Abstract
Background
Safety surveillance relies on mining of large pharmacovigilance (PV) databases to generate insights regarding the safe use of pharmaceutical products. The predominant approach to PV data mining involves computation of disproportionality scores for drug-adverse event (drug-AE) pairs. However, this approach requires a database to be sufficiently large, sufficiently diverse for the analysis to be reliably sensitive and specific, and fails to consider the particular safety profile of a product.
Objective
The present study proposes and tests a novel, frequency-based approach to PV data mining that (1) leverages product knowledge and historical drug-AE trends and (2) imposes no requirement for the size and diversity of the database to which it is applied.
Method
A focus group of physicians and scientists was convened to identify quantitative characteristics of data trends that they consider informative when reviewing counts of adverse events for products under surveillance. Feedback was transferred into a series of decision rules that, when applied to adverse event counts, identifies adverse event trends that are classified as Continuing Trend, Emerging Trend, or No Trend. Regression analyses are completed to verify the presence of a linear trend; and categorical measures of association completed to compare this frequency-based approach to disproportionality scores in a simulated database.
Results
A significant, positive linear trend is present for the Continuing Trend and Emerging Trend categories (P <.0001). There is a significant association between trend categorizations and disproportionality scores (P <.0001). Conclusion: The proposed alternative frequency-based method for PV data mining would be useful where disproportionalities scores are not appropriate. Additionally, this method may be useful in conjunction with disproportionality scores, where appropriate, highlighting adverse events that are both reported disproportionately and have increasing trends.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Frisén M. Methods and evaluations for surveillance in industry, business, finance, and public health. Q Reliabil Eng Int. 2011;27:611–621.
Harpaz R, DuMouchel W, LePendu P, Bauer-Mehren A, Ryan P, Shah NH. Performance of pharmacovigilance signal-detection algorithms for the FDA adverse event reporting system. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2013;93:539–546.
Hauben M, Madigan D, Gerrits CM, Walsh L, Van Puijenbroek EP. The role of data mining in pharmacovigilance. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2005;4:929–948.
Chan KA, Hauben M. Signal detection in pharmacovigilance: empirical evaluation of data mining tools. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2005;14:597–599.
Bate A, Evans SJ. Quantitative signal detection using spontaneous ADR reporting. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2009;18:427–436.
Quattrini G, Zambon A, Simoni L, Fiori G. Disproportionality measures used in signal detection: an assessment on pharmacovigilance adverse event reporting system data. Value Health. 2015;18:A720.
Hauben M, Zhou X. Quantitative methods in pharmacovigilance. Drug Saf. 2003;26:159–186.
Almenoff JS, LaCroix KK, Yuen NA, Fram D, DuMouchel W. Comparative performance of two quantitative safety signalling methods: implications for use in a pharmacovigilance department. Drug Saf. 2006;29:875–887.
Hauben M, Zhou X. Quantitative methods in pharmacovigilance: focus on signal detection. Drug Saf. 2003;26:159–186.
Jokinen JD. Determination of change in online monitoring of longitudinal data: An evaluation of methodologies [dissertation]. Athens, OH: Ohio University; 2015.
Caster O, Juhlin K, Watson S, Noren GN. Improved statistical signal detection in pharmacovigilance by combining multiple strength-of-evidence aspects in vigiRank. Drug Saf. 2014;37:617–628.
Levitan B, Yee C, Russo L, Bayney R, Thomas A, Klincewicz S. A model for decision support in signal triage. Drug Saf. 2008;31:727–735.
Stahl M, Lindquist M, Edwards IR, Brown EG. Introducing triage logic as a new strategy for the detection of signals in the WHO Drug Monitoring Database. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2004;13:355–363.
McCave I, Syvitski JP. Principles and methods of geological particle size analysis. In: Syvitski JP, ed. Principles, Methods and Application of Particle Size Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1991:3–21.
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;10:483–486.
European Medicines Agency. Guideline on good pharmacovigilance practices (GVP) Module IX Addendum I—methodological aspects of signal detection from spontaneous reports of suspected adverse reactions 2016. Updated August 4, 2016. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Regulatory_and_procedural_guideline/2016/08/WC500211715.pdf. Accessed September 22, 2016.
Reyna VF, Brainerd CJ. Numeracy, ratio bias, and denominator neglect in judgments of risk and probability. Learn Indiv Differ. 2008;18:89–107.
Bergvall T, Noren GN, Lindquist M. vigiGrade: a tool to identify well-documented individual case reports and highlight systematic data quality issues. Drug Saf. 2014;37:65–77.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Jokinen, J.D., Lievano, F., Scarazzini, L. et al. An Alternative to Disproportionality: A Frequency-Based Method for Pharmacovigilance Data Mining. Ther Innov Regul Sci 52, 294–299 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479017728986
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479017728986