Literature DB >> 19419238

Effect of date of drug marketing on disproportionality measures in pharmacovigilance: the example of suicide with SSRIs using data from the UK MHRA.

Antoine Pariente1, Amélie Daveluy, Anne Laribière-Bénard, Ghada Miremont-Salame, Bernard Begaud, Nicholas Moore.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Warnings concerning an increased risk of suicide in patients treated with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) re-emerged in early 2003, culminating in the broadcast of a television programme in the UK. In the following months, cumulated proportional reporting ratios showed that the most recently marketed drug, escitalopram, had a much higher proportion of reports of suicide to other adverse drug reactions (ADRs) than the other drugs in the class.
OBJECTIVE: To study the reporting patterns over time concerning suicide with the six SSRIs marketed in the UK as of March 2003 and their potential effect on disproportionality signal detection.
METHODS: Monthly cumulated numbers of reports were obtained from the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), from the time of the first marketing of the drugs concerned and monthly for the 2 months prior to and the 9 months following the broadcast of the television programme (broadcast date: 11 May 2003), and the monthly ratio of suicide to other reports was computed for each SSRI individually and for all SSRIs combined.
RESULTS: Of the six SSRIs studied, five (citalopram, paroxetine, fluoxetine, sertraline and venlafaxine) had been marketed for several years and escitalopram for only a few months. At the end of the analysis period, 1.42% (4/281) of all ADR reports for escitalopram were of suicide versus 0.58% for the other five drugs combined (146/25 197). For all SSRIs combined, suicide represented 0.5% (123/24 315) of reports before the broadcast of the television programme, and increased to 2.3% (27/1163) following the programme. For escitalopram, suicide represented 1.1% (1/89) of all ADR reports before the television programme and 1.6% (3/192) afterwards. For the five other drugs combined, suicide represented 0.5% (122/24 226) of ADR reports before the television programme and 2.5% (24/971) afterwards (varying from 1.4% to 4.7% for the various drugs). The post-programme events represented 68% of all reports and 75% of suicides for escitalopram, whereas for older drugs they represented 3.6% of reports and 13% of suicides.
CONCLUSION: For older drugs, the events reported during the high-reporting post-television programme period were diluted by years of low reporting. For escitalopram, although the television programme had little absolute impact on the number of reports, because the drug had been on the market for such a short period of time, a large relative effect was observed. Differential effects related to time on market on cumulated reporting of adverse drug reactions should be taken into account when analysing spontaneous reporting databases with automated signal generation methods after an alert has changed the spontaneous reporting patterns. Proper use of measures of disproportionality requires thorough knowledge of potential biases and careful analysis of reporting patterns. We found no obvious differences between SSRIs once these were taken into account.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19419238     DOI: 10.2165/00002018-200932050-00007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Drug Saf        ISSN: 0114-5916            Impact factor:   5.606


  27 in total

1.  Use of proportional reporting ratios (PRRs) for signal generation from spontaneous adverse drug reaction reports.

Authors:  S J Evans; P C Waller; S Davis
Journal:  Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf       Date:  2001 Oct-Nov       Impact factor: 2.890

2.  Rates of spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions in France.

Authors:  Bernard Bégaud; Karin Martin; Françoise Haramburu; Nicholas Moore
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2002-10-02       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 3.  Detection, verification, and quantification of adverse drug reactions.

Authors:  Bruno H Ch Stricker; Bruce M Psaty
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-07-03

4.  Assessments of disproportionality.

Authors:  Ronald D Mann
Journal:  Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 2.890

5.  Spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions: who reports and what?

Authors:  P Tubert-Bitter; F Haramburu; B Begaud; A Chaslerie; E Abraham; C Hagry
Journal:  Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf       Date:  1998-09       Impact factor: 2.890

6.  Under-reporting of adverse drug reactions. Estimate based on a spontaneous reporting scheme and a sentinel system.

Authors:  A Alvarez-Requejo; A Carvajal; B Bégaud; Y Moride; T Vega; L H Arias
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  1998-08       Impact factor: 2.953

7.  Reports of hypoglycaemia associated with the use of ACE inhibitors and other drugs: a case/non-case study in the French pharmacovigilance system database.

Authors:  N Moore; C Kreft-Jais; F Haramburu; C Noblet; M Andrejak; M Ollagnier; B Bégaud
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  1997-11       Impact factor: 4.335

8.  Confounding by indication and channeling over time: the risks of beta 2-agonists.

Authors:  L Blais; P Ernst; S Suissa
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1996-12-15       Impact factor: 4.897

9.  Spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions. II: Uses.

Authors:  M D Rawlins
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  1988-07       Impact factor: 4.335

10.  Impact of safety alerts on measures of disproportionality in spontaneous reporting databases: the notoriety bias.

Authors:  Antoine Pariente; Fleur Gregoire; Annie Fourrier-Reglat; Françoise Haramburu; Nicholas Moore
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 5.606

View more
  8 in total

1.  A decade of safety-related regulatory action in the Netherlands: a retrospective analysis of direct healthcare professional communications from 1999 to 2009.

Authors:  Peter G M Mol; Sabine M J M Straus; Sigrid Piening; Jonie T N de Vries; Pieter A de Graeff; Flora M Haaijer-Ruskamp
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2010-06-01       Impact factor: 5.606

Review 2.  Can Disproportionality Analysis of Post-marketing Case Reports be Used for Comparison of Drug Safety Profiles?

Authors:  Christiane Michel; Emil Scosyrev; Michael Petrin; Robert Schmouder
Journal:  Clin Drug Investig       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 2.859

3.  A potential event-competition bias in safety signal detection: results from a spontaneous reporting research database in France.

Authors:  Francesco Salvo; Florent Leborgne; Frantz Thiessard; Nicholas Moore; Bernard Bégaud; Antoine Pariente
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 5.606

Review 4.  Comprehensive evaluations of the adverse effects of drugs: importance of appropriate study selection and data sources.

Authors:  Yoon K Loke; Su P Golder; Jan P Vandenbroucke
Journal:  Ther Adv Drug Saf       Date:  2011-04

Review 5.  A plea for a more epidemiological and patient-oriented pharmacovigilance.

Authors:  Veronica Scurti; Marilena Romero; Gianni Tognoni
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2011-07-20       Impact factor: 2.953

6.  Reporting of drug induced depression and fatal and non-fatal suicidal behaviour in the UK from 1998 to 2011.

Authors:  Kyla H Thomas; Richard M Martin; John Potokar; Munir Pirmohamed; David Gunnell
Journal:  BMC Pharmacol Toxicol       Date:  2014-09-30       Impact factor: 2.483

7.  Effect of competition bias in safety signal generation: analysis of a research database of spontaneous reports in France.

Authors:  Antoine Pariente; Paul Avillach; Francesco Salvo; Frantz Thiessard; Ghada Miremont-Salamé; Annie Fourrier-Reglat; Françoise Haramburu; Bernard Bégaud; Nicholas Moore
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2012-10-01       Impact factor: 5.606

8.  The past, present and perhaps future of pharmacovigilance: homage to Folke Sjoqvist.

Authors:  Nicholas Moore
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2013-05-03       Impact factor: 2.953

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.