Data mining in drug safety: Review of published threshold criteria for defining signals of disproportionate reporting

被引:19
作者
Deshpande G. [1 ]
Gogolak V. [2 ]
Weiss Smith S. [1 ]
机构
[1] Center for Drug Safety, University of Maryland, School of Pharmacy, Baltimore, MD
[2] DrugLogic Inc., Reston, VA
关键词
Adverse-reaction-monitoring; Bayesian-analysis; Data-collection; Drug-information; Electronic-information-services; Pharmacovigilance; Postmarketing-surveillance; Statistics;
D O I
10.1007/BF03256796
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Data mining is used in pharmacovigilance as an adjunct to traditional pharmacovigilance practices. There remains ongoing debate as to the impact automated signal detection would have on pharmacovigilance resources. An important component of this debate is the value of each statistical alert or signal of disproportional reporting (SDR) and the resources needed to evaluate SDRs that are clinically unimportant. Using the terminology of diagnostic testing, such SDRs are called false positives as they are statistically positive but are clinically negative. Based on the clinical testing paradigm, a more stringent threshold increases the sensitivity of the test by lowering the number of false positives; however, the trade off of increased sensitivity is a reduced specificity, i.e. potentially missing clinically relevant problems.In developing the protocol to assess the clinical validity of an SDR, a literature search was conducted to determine what threshold(s) were commonly used for data mining adverse event databases. Of the more than 100 manuscripts identified, 41 published the results of data mining excursions with a clearly identified threshold for significance. The commonly used data mining algorithms were proportional reporting ratio (PRR), reporting odds ratio (ROR), multi-item gamma Poisson shrinker (MGPS) and Bayesian confidence propagation neural network (BPCNN).There was some variation in the threshold used for each algorithm. For the PRR, thresholds of 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 were reported. Some authors required a Chi-squared test statistic of ≥4.0. Minimum drug-event pair counts were most often required for the frequentist measures of disproportionality, PRR and ROR. Among the Bayesian algorithms, MGPS and BPCNN, there was variation in the metric used and, within a metric, variation in thresholds and the use of minimum case counts. Metrics based on the MGPS algorithm that have been used to determine statistical significance include the empirical Bayes geometric mean (EBGM), the lower 95 confidence interval of the EBGM, the lower 95 confidence interval of the empirical Bayes arithmetic mean, EBlog2 and interaction signal score. Based on the published literature, there is considerable variation in defining a significant alert or SDR among practitioners of pharmacovigilance data mining. Research into the impact of such variations in practice on SDR volume and value is urgently needed. © 2010 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:37 / 43
页数:6
相关论文
共 48 条
[1]  
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, pp. 378-384, (2005)
[2]  
Evans S.J., Waller P.C., Davis S., Use of proportional reporting ratios (PRRs) for signal generation from spontaneous adverse drug reaction reports, Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf, 10, pp. 483-486, (2001)
[3]  
Van Puijenbroek E., Diemont W., Van Groothest K., Application of quantitative signal detection in the Dutch spontaneous reporting system for adverse drug reactions, Drug Saf, 26, pp. 293-301, (2003)
[4]  
Dumouchel W., Bayesian data mining in large frequency tables with an application to the FDA spontaneous reporting system, AmStat, 53, pp. 177-190, (1999)
[5]  
Bate A., Lindquist M., Edwards I.R., Et al., A Bayesian neural network method for adverse drug reaction signal generation, Eur J Clin Pharmacol, 54, pp. 315-321, (1998)
[6]  
Lindquist M., Edwards I.R., Bate A., Et al., From association to alert: A revised approach to international signal analysis, Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf, 8, (1999)
[7]  
Lindquist M., Stahl M., Bate A., Et al., Aretrospective evaluation of a data mining approach to aid finding new adverse drug reaction signals in the WHO international database, Drug Saf, 23, pp. 533-542, (2000)
[8]  
Hauben M., Madigan D., Gerrits C.M., Et al., The role of data mining in pharmacovigilance, Expert Opin Drug Safety, 4, 5, pp. 929-948, (2005)
[9]  
Heeley E., Waller P., Moseley J., Testing and implementing signal impact analysis in a regulatory setting: Results of a pilot study, Drug Saf, 28, pp. 901-906, (2005)
[10]  
Almenoff J.S., Lacroix K.K., Yuen N.A., Et al., Comparative performance of two quantitative safety signalling methods: Implications for use in a pharmacovigilance department, Drug Saf, 29, pp. 875-887, (2006)