Novel statistical tools for monitoring the safety of marketed drugs

Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics

Volumn 82, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 157-166

  Almenoff, J S ^a   Pattishall, E N ^a   Gibbs, T G ^b   DuMouchel, W ^c   Evans, S J W ^d   Yuen, N ^a  

^a GLAXOSMITHKLINE   (United States)

^b GLAXOSMITHKLINE   (United Kingdom)

^c Lincoln Technologies (A Subsidiary of Phase Forward Inc)   (United States)

^d LONDON SCHOOL OF HYGIENE AND TROPICAL MEDICINE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALLOPURINOL; AZATHIOPRINE; VACCINE;

BAYES THEOREM; CLINICAL PRACTICE; DATA BASE; DATA MINING; DRUG MANUFACTURE; DRUG MARKETING; DRUG MONITORING; DRUG SAFETY; DRUG SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM; HUMAN; LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MEDICAL RECORD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SIGNAL DETECTION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

ADVERSE DRUG REACTION REPORTING SYSTEMS; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; DRUG INFORMATION SERVICES; DRUG MONITORING; HUMANS; PRODUCT SURVEILLANCE, POSTMARKETING;

EID: 34447520376     PISSN: 00099236     EISSN: 15326535     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/sj.clpt.6100258     Document Type: Review

References (74)

1. Griffin, J.P. Pharmacovigilance. J. R. Coll. Physicians London 26, 197-198 (1992).
2. Amery, W.K. Why there is a need for pharmacovigilance. Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. 8, 61-64 (1999).
3. Committee on Safety of Drugs Report for 1969, (HMSO, London, 1971).
4. Rawlins, M.D., Fracchia, G.N. & Rodriguez-Farre, E. EURO-ADR: pharmacovigilance and research. A European perspective. Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. 1, 261-268 (1992).
5. Meyboom, R.H.B. et al. Principles of signal detection in pharmacovigilance. Drug Saf. 16, 355-365 (1997a).
6. Meyboom, R.H.B., Hekster, Y.A., Egberts, A.C.G., Gribnau, F.W.J. & Edwards, I.R. Causal or casual? The role of causality assessment in pharmacovigilance. Drug Saf. 17, 374-389 (1997b).
7. Davis, S., King, B. & Raine, J.M. Spontaneous reporting - UK. In Pharmacovigilance, 2nd edn. (eds. Mann, R.D. & Andrews, E.B.) Ch. 15 (John Wiley & Sons Ltd, West Sussex, 2007).
8. CIOMS Working Group VI. Management of Safety Information from Clinical Trials, (WHO, Geneva, 2005).
9. Auriche, M. & Loupi, E. Does proof of causality ever exist in pharmacovigilance? Drug Saf. 9, 230-235 (1993).
10. Hill, A.B. The environment and disease: association or causation? Proc. R. Soc. Med. 58, 295-300 (1965).
11. Wysowski, D.K. & Swartz, L. Adverse drug event surveillance and drug withdrawals in the United States, 1969-2002: the importance of reporting suspected reactions. Arch. Int. Med. 165, 1363-1369 (2005).
12. Moore, T.J., Psaty, B.M. & Furberg, C.D. Time to act on drug safety. JAMA 279, 1571-1573 (1998).
13. Food and Drug Administration. FDA proposes to withdraw Seldane approval. FDA Talk Paper, (13 January 1997), http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/ANSWERS/ ANS00780.html (accessed 18 May 2007).
14. Venulet, J. Possible strategies for early recognition of potential drug safety problems. Adverse Drug React. Acute Poisoning Rev. 1, 39-47 (1988).
15. Kennedy, D.L., Goldman, S.A. & Lillie, R.B. Spontaneous reporting in the United States. In Pharmacoepidemiology 3rd edn. (ed. Strom, B.L.) 151-174 (John Wiley & Sons Ltd, West Sussex, 2000).
16. Szarfman, A., Machado, S.G. & O'Neill, R.T. Use of screening algorithms and computer systems to efficiently signal higher than expected combinations of drugs and events in the US FDA's spontaneous reports database. Drug Saf. 25, 381-392 (2002).
17. Lindquist, M., Ståhl, M., Bate, A., Edwards, I.R. & Meyboom, R.H.B. A retrospective evaluation of a data mining approach to aid finding new adverse drug reaction signals in the WHO international database. Drug Saf. 23, 533-542 (2000).
18. Almenoff, J. et al. Perspectives in the use of data mining in pharmacovigilance. Drug Saf. 28, 981-1007 (2005).
19. Evans, S.J.W., Waller, P.C. & Davis, S. Use of proportional reporting ratios (PRRs) for signal generation from spontaneous adverse drug reaction reports. Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. 10, 483-486 (2001).
20. Van Puijenbroek, E.P., Diemont, W.L. & van Grootheest, K. Application of quantitative signal detection in the Dutch spontaneous reporting system for adverse drug reactions. Drug Saf. 26, 293-301 (2003).
21. Purcell, P. & Barty, S. Statistical techniques for signal generation. The Australian experience. Drug Saf. 25, 415-421 (2002).
22. Bate, A. et al. A Bayesian neural network method for adverse drug reaction signal generation. Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 54, 315-321 (1998).
23. Goldkind, L. Hepatotoxicity: Leflunomide. FDA Arthritis Advisory Committee 2003 March, http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/03/slides/ 3930S2_05_FDA-Goldkind.ppt#5 (accessed 23 April 2007).
24. Szarfman, A. & Levine, J. NDA 21-144, Ketek (telithromycin) 400mg tablets® (Sanofi-Aventis): data mining analysis of AEs and outcomes reported for telithromycin and 15 comparator drugs (AERS data), http://www.fda.gov/ ohrms/dockets/ac/06/briefing/2006-4266b1-00-index.htm (accessed 3 April 2007).
25. Almenoff, J.S. et al. Online signal management: a systems-based approach that delivers new analytical capabilities and operational efficiency to the practice of pharmacovigilance. Drug Info. J. (in press).
26. Niu, M.T., Erwin, D.E. & Braun, M.M. Datamining in the US vaccine adverse event reporting system: early detection of intussusception and other events after rota virus vaccine. Vaccine 19, 4627-4634 (2001).
27. Gould, A.L. Practical pharmacovigilance analysis strategies. Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. 12, 559-574 (2003).
28. Lehman, H.P. et al. An evaluation of computer-aided disproportionality analysis for post-marketing signal detection. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 8 (2007) (in press).
29. Almenoff, J., LaCroix, K., Yuen, N., Fram, D. & DuMouchel, W. Comparative performance of two quantitative signal detection methods: implications for use in a pharmacovigilance department. Drug Saf. 29, 875-887 (2006).
30. Szarfman, A., Tonning, J.M. & Murali, D.P. Pharmacovigilance in the 21st century: new systematic tools for an old problem. Pharmacotherapy 24, 1099-1104 (2004).
31. O'Neill, R. & Szarfman, A. Some US Food and Drug Administration perspectives on data mining for pediatric safety assessment. Curr. Ther. Res. 62, 650-663 (2001).
32. Lindquist, M. The WHO Adverse Reaction Database Uppsala Monitoring Centre, May 2004: 1-9. http://www.who-umc.org/DynPage.aspx?id=30480&mn=2126 (accessed 29 March 2007).
33. Wagner, H.G., Simoen, O. & Buxton, T. The European System for Monitoring Drug Safety, EudraVigilance (version 1.0). www.lexjansen.com/ phuse/2005/rc/rc07.pdf. (accessed 3 April 2007).
34. Eudravigilance Expert Working Group. Guideline on the Use of Statistical Signal Detection Methods in the Eudravigilance Data Analysis System (2006). http://www.emea.europa.eu/pdfs/human/phvwp/10646406en.pdf (accessed 11 April 2007).
35. Wiholm, B., Olsson, S., Moore, N. & Waller, P. Spontaneous reporting systems outside the US. In Pharmacoepidemiology (ed. Strom, B.L.) 175-192 (John Wiley & Sons, West Sussex, 2000).
36. van Puijenbroek, E.P. et al. A comparison of measures of disproportionality for signal detection in spontaneous reporting systems for adverse drug reactions. Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. 11, 3-10 (2002).
37. Finney, D.J. Systematic signalling of adverse reactions to drugs. Meth. Inf. Med. 13, 1-10 (1974).
38. Patwary, K.W. Report on Statistical Aspects of the Pilot Research Project for International Drug Monitoring, 67-76, (WHO, Geneva, 1969).
39. DuMouchel, W. Bayesian data mining in large frequency tables, with an application to the FDA spontaneous reporting system (with discussion). Am. Stat. 53, 177-202 (1999).
40. DuMouchel, W. & Pregibon, D. Empirical Bayes screening for multi-item associations. In 7th ACM SigKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 67-76, (ACM Press, San Francisco, 2001).
41. Solomon, R. & DuMouchel, W. Contrast media and nephropathy: findings from systematic analysis and food and drug administration reports of adverse effects. Invest. Radiol. 41, 651-660 (2006).
42. Genkin, A., Lewis, D.D. & Madigan, D. BBR: Bayesian Logistic Regression Software, http://www.stat.rutgers.edu/~madigan/BBR/ (accessed 23 April 2007).
43. Hastie, T., Tibshirini, R. & Friedman, J. The Elements of Statistical Learning, (Springer, New York, 2001).
44. CIOMS Working Group III. Guidelines for preparing core safety clinical information on drugs. Report of CIOMS Working Group III, (WHO, Geneva, 1994).
45. US Dept of Health & Human Services, Food & Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry Good Pharmacovigilance Practices and Pharmacoepidemiologic Assessment. http://www.fda.gov/Cder/guidance/6359OCC. htm (accessed 10 April 2007).
46. Committee on the Assessment of the US Drug Safety System Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice. The Future of Drug Safety Promoting and Protecting the Health of the Public (eds. Baciu, A., Stratton, K. & Burke, S.P.) 110-114 (The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2007).
47. Hauben, M. A brief primer on automated signal detection. Ann. Pharmacother. 37, 1117-1123 (2005).
48. Waller, P., Heeley, E. & Moseley, J. Impact analysis of signals detected from spontaneous adverse drug reaction reporting data. Drug Saf. 28, 843-850 (2005).
49. Szarfman, A., Tonning, J.M. & Doraiswamy, P.M. Pharmacovigilance in the 21st century: new systematic tools for an old problem. Pharmacotherapy 24, 1099-1104 (2004).
50. Stahl, M., Lindquist, M., Edwards, I.R. & Brown, E.G. Introducing triage logic as a new strategy for the detection of signals in the WHO drug monitoring database. Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. 13, 355-363 (2004).
51. Yuen, N., Almenoff, J., DuMouchel, W., Yang, X. & LaCroix, K.K. Disproportionality analysis to explore patient and treatment related factors associated with adverse events. Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. 13, S259-S260 (2004).
52. Fram, D.M., Almenoff, J. & DuMouchel, W. Empirical Bayesian data mining for discovering patterns in post-marketing drug safety. Proc. Knowledge Discov. Data Proc. KDD 359-368 (2003).
53. Martin, U. & George, C. Drugs and the elderly. In Pharmacovigilance, (eds. Mann R.D. & Andrews E.B.) 77-95 (John Wiley & Sons, West Sussex, 2002).
54. Pirmohamed, M. et al. Adverse drug reactions as cause of admission to hospital: prospective analysis of 18820 patients. BMJ 329, 15-19 (2004).
55. Almenoff, J.S., DuMouchel, W., Kindman, L.A., Yang, X. & Fram, D. Disproportionality analysis using empirical Bayes data mining: a tool for the evaluation of drug interactions in the post-marketing setting. Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. 12, 517-521 (2003).
56. Yang, X. & Fram, D.M. Using disproportional analysis as a tool to explore severe drug-drug interactions in AERS database [abstract]. Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. 13, S1-S334 (2004).
57. Murrell, G.A. & Rapeport, W.G. Clinical pharmacokinetics of allopurinol. Clin. Pharmacokinet. 11, 343-353 (1986).
58. Noren, G.N., Bate, A., Orre, R. & Edwards, I.R. Extending the methods used to screen the WHO drug safety database towards analysis of complex associations and improved accuracy for rare events. Stat. Med. 25, 3740-3757 (2006).
59. Lindquist, M. Data quality management in pharmacovigilance. Drug Saf. 27, 857-870 (2004).
60. Maintenance and Support Services Organization (MSSO). Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA), http://www.meddramsso.com. (accessed 12 April 2007).
61. Brown, E.G. Using MedDRA. Implications for risk management. Drug Saf. 27, 591-602 (2004).
62. Bousquet, C. et al. Appraisal of the MedDRA conceptual structure for describing and grouping adverse drug reactions. Drug Saf. 28, 19-34 (2005).
63. Maintenance and Support Services Organization (MSSO). Standardized MedDRA Queries, http://www.meddramsso.com. (accessed 12 April 2007).
64. Berry, S.M. & Berry, D.A. Accounting for multiplicities in assessing drug safety: a three-level hierarchical mixture model. Biometrics 60, 418-426 (2004).
65. Noren, G.N., Orre, R., Bate, A. & Edwards, I.R. Duplicate detection in adverse drug reaction surveillance. Data Mining Knowledge Discov. 14, 305-328 (2007).
66. Roux, E., Thiessard, F., Fourrier, A., Begaud, B. & Tubert-Bitter, P. Evaluation of statistical association measures for the automatic signal generation in pharmacovigilance. IEEE Transac. Info. Technol. Biomed. 9, 518-527 (2005).
67. Evans, S.J.W. Statistics: analysis and presentation of safety data. In Stephens' Detection of New Adverse Reactions, 5th edn. (eds. Talbot, J. & Waller, P.) 301-328 (John Wiley & Sons Ltd, West Sussex, 2002).
68. Mantel, N. & Haenszel, W. Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. J. Nat. Cancer Inst. 22, 719-748 (1959).
69. Wacholder, S., Chanock, S., Garcia-Closas, M., El Ghormli, L. & Rothman, N. Assessing the probability that a positive report is false: an approach for molecular epidemiology studies. J. Nat. Cancer Inst. 96, 434-442 (2004).
70. Hauben, M. & Reich, L. Potential utility of data-mining algorithms for early detection of potentially fatal/disabling adverse drug reactions: a retrospective evaluation. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 45, 378 (2005).
71. Bate, A. et al. Data-mining analyses of pharmacovigilance signals in relation to relevant comparison drugs. Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 58, 483-490 (2002).
72. Wood, L. & Martinez, C. The general practice research database: role in pharmacovigilance. Drug Saf. 27, 871-881 (2004).
73. Velentgas, P., West, W., Cannuscio, C.C., Watson, D.J. & Walker, A.M. Cardiovascular risk of selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors and other non-asprin non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medications. Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. 15, 641-652 (2006).
74. Berlowitz, D.R. et al. Differential associations of beta-blockers with hemorrhagic events for chronic heart failure patients on warfarin. Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. 15, 799-807 (2006).