Dataset Information

Towards early detection of adverse drug reactions: combining pre-clinical drug structures and post-market safety reports.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Adverse drug reaction (ADR) is a major burden for patients and healthcare industry. Early and accurate detection of potential ADRs can help to improve drug safety and reduce financial costs. Post-market spontaneous reports of ADRs remain a cornerstone of pharmacovigilance and a series of drug safety signal detection methods play an important role in providing drug safety insights. However, existing methods require sufficient case reports to generate signals, limiting their usages for newly approved drugs with few (or even no) reports.

Methods

In this study, we propose a label propagation framework to enhance drug safety signals by combining drug chemical structures with FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS). First, we compute original drug safety signals via common signal detection algorithms. Then, we construct a drug similarity network based on chemical structures. Finally, we generate enhanced drug safety signals by propagating original signals on the drug similarity network. Our proposed framework enriches post-market safety reports with pre-clinical drug similarity network, effectively alleviating issues of insufficient cases for newly approved drugs.

Results

We apply the label propagation framework to four popular signal detection algorithms (PRR, ROR, MGPS, BCPNN) and find that our proposed framework generates more accurate drug safety signals than the corresponding baselines. In addition, our framework identifies potential ADRs for newly approved drugs, thus paving the way for early detection of ADRs.

Conclusions

The proposed label propagation framework combines pre-clinical drug structures with post-market safety reports, generates enhanced drug safety signals, and can potentially help to accurately detect ADRs ahead of time.

Availability

The source code for this paper is available at: https://github.com/ruoqi-liu/LP-SDA.

SUBMITTER: Liu R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6918608 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Towards early detection of adverse drug reactions: combining pre-clinical drug structures and post-market safety reports.

Liu Ruoqi R Zhang Ping P

BMC medical informatics and decision making 20191218 1

<h4>Background</h4>Adverse drug reaction (ADR) is a major burden for patients and healthcare industry. Early and accurate detection of potential ADRs can help to improve drug safety and reduce financial costs. Post-market spontaneous reports of ADRs remain a cornerstone of pharmacovigilance and a series of drug safety signal detection methods play an important role in providing drug safety insights. However, existing methods require sufficient case reports to generate signals, limiting their usa ...[more]

PMID: 31849321

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe prediction of the real-world cost of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) has historically relied on the data from randomized controlled trials (RCT). However, trial conditions do not always reflect the real-world applications of pharmaceutical products; hence, they may not accurately portray the actual risks of ADRs associated with them. The objective of this study is two-fold: (a) demonstrate whether and how post-market and RCT ADR data could lead to different conclusions for a set of drugs of interest, and (b) evaluate the potential economic impact of the post-market ADRs associated with those drugs.MethodsWe selected two TNF-α inhibitor biologics, infliximab and adalimumab, and used the Canada Vigilance Adverse Reaction (CVAR) online database as a source of post-market ADR data. Adverse reaction data from RCTs were obtained from ClinicalTrials.gov . Direct healthcare costs associated with adverse reactions were obtained from Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) or Interactive Health Data Application, Alberta. We calculated post-market ADR rates and compared them with those found in the randomized controlled trials of these two drugs. Using the post-market data, we estimated the costs associated with serious ADRs from three perspectives: patient, health system, and societal.ResultsFor both drugs, the post-market and RCT data exhibited significantly different adverse reaction rates for several different clinical outcomes. As a general trend, more serious adverse reactions, such as death, appeared to have a higher rate in post-market applications compared to the clinical trials. The estimated average annual economic burden of the severe adverse reaction outcomes ranged from $10 million to $20 million for infliximab and $6 million to $19 million for adalimumab.ConclusionsThe frequency and severity of post-market adverse reactions associated with pharmaceutical products may significantly differ from those detected in the clinical trials. Despite possible methodological differences, this is due to the fact that post-market data reflect the externalities of the real-world that are absent in RCTs. The economic burden of adverse reactions can be substantial, and the cost calculated using post-market data is better reflective of the cost of ADRs in the real-world.

Project description:BackgroundAdverse drug reactions (ADRs) and medication errors in children may result from a lack of appropriate drugs, dosages, and pharmaceutical forms. In addition, children may respond differently to drugs than adults. Reporting of ADRs in the pediatric population is therefore of importance in order to increase the amount of safety data. However, different methodological approaches are used to collect ADRs.ObjectiveThe aim of the present study was to analyze whether there were differences in the ADRs collected in the KiDSafe project (845 ADR reports) compared with the spontaneous ADR reports sent to EudraVigilance (697 reports) in the same time period. The strengths and limitations of these two different approaches should be discussed.MethodsThe same inclusion criteria were applied for the systematically collected ADRs in the KiDSafe project and the spontaneous reports from EudraVigilance, and only reports of ADRs coded with hospitalization were considered. In both datasets, the number of reports (related to number of hospitals), their documentation quality (VigiGrade), causal relationship (World Health Organization-Uppsala Monitoring Centre [WHO-UMC] criteria), most frequently reported drugs and ADRs, demographical parameters of the patients, reported medical histories, and the seriousness of ADR reports were analyzed descriptively. The results of the two analyses were compared.ResultsThere was considerable underreporting of ADRs via the spontaneous reports (0.4 reports per hospital; 697/1902) compared with 70.4 reports per hospital (845/12) in the systematically collected KiDSafe reports. Documentation quality assessment yielded similar results in both datasets. Among the 10 most frequently reported drugs, anticonvulsants such as levetiracetam (6.6%), valproic acid (5.6%), oxcarbazepine (3.6%), and lamotrigine (3.4%) were mainly reported in the KiDSafe reports, while in the EudraVigilance reports, mite allergen extract (4.4%) and allergens (3.6%) were preferentially reported. Seizures were the most frequently reported clinically specific ADRs in the KiDSafe reports, whereas anaphylactic reactions and urticaria were prominent in the spontaneous reports from EudraVigilance. Notably, the proportion of reports referring to medication errors and other medication safety related issues were more prominent in KiDSafe than in the spontaneous reports (27.8% vs. 12.6% and 46.0% vs. 29.0%, respectively).ConclusionIn general, reports from both data sources contributed to the identification of ADRs and dedicated issues related to drug therapy. However, these differed by nature and strength of the signal, likely due to the characteristics of the individual method. A combined approach could likely compensate for limitations inherent to the single approaches, but will most likely only be applied to dedicated pharmacovigilance topics or research objectives.

Project description:BackgroundAntipsychotics (APs) have been associated with risk of torsade de Pointes (TdP). This has important public health implications. Therefore, (a) we exploited the public FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) to characterize their torsadogenic profile; (b) we collected drug utilization data from 12 European Countries to assess the population exposure over the 2005-2010 period.MethodsFAERS data (2004-2010) were analyzed based on the following criteria: (1) ? 4 cases of TdP/QT abnormalities; (2) Significant Reporting Odds Ratio, ROR [Lower Limit of the 95% confidence interval>1], for TdP/QT abnormalities, adjusted and stratified (Arizona CERT drugs as effect modifiers); (3) ? 4 cases of ventricular arrhythmia/sudden cardiac death (VA/SCD); (4) Significant ROR for VA/SCD; (5) Significant ROR, combined by aggregating TdP/QT abnormalities with VA and SCD. Torsadogenic signals were characterized in terms of signal strength: from Group A (very strong torsadogenic signal: all criteria fulfilled) to group E (unclear/uncertain signal: only 2/5 criteria). Consumption data were retrieved from 12 European Countries and expressed as defined daily doses per 1,000 inhabitants per day (DID).ResultsThirty-five antipsychotics met at least one criterium: 9 agents were classified in Group A (amisulpride, chlorpromazine, clozapine, cyamemazine, haloperidol, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, ziprasidone). In 2010, the overall exposure to antipsychotics varied from 5.94 DID (Estonia) to 13.99 (France, 2009). Considerable increment of Group A agents was found in several Countries (+3.47 in France): the exposure to olanzapine increased across all Countries (+1.84 in France) and peaked 2.96 in Norway; cyamemazine was typically used only in France (2.81 in 2009). Among Group B drugs, levomepromazine peaked 3.78 (Serbia); fluphenazine 1.61 (Slovenia).ConclusionsThis parallel approach through spontaneous reporting and drug utilization analyses highlighted drug- and Country-specific scenarios requiring potential regulatory consideration: levomepromazine (Serbia), fluphenazine (Slovenia), olanzapine (across Europe), cyamemazine (France). This synergy should be encouraged to support future pharmacovigilance activities.

Project description:Oncology-associated adverse drug/device reactions can be fatal. Some clinicians who treat single patients with severe oncology-associated toxicities have researched case series and published this information. We investigated motivations and experiences of select individuals leading such efforts. Clinicians treating individual patients who developed oncology-associated serious adverse drug events were asked to participate. Inclusion criteria included having index patient information, reporting case series, and being collaborative with investigators from two National Institutes of Health funded pharmacovigilance networks. Thirty-minute interviews addressed investigational motivation, feedback from pharmaceutical manufacturers, FDA personnel, and academic leadership, and recommendations for improving pharmacovigilance. Responses were analyzed using constant comparative methods of qualitative analysis. Overall, 18 clinicians met inclusion criteria and 14 interviewees are included. Primary motivations were scientific curiosity, expressed by six clinicians. A less common theme was public health related (three clinicians). Six clinicians received feedback characterized as supportive from academic leaders, while four clinicians received feedback characterized as negative. Three clinicians reported that following the case series publication they were invited to speak at academic institutions worldwide. Responses from pharmaceutical manufacturers were characterized as negative by 12 clinicians. One clinician's wife called the post-reporting time the "Maalox month," while another clinician reported that the manufacturer collaboratively offered to identify additional cases of the toxicity. Responses from FDA employees were characterized as collaborative for two clinicians, neutral for five clinicians, unresponsive for negative by six clinicians. Three clinicians endorsed developing improved reporting mechanisms for individual physicians, while 11 clinicians endorsed safety activities that should be undertaken by persons other than a motivated clinician who personally treats a patient with a severe adverse drug/device reaction. Our study provides some of the first reports of clinician motivations and experiences with reporting serious or potentially fatal oncology-associated adverse drug or device reactions. Overall, it appears that negative feedback from pharmaceutical manufacturers and mixed feedback from the academic community and/or the FDA were reported. Big data, registries, Data Safety Monitoring Boards, and pharmacogenetic studies may facilitate improved pharmacovigilance efforts for oncology-associated adverse drug reactions. These initiatives overcome concerns related to complacency, indifference, ignorance, and system-level problems as barriers to documenting and reporting adverse drug events- barriers that have been previously reported for clinician reporting of serious adverse drug reactions.

Dataset Information

Towards early detection of adverse drug reactions: combining pre-clinical drug structures and post-market safety reports.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Availability

Publications

Towards early detection of adverse drug reactions: combining pre-clinical drug structures and post-market safety reports.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets