Dataset Information

Methods to Compare Adverse Events in Twitter to FAERS, Drug Information Databases, and Systematic Reviews: Proof of Concept with Adalimumab.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are associated with significant health-related and financial burden, and multiple sources are currently utilized to actively discover them. Social media has been proposed as a potential resource for monitoring ADRs, but drug-specific analytical studies comparing social media with other sources are scarce.

Objectives

Our objective was to develop methods to compare ADRs mentioned in social media with those in traditional sources: the US FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS), drug information databases (DIDs), and systematic reviews.

Methods

A total of 10,188 tweets mentioning adalimumab collected between June 2014 and August 2016 were included. ADRs in the corpus were extracted semi-automatically and manually mapped to standardized concepts in the Unified Medical Language System. ADRs were grouped into 16 biologic categories for comparisons. Frequencies, relative frequencies, disproportionality analyses, and rank ordering were used as metrics.

Results

There was moderate agreement between ADRs in social media and traditional sources. "Local and injection site reactions" was the top ADR in Twitter, DIDs, and systematic reviews by frequency, ranked frequency, and index ranking. The next highest ADR in Twitter-fatigue-ranked fifth and seventh in FAERS and DIDs.

Conclusion

Social media posts often express mild and symptomatic ADRs, but rates are measured differently in scientific sources. ADRs in FAERS are reported as absolute numbers, in DIDs as percentages, and in systematic reviews as percentages, risk ratios, or other metrics, which makes comparisons challenging; however, overlap is substantial. Social media analysis facilitates open-ended investigation of patient perspectives and may reveal concepts (e.g. anxiety) not available in traditional sources.

SUBMITTER: Smith K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6223697 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Methods to Compare Adverse Events in Twitter to FAERS, Drug Information Databases, and Systematic Reviews: Proof of Concept with Adalimumab.

Smith Karen K Golder Su S Sarker Abeed A Loke Yoon Y O'Connor Karen K Gonzalez-Hernandez Graciela G

Drug safety 20181201 12

<h4>Introduction</h4>Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are associated with significant health-related and financial burden, and multiple sources are currently utilized to actively discover them. Social media has been proposed as a potential resource for monitoring ADRs, but drug-specific analytical studies comparing social media with other sources are scarce.<h4>Objectives</h4>Our objective was to develop methods to compare ADRs mentioned in social media with those in traditional sources: the US FDA ...[more]

PMID: 30167992

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesThe goal of this study was to compare the risk of cardiotoxicity with osimertinib versus all other drugs and versus epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) (erlotinib, afatinib, and gefitinib) in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Adverse Events Reporting System (FAERS), a pharmacovigilance database.BackgroundOsimertinib has been shown to improve outcomes in T790M-positive non-small cell lung cancer patients who progress on EGFR-TKI therapy and in the frontline setting in EGFR mutated non-small cell lung cancer. In pivotal trials, osimertinib was associated with higher rates of cardiotoxicity compared with the control arm.MethodsFAERS was queried for "Cardiac failure," "Electrocardiogram QT-prolonged," "Atrial Fibrillation (AF)," "Myocardial Infarction (MI)," and "Pericardial Effusion" secondary to "Osimertinib," "Erlotinib," "Afatinib," "Gefitinib," and all other drugs from 2016 to 2018. Disproportionality signal analysis was performed by calculating the reporting odds ratio (ROR) with its 95% confidence interval (CI). The ROR was considered significant when the lower limit of the 95% CI was >1.0.ResultsThe ROR (95% CI) for cardiac failure, atrial fibrillation (AF), QT prolongation, myocardial infarction, and pericardial effusion due to osimertinib versus all other drugs in FAERS was 5.4 (4.2 to 7.1), 4.0 (2.8 to 5.8), 11.2 (7.9 to 15.8), 1.6 (0.9 to 2.6), and 8.2 (4.8 to 14), respectively. The ROR (95% CI) for cardiac failure, AF, QT prolongation, myocardial infarction, and pericardial effusion in comparing osimertinib versus other EGFR-TKIs was 2.2 (1.5 to 3.2), 2.1 (1.3 to 3.5), 6.6 (3.4 to 12.8), 1.2 (0.6 to 2.3), and 1.6 (0.8 to 3.3).ConclusionsThe RORs for cardiac failure, AF, and QT prolongation were higher due to osimertinib compared with other TKIs. Electrocardiographic monitoring for QT prolongation and monitoring for signs and symptoms of heart failure should be considered in patients taking osimertinib.

Project description:ObjectivesTo examine the quality of reporting of harms in systematic reviews, and to determine the need for a reporting guideline specific for reviews of harms.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE).Review methodsDatabases were searched for systematic reviews having an adverse event as the main outcome, published from January 2008 to April 2011. Adverse events included an adverse reaction, harms, or complications associated with any healthcare intervention. Articles with a primary aim to investigate the complete safety profile of an intervention were also included. We developed a list of 37 items to measure the quality of reporting on harms in each review; data were collected as dichotomous outcomes ("yes" or "no" for each item).ResultsOf 4644 reviews identified, 309 were systematic reviews or meta-analyses primarily assessing harms (13 from CDSR; 296 from DARE). Despite a short time interval, the comparison between the years of 2008 and 2010-11 showed no difference on the quality of reporting over time (P=0.079). Titles in fewer than half the reviews (proportion of reviews 0.46 (95% confidence interval 0.40 to 0.52)) did not mention any harm related terms. Almost one third of DARE reviews (0.26 (0.22 to 0.31)) did not clearly define the adverse events reviewed, nor did they specify the study designs selected for inclusion in their methods section. Almost half of reviews (n=170) did not consider patient risk factors or length of follow-up when reviewing harms of an intervention. Of 67 reviews of complications related to surgery or other procedures, only four (0.05 (0.01 to 0.14)) reported professional qualifications of the individuals involved. The overall, unweighted, proportion of reviews with good reporting was 0.56 (0.55 to 0.57); corresponding proportions were 0.55 (0.53 to 0.57) in 2008, 0.55 (0.54 to 0.57) in 2009, and 0.57 (0.55 to 0.58) in 2010-11.ConclusionSystematic reviews compound the poor reporting of harms data in primary studies by failing to report on harms or doing so inadequately. Improving reporting of adverse events in systematic reviews is an important step towards a balanced assessment of an intervention.

Project description:BackgroundTigecycline has broad-spectrum anti-bacterial activity and often used for critically ill patients with complicated infections. Only a few clinical studies have reported the coagulation disorder induced by tigecycline. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between tigecycline and coagulation dysfunction using the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database.MethodData from January 2005 to December 2020 in FAERS were retrieved. We investigated the clinical characteristics of the coagulation dysfunction events and conducted disproportionality analysis by using reporting odds ratios (ROR) to compare tigecycline with the full database and other antibiotics.ResultsThe total number of reports of coagulation dysfunction related to tigecycline as the primary suspect drug was 223. The median time to event of the coagulation dysfunction events was 10 (interquartile range [IQR] 6.75-13) days. 80.72% coagulation-related adverse events appeared within the first 14 days since the initiation of tigecycline administration. The overall ROR (95% CI) for coagulation-related adverse events was 3.55 (3.08, 4.09). The RORs (95% CI) for thrombocytopenia, hypofibrinogenaemia, coagulopathy, activated partial thromboplastin time prolonged, international normalized ratio increased, prothrombin time prolonged were 8.21 (6.34, 10.62), 705.41 (526.81, 944.54), 30.67 (21.92, 42.92), 42.98 (24.85, 74.31), 4.67 (2.51, 8.71), and 27.99 (15.01, 52.19), respectively. In analyses stratified on comparing tigecycline to vancomycin and daptomycin, significant coagulation dysfunction signals were found with the RORs (95% CI) 2.74 (2.34, 3.22) and 3.08 (2.57, 3.70).ConclusionsWe found a strong signal of high frequency of reporting coagulation dysfunction in tigecycline. Health professionals should be aware of the potential coagulation disorders risk and monitor coagulation parameters during anti-bacterial therapy with tigecycline, particularly the need to monitor fibrinogen levels.

Dataset Information

Methods to Compare Adverse Events in Twitter to FAERS, Drug Information Databases, and Systematic Reviews: Proof of Concept with Adalimumab.

Introduction

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Methods to Compare Adverse Events in Twitter to FAERS, Drug Information Databases, and Systematic Reviews: Proof of Concept with Adalimumab.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets