Detecting rare adverse events in postmarketing studies: Sample size considerations

Drug Information Journal

Volumn 40, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 89-98

  Wu, Yu Te ^a   Makuch, Robert W ^a  

^a YALE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Adverse drug reaction; External control; Postmarketing study; Sample size; Two group prospective cohort study

Indexed keywords

NEW DRUG;

ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; COHORT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; DRUG MARKETING; DRUG SAFETY; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HUMAN; INCIDENCE; METHODOLOGY; POSTMARKETING SURVEILLANCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RARE DISEASE; SAMPLE (STATISTICS); SAMPLING; SIDE EFFECT; UNSPECIFIED SIDE EFFECT;

EID: 33244455464     PISSN: 00928615     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/009286150604000111     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Meyboom RHB. Good practice in the post-marketing surveillance of medicines. Pharm World Sci. 1997;19:186-190.
2. Lazarou J, Pomeranz BH, Corey PN. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. JAMA 1998;279:1200-1205.
3. CDER 2003 report to the nation. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/cder/ reports/RTN2003.pdf. July 2004.
4. Glazner FS. Adverse drug reactions. In: Melmon KL, Morrelli HF, Hoffman BB, Nierenberg DW, eds. Clinical Pharmacology, Basic Principles in Therapeutics, 3rd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 1992:977-1011.
5. US Food and Drug Administration Concept Paper: Risk Assessment of Observational Data: Good Pharmacovigilance Practices and Pharmacoepidemiologic Assessment. March 3, 2003. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/cder/meeting/ riskManageIII.htm.
6. Fletcher AP. Spontaneous adverse drug reaction reporting versus event monitoring: a comparison. J R Soc Med. 1991;84:341-344.
7. Finney DJ. Statistical aspects of monitoring for dangers in drug therapy. Methods Inf Med. 1971;10:1-8.
8. Goldman SA. Limitations and strengths of spontaneous reports data. Clin Ther. Suppl C. 1998;20:40-44.
9. Green DM. Pre-existing conditions, placebo reactions, and "side-effects." Ann Intern Med. 1964;60:255-265.
10. Reidenberg MM, Lowenthal DT. Adverse nondrug reactions. N Engl J Med. 1968;279:678-679.
11. Scott HD, Rosenbaum SE, Waters WJ. Rhode Island physicians reporting of adverse drug reactions. R J Med J. 1987;70:311-336.
12. Sachs RM, Bortnichak EA. An evaluation of spontaneous adverse drug reaction monitoring systems. Am J Med. 1986;81(suppl 5B):49-55.
13. Begaud B, Moride Y, Tubert-Bitter P. False-positives in spontaneous reporting: should we worry about them? Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1994;38:401-404.
14. Joint Committee of ABPI, BMA, CSM, and RCGP. Guidelines on postmarketing surveillance. BMJ. 1988;296:399-400.
15. Waller PC, Wood SM, Langman MJS, Breckenridge AM, Rawlins MD. Review of company postmarketing surveillance studies. BMJ. 1992;304:1470-1472.
16. Guidelines for company-sponsored Safety Assessment of Marketed Medicines (SAMM guidelines). Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1994;38:95-97.
17. Pocock SJ. The combination of randomized and historical controls in clinical trials. J Chronic Dis. 1976;29:175-188.
18. Makuch RW, Simon RM. Sample size consideration for non-randomized comparative studies. J Chronic Dis. 1980;33:175-181.
19. Thall PF, Simon RM. Incorporating historical control data in planning phase II clinical trials. Stat Med. 1990;9:215-228.
20. O'Malley AJ, Normand S-LT, Kuntz RE. Sample size calculation for a historically controlled clinical trial with adjustment for covariates. J Biopharm Stat. 2002;12:227-247.
21. Tubert-Bitter P, Begaud B, Moride Y, Abenhaim L. Sample size calculations for single groups postmarketing cohort studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 1994;47:435-439.
22. Gail M. Power computations for designing comparative Poisson trials. Biometrics. 1974;30:231-237.
23. Shiue W-K, Bain LJ. Experiment size and power comparisons for two-sample Poisson tests. Appl Stat. 1982;31:130-134.
24. Thode CH. Power and sample size requirements for tests of differences between two Poisson rates. Statistician. 1997;46:227-230.