Significance of data mining in routine signal detection: Analysis based on the safety signals identified by the FDA

被引:42
作者
Fukazawa, Chisato [1 ,2 ]
Hinomura, Yasushi [2 ]
Kaneko, Masayuki [1 ]
Narukawa, Mamoru [1 ]
机构
[1] Kitasato Univ, Grad Sch Pharmaceut Sci, Dept Clin Med Pharmaceut Med, Tokyo, Japan
[2] Japan Pharmaceut Informat Ctr, Tokyo, Japan
关键词
data mining; signal detection; spontaneous reports; routine pharmacovigilance; pharmacoepidemiology;
D O I
10.1002/pds.4672
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
Purpose Data mining has been introduced as one of the most useful methods for signal detection by spontaneous reports, but data mining is not always effective in detecting all safety issues. To investigate appropriate situations in which data mining is effective in routine signal detection activities, we analyzed the characteristics of signals that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) identified from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS). Methods Among the signals that the FDA identified from the FAERS between 2008 1Q and 2014 4Q, we selected 233 signals to evaluate in this study. We conducted a disproportionality analysis and classified these signals into two groups according to the presence or absence of statistical significance in the reporting odds ratio (ROR). Then, we compared the two groups based on the characteristics of the suspected drugs and adverse events (AEs). Results Safety signals were most frequently identified for new drugs that had been on the market for less than 5 years, but some signals were still identified for old drugs (>= 20 years), and most of them were statistically significant. The proportion of the signals for "serious" events was significantly higher in the group of nonsignals by ROR (Fisher's exact test, P = 0.032). Conclusions Data mining was shown to be effective in the following situations: (1) early detection of safety issues for newly marketed drugs, (2) continuous monitoring of safety issues for old drugs, and (3) signal detection of nonserious AEs, to which little attention is usually given.
引用
收藏
页码:1402 / 1408
页数:7
相关论文
共 15 条
[1]   Comparative performance of two quantitative safety signalling methods - Implications for use in a pharmacovigilance department [J].
Almenoff, June S. ;
LaCroix, Karol K. ;
Yuen, Nancy A. ;
Fram, David ;
DuMouchel, William .
DRUG SAFETY, 2006, 29 (10) :875-887
[2]  
[Anonymous], ICH HARMONISED TRIPA
[3]  
[Anonymous], GUID GOOD PHARM PRAC
[4]   Comparison of Statistical Signal Detection Methods Within and Across Spontaneous Reporting Databases [J].
Candore, Gianmario ;
Juhlin, Kristina ;
Manlik, Katrin ;
Thakrar, Bharat ;
Quarcoo, Naashika ;
Seabroke, Suzie ;
Wisniewski, Antoni ;
Slattery, Jim .
DRUG SAFETY, 2015, 38 (06) :577-587
[5]  
CIOMS Working Group V, 2001, CURR CHALL PHARM PRA
[6]  
CIOMS Working Group VIII, 2010, PRACT ASP SIGN DET P
[7]  
FDA, CISC VIS NETW IND GL
[8]   Evaluation of FDA safety-related drug label changes in 2010 [J].
Lester, Jean ;
Neyarapally, George A. ;
Lipowski, Earlene ;
Graham, Cheryl Fossum ;
Hall, Marni ;
Dal Pan, Gerald .
PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY AND DRUG SAFETY, 2013, 22 (03) :302-305
[9]   Use of triage strategies in the WHO signal-detection process [J].
Lindquist, Marie .
DRUG SAFETY, 2007, 30 (07) :635-637
[10]   Signal selection and follow-up in pharmacovigilance [J].
Meyboom, RHB ;
Lindquist, M ;
Egberts, ACG ;
Edwards, IR .
DRUG SAFETY, 2002, 25 (06) :459-465