evidence presented does not justify such strong recommendations.

19. Several grammatical issues and long sentences reduce readability.

20. The terminology “Adverse drug events” vs. “adverse drug reactions” are used interchangeably—should be standardized.

21. About 30% of reports lacked outcome data , but this important limitation is buried rather than highlighted.

22. Ethical approval required or provide a statement clarifying that ethical approval was not applicable.

Reviewer #3: Hematoma/hemorrhage/hematoma are expected in surgical patients receiving anticoagulants. The FAERS analysis must try to separate background risk (e.g., post-operative bleeding) from drug-specific signal.

At minimum, report how many bleeding/hematoma reports included concomitant heparin/LMWH or warfarin or antiplatelet agents. How many HIT-like and TTS reports had recent/ concurrent heparin exposure? Provide stratified results.

For the HIT-like signals and thrombosis-with-thrombocytopenia, present how many reports had recent heparin exposure or concurrent heparin/LMWH. Without this, attributing HIT to fondaparinux is prematureWhile the study identifies specific adverse events, the small number of reports for certain signals (e.g., abnormal concentrations of coagulation factor X) raises concerns regarding the statistical power and clinical significance of these findings.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Dr Shabana Ali

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviewer Comments PLOS 40001.docx

pone.0342548.s006.docx (15.2KB, docx)
Attachment

Submitted filename: Review Article.docx

pone.0342548.s007.docx (15.2KB, docx)
PLoS One. 2026 Feb 11;21(2):e0342548. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0342548.r003

Author response to Decision Letter 1


20 Nov 2025

Letter to the Editor and Reviewers

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your careful review and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We truly appreciate the time and effort that the editor and the three reviewers have devoted to providing detailed and insightful comments, which have been instrumental in improving the scientific rigor, logical clarity, and international quality of our work.

After receiving the comments, we thoroughly analyzed and addressed each point. The revised manuscript has been substantially improved in research design, data interpretation, and academic presentation. The main revisions and improvements are summarized as follows:

Title and Abstract

The title has been refined for academic precision. All abbreviations (FAERS, ROR, PRR, BCPNN, EBGM) are now defined upon first use in both the Abstract and the main text to enhance clarity.

Methodological Transparency

The FAERS database citation was added, and detailed descriptions of data extraction and cleaning were included. The R packages (with version numbers) used for disproportionality analysis are now specified. Section 2.3 clarifies the rationale for signal detection thresholds with appropriate literature support, ensuring reproducibility and compliance with CIOMS VIII guidelines.

Results and Stratified Analyses

The results section was reorganized for logical consistency. Additional stratified analyses were conducted for reports involving concomitant antiplatelet or anticoagulant exposure to address concerns regarding background surgical bleeding risk.

Discussion Revision

The discussion was extensively restructured to distinguish established anticoagulant related adverse events (e.g., hemorrhage, hematoma) from exploratory or hypothesis generating signals (e.g., HIT like reactions, abnormal factor X concentrations). Overinterpretations were removed, and clearer explanations were added regarding the limitations of FAERS based inference.

Expanded Limitations Section

A dedicated subsection has been expanded to emphasize FAERS limitations, including underreporting, duplication, missing covariates, lack of exposure denominators, reporting bias, and geographic imbalance (predominantly U.S. and European data). Approximately 30% of reports lacked outcome data, which is now explicitly highlighted.

Figures, Tables, and Language Editing

Figure legends and table captions were revised to be self explanatory. Table formats were standardized, and the incorrect drug name in Figure 2 was corrected. The generic name “fondaparinux” is used consistently, and all grammatical and stylistic issues were carefully revised to improve readability.

Ethical Statement and Conclusion

An ethical statement has been added, clarifying that ethical approval was not required because FAERS is a publicly available, de-identified database. The conclusion was rewritten to remove unsupported recommendations, ensuring that the findings are presented cautiously and empirically.

Funder and Competing Interests

We have updated both the Role of Funder and Competing Interests statements as requested, including the required sentence in full.

We believe that these substantial revisions have greatly enhanced the scientific quality, transparency, and overall coherence of the paper. We sincerely thank the editor and reviewers for their detailed and constructive comments, which have guided us in refining the manuscript to its current improved version.

Editor comment 1: Methodological Clarity and Reproducibility

Issue: The methods section lacks clarity on specific R scripts or packages used for data extraction, cleaning, and analysis (e.g., version numbers for openFDA API, R packages for BCPNN/EBGM computation).

Response:

We greatly appreciate the editor’s constructive comment. In the revised manuscript, we have substantially enhanced the transparency and reproducibility of the analytical methods.

Sections 2.2 through 2.6 now provide a detailed description of the entire workflow, including data extraction, cleaning, MedDRA coding, and signal detection. The R version (4.3.0) and all major packages used (dplyr, data.table, epiR, DescTools, bayesAB, openEBGM, and ggplot2) are explicitly listed. The threshold criteria for each algorithm are specified as follows: ROR (lower 95% CI > 1), PRR (≥ 2 with χ² ≥ 4), BCPNN (IC025 > 0), and EBGM (EB05 > 1).

We also clarified that all analyses were executed using fully scripted workflows in R Studio and cross-verified in Microsoft Excel for accuracy. These revisions align with the CIOMS VIII recommendations and ensure full methodological transparency and reproducibility of our study.

Editor comment 2: Lack of Validation Against Comparator Drugs or Negative Controls

Issue: The study focuses solely on fondaparinux without contextual comparison to similar anticoagulants (e.g., enoxaparin, dalteparin, rivaroxaban), limiting interpretability of the disproportionality signals.

Response:

We thank the editor for this valuable and insightful recommendation. In the revised manuscript, we have added and expanded comparative and sensitivity analyses, as presented in Section 3.2.3 “Stratified and comparative analysis across anticoagulant exposures.”

First, a stratified analysis was performed to compare the disproportionality of major adverse events in fondaparinux users with and without concomitant anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy. The significant bleeding signals (hematoma, muscle haemorrhage, and haemorrhage) persisted even after excluding concomitant medications, indicating that these associations were largely independent of polypharmacy.

Second, a comparative disproportionality analysis was conducted across other major anticoagulant classes, including enoxaparin, unfractionated heparin (UFH), and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs: apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban), using identical algorithms (ROR, PRR, BCPNN, EBGM) and detection thresholds. The results showed consistent positive bleeding signals across all anticoagulants, confirming a class- wide effect, whereas HIT related signals were observed only for fondaparinux and UFH, suggesting drug specific associations.

These additions have been incorporated into both the Results and Discussion sections, supported by relevant literature and regulatory references, thereby strengthening the interpretability and robustness of our findings.

Editor comment 3: Overinterpretation of Signal Strength (Causality vs. Association)

Issue: The Discussion implies causal relationships (e.g., “fondaparinux may induce HIT” or label change suggestions), which exceeds what FAERS data can support.

Response:

We sincerely appreciate the editor’s valuable observation. The Discussion and Conclusion have been thoroughly reviewed and revised to avoid implying causality:

All potentially causal expressions were rewritten into statistical association or signal based language—for example, “may induce” was replaced with “was associated with HIT like reactions,” and these were explicitly defined as case report level and hypothesis generating findings;

Sentences suggesting label changes or recommendations beyond the strength of evidence were removed;

We added explicit statements at the beginning of Section 4 (Discussion) and in Section 4.5 (Limitations) clarifying that FAERS is intended for disproportionality signal detection and hypothesis generation, not causal inference;

Phrases that might imply causality (e.g., “likely pharmacologically driven,” “underscore the importance of… monitoring”) were replaced with more cautious wording such as “may reflect pharmacologic plausibility” and “support prioritizing monitoring as an exploratory signal”;

In the TTO (Section 4.4) and Rare events (Section 4.3) subsections, we included explicit cautionary statements such as “should be interpreted cautiously” and “should be regarded as exploratory and hypothesis generating,” emphasizing that these observations are exploratory and warrant further validation.

These revisions ensure that all interpretations are scientifically cautious, aligned with the evidentiary boundaries of FAERS data, and consistent across the manuscript.

Editor comment 4: Limited Consideration of Reporting Bias and Confounding

Issue: Although reporting bias is briefly mentioned, the manuscript does not adequately address consumer reporting proportion, indication confounding, or the lack of exposure denominators.

Response:

We appreciate the editor’s valuable feedback. The Limitations section (Section 4.5) has been expanded to provide a more thorough discussion of potential reporting bias and confounding factors. The key additions include:

Reporting source imbalance: Approximately 45.91% of reports were submitted by consumers, which may affect data accuracy and clinical interpretation;

Indication confounding and background risk: Because fondaparinux is frequently administered for postoperative thromboprophylaxis, bleeding events may be partly attributable to surgical factors rather than drug specific effects. We have added a statement acknowledging that residual confounding may remain even after excluding concomitant anticoagulants or antiplatelet agents;

Lack of exposure denominators: We noted that FAERS lacks patient level exposure data, making it impossible to calculate absolute incidence or risk; the present findings therefore represent disproportionality signals rather than measures of relative risk;

Geographic imbalance and external validation: The dataset is dominated by U.S. and European reports, with minimal Asian data. We recommend future studies to triangulate findings using multiple pharmacovigilance databases such as VigiBase and EudraVigilance to enhance external validity.

These revisions provide a more comprehensive and balanced acknowledgment of potential reporting bias and confounding within the study limitations.

Editor comment 5: Data Presentation and Consistency Issues

Issue: Figure 2 caption incorrectly refers to “Ambrisentan” instead of “Fondaparinux.” Inconsistent capitalization and redundant labeling also appear in tables and figures.

Response:

We sincerely thank the editor for this meticulous observation. All figures and tables have been carefully proofread and revised for consistency:

Correction of figure titles: The caption of Figure 2 has been corrected from “Ambrisentan” to “Fondaparinux,” and all figure titles have been verified for accuracy;

Terminology and formatting standardization: Abbreviations such as SOC (System Organ Class), PT (Preferred Term), and TTO (Time to Onset) have been consistently defined and explained within the figure legends;

Improved self explanatory legends: Each figure and table (Figures 1–5, Tables 1–4) now includes a complete and standalone legend, ensuring they can be interpreted independently of the main text;

Text–figure alignment: Cross references in the text (e.g., “Figure 3 visualizes …,” “Figure 4 illustrates …”) were checked for full correspondence with figure content.

These revisions enhance the accuracy, readability, and overall presentation quality of the manuscript.

Editor comment 6: Clinical Interpretation of Rare Events

Issue: The discussion highlights rare events such as abnormal coagulation factor X concentration (n = 3) and antiphospholipid syndrome (n = 6) as potential novel signals but lacks adequate caution regarding the reliability of such small counts.

Response:

We thank the editor for this thoughtful and important comment. The relevant text in Section 4.3 “Rare reports” has been carefully revised to ensure cautious interpretation of rare signals.

All findings based on very limited numbers of cases (e.g., abnormal coagulation factor X concentration, thrombosis with thrombocytopenia, antiphospholipid syndrome, eosinophilia, thrombocytosis) are now explicitly described as exploratory or hypothesis generating.

We added qualifying statements such as “should be interpreted cautiously” and “should be regarded as exploratory and hypothesis generating” to emphasize that these results are preliminary and require further validation.

These revisions ensure that the discussion accurately reflects the statistical and exploratory nature of FAERS data while maintaining scientific caution.

Editor comment 7: Incomplete Integration with Existing Literature and Regulatory Implications

Issue: The discussion lacks engagement with prior pharmacovigilance studies and regulatory updates from FDA or EMA, limiting the contextual and regulatory interpretation of the findings.

Response:

We appreciate the editor’s valuable recommendation. In the revised manuscript, we have strengthened the integration with existing literature and regulatory information, particularly in Section 4.2 and the closing paragraphs of the Discussion.

Comparison with prior studies: Additional discussion was added comparing our findings with previous pharmacovigilance analyses (e.g., Frontiers in Oncology, 2023), showing that the identified hematologic and bleeding signals for fondaparinux are consistent with earlier postmarketing observations;

Inclusion of regulatory information: References to the 2024 FDA prescribing information and the 2024 EMA EPAR (Product Information for Arixtra) were incorporated to highlight that both agencies list haemorrhage and thrombocytopenia in fondaparinux’s safety labeling and recommend renal function monitoring;

Class level context: We noted the alignment between fondaparinux and other factor Xa inhibitors in terms of safety profile and regulatory labeling, reinforcing the external validity of our findings;

Avoidance of overinterpretation: Statements proposing label modification or clinical changes were removed, ensuring that our conclusions focus on pharmacovigilance observation rather than regulatory action.

These revisions enhance the manuscript’s scholarly depth, align it with current regulatory knowledge, and strengthen the contextual interpretation of the findings.

Reviewer 1 – Comment 1

Comment:

The Abstract contains many abbreviations that are not defined (e.g., FAERS, ROR, PRR, BCPNN, EBGM). Ideally these should be defined with first use in both the Abstract and main text.

Response:

We thank the reviewer for this helpful suggestion. In the revised manuscript, all abbreviations have been clearly defined at their first appearance in both the Abstract and the main text. Specifically, the following definitions were added: FAERS = FDA Adverse Event Reporting System; ROR = Reporting Odds Ratio; PRR = Proportional Reporting Ratio; BCPNN = Bayesian Confidence Propagation Neural Network; and EBGM = Empirical Bayes Geometric Mean. These clarifications improve the readability and precision of the manuscript.

Reviewer 1 – Comment 2

Comment:

Figure 2 – The incorrect drug (ambrisentan) is listed in the figure title. Please ensure that the data apply to fondaparinux and not to ambrisentan.

Response:

We appreciate the reviewer’s careful observation. All data have been verified to correspond exclusively to fondaparinux. The caption of Figure 2 has been corrected from “Ambrisentan” to “Fondaparinux,” and the figure legend and corresponding text references have been updated accordingly.

Reviewer 1 – Comment 3

Comment:

Fondaparinux is capitalized throughout the manuscript. It should not be capitalized as it is a generic name.

Response:

Thank you for noting this. All occurrences of “Fondaparinux” have been changed to lowercase “fondaparinux,” and capitalization has been standardized for all generic drug names throughout the manuscript.

Reviewer 1 – Comment 4

Comment:

Table 1 – For age, please specify what is being shown? Is it a mean or median? Is the range an IQR? Please also define “tto” and “ttoQ” in the table or table legend.

Response:

We appreciate this helpful comment. In the revised Table 1, the data presentation has been clarified. Continuous variables such as Age (years) and Time to onset (days) are now explicitly expressed as median (interquartile range, IQR), as stated in the table footnote. The previous abbreviations “TTO” and “TTOQ” have been removed to improve readability and ensure consistency across the manuscript.

Reviewer 1 — Comment 5

Comment �

“The authors write, ‘…most adverse events in both male and female

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_auresp_1.docx

pone.0342548.s009.docx (48.1KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Ignatius Ivan

15 Dec 2025

Dear Dr. Bian,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 29 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

  • A letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ignatius Ivan, M.D

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Thank you to the authors for their thoughtful responses and revisions. I have only minor suggestions remaining:

1. Abstract – Define PT with first use

2. Results, “The age distribution of reporters showed that the majority were over 65 years old…” – I assume you mean the age distribution of patients on which reports were filed (not the age distribution of reporters).

3. Thank you for de-capitalizing fondaparinux. However, there are some instances where “fondaparinux” is the first word in a sentence and should therefore be capitalized.

Reviewer #2: I have no further suggestions for improvement. The manuscript is now improved. If the other reviewers also agrees, the manuscript can be considered for publication

Best Regards.

Reviewer #3: The authors have addressed almost all the queries raised by the reviewer. There are none of the queries remaining unanswered.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Prof Dr Shabana Ali

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

PLoS One. 2026 Feb 11;21(2):e0342548. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0342548.r005

Author response to Decision Letter 2


16 Dec 2025

We thank the Academic Editor and all reviewers for their careful evaluation and constructive comments. We have revised the manuscript accordingly. Specifically, we have defined Preferred Term (PT) at its first occurrence in the Abstract, corrected the wording in the Results section to clarify that the age distribution refers to patients rather than reporters, and ensured that “Fondaparinux” is capitalized when it appears at the beginning of a sentence. All comments raised by the reviewers have been fully addressed, and the manuscript has been carefully revised for clarity and consistency.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_auresp_2.docx

pone.0342548.s010.docx (12.2KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Ignatius Ivan

26 Jan 2026

Disproportionality Analysis of Fondaparinux Associated Adverse Events Based on the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System

PONE-D-25-40001R2

Dear Dr. Yuan Bian

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Ignatius Ivan, M.D

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Ignatius Ivan

PONE-D-25-40001R2

PLOS One

Dear Dr. Bian,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS One. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

dr. Ignatius Ivan

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Methodological details for disproportionality analyses, including contingency table framework and formulas for ROR, PRR, BCPNN, and EBGM.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0342548.s001.docx (18.7KB, docx)
    S2 File. Complete disproportionality results for fondaparinux associated Preferred Terms (PTs) in the FAERS database.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0342548.s002.xlsx (34.5KB, xlsx)
    S3 File. Comparative disproportionality analysis of major bleeding and HIT related adverse events across anticoagulant classes.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0342548.s003.docx (17.3KB, docx)
    S4 File. Age stratified disproportionality results for fondaparinux associated Preferred Terms (PTs) in FAERS.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0342548.s004.xlsx (50.7KB, xlsx)
    S5 File. Demographic characteristics, geographic distribution, comorbidities, and concomitant medication profiles of fondaparinux associated FAERS reports.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0342548.s005.xlsx (31.8KB, xlsx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0342548.s008.docx (10.7KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Reviewer Comments PLOS 40001.docx

    pone.0342548.s006.docx (15.2KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Review Article.docx

    pone.0342548.s007.docx (15.2KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_auresp_1.docx

    pone.0342548.s009.docx (48.1KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_auresp_2.docx

    pone.0342548.s010.docx (12.2KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All data is publicly available on the FDA website (https://fis.fda.gov/extensions/FPD-QDE FAERS/FPD-QDE-FAERS.html). The data and code supporting the findings of this study are available in the Figshare repository. The data can be accessed at https://figshare.com/articles/30630713, and the code can be found at https://figshare.com/articles/30630977.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES