BACKGROUND: Active medical-product-safety surveillance systems are being developed to monitor many products and outcomes simultaneously in routinely collected longitudinal electronic healthcare data. These systems will rely on algorithms to generate alerts about potential safety concerns. METHODS: We compared the performance of 5 classes of algorithms in simulated data using a sequential matched-cohort framework, and applied the results to 2 electronic healthcare databases to replicate monitoring of cerivastatin-induced rhabdomyolysis. We generated 600,000 simulated scenarios with varying expected event frequency in the unexposed, alerting threshold, and outcome risk in the exposed, and compared the alerting algorithms in each scenario type using an event-based performance metric. RESULTS: We observed substantial variation in algorithm performance across the groups of scenarios. Relative performance varied by the event frequency and by user-defined preferences for sensitivity versus specificity. Type I error-based statistical testing procedures achieved higher event-based performance than other approaches in scenarios with few events, whereas statistical process control and disproportionality measures performed relatively better with frequent events. In the empirical data, we observed 6 cases of rhabdomyolysis among 4294 person-years of follow-up, with all events occurring among cerivastatin-treated patients. All selected algorithms generated alerts before the drug was withdrawn from the market. CONCLUSIONS: For active medical-product-safety monitoring in a sequential matched cohort framework, no single algorithm performed best in all scenarios. Alerting algorithm selection should be tailored to particular features of a product-outcome pair, including the expected event frequencies and trade-offs between false-positive and false-negative alerting.
BACKGROUND: Active medical-product-safety surveillance systems are being developed to monitor many products and outcomes simultaneously in routinely collected longitudinal electronic healthcare data. These systems will rely on algorithms to generate alerts about potential safety concerns. METHODS: We compared the performance of 5 classes of algorithms in simulated data using a sequential matched-cohort framework, and applied the results to 2 electronic healthcare databases to replicate monitoring of cerivastatin-induced rhabdomyolysis. We generated 600,000 simulated scenarios with varying expected event frequency in the unexposed, alerting threshold, and outcome risk in the exposed, and compared the alerting algorithms in each scenario type using an event-based performance metric. RESULTS: We observed substantial variation in algorithm performance across the groups of scenarios. Relative performance varied by the event frequency and by user-defined preferences for sensitivity versus specificity. Type I error-based statistical testing procedures achieved higher event-based performance than other approaches in scenarios with few events, whereas statistical process control and disproportionality measures performed relatively better with frequent events. In the empirical data, we observed 6 cases of rhabdomyolysis among 4294 person-years of follow-up, with all events occurring among cerivastatin-treated patients. All selected algorithms generated alerts before the drug was withdrawn from the market. CONCLUSIONS: For active medical-product-safety monitoring in a sequential matched cohort framework, no single algorithm performed best in all scenarios. Alerting algorithm selection should be tailored to particular features of a product-outcome pair, including the expected event frequencies and trade-offs between false-positive and false-negative alerting.
Authors: Eugène P van Puijenbroek; Andrew Bate; Hubert G M Leufkens; Marie Lindquist; Roland Orre; Antoine C G Egberts Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2002 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Tracy A Lieu; Martin Kulldorff; Robert L Davis; Edwin M Lewis; Eric Weintraub; Katherine Yih; Ruihua Yin; Jeffrey S Brown; Richard Platt Journal: Med Care Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Jeffrey S Brown; Martin Kulldorff; K Arnold Chan; Robert L Davis; David Graham; Parker T Pettus; Susan E Andrade; Marsha A Raebel; Lisa Herrinton; Douglas Roblin; Denise Boudreau; David Smith; Jerry H Gurwitz; Margaret J Gunter; Richard Platt Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: David J Graham; Judy A Staffa; Deborah Shatin; Susan E Andrade; Stephanie D Schech; Lois La Grenade; Jerry H Gurwitz; K Arnold Chan; Michael J Goodman; Richard Platt Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-11-22 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Sebastian Schneeweiss; Jeremy A Rassen; Robert J Glynn; Jerry Avorn; Helen Mogun; M Alan Brookhart Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 4.822
Authors: Philip D Home; Stuart J Pocock; Henning Beck-Nielsen; Paula S Curtis; Ramon Gomis; Markolf Hanefeld; Nigel P Jones; Michel Komajda; John J V McMurray Journal: Lancet Date: 2009-06-06 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Krista F Huybrechts; Rishi J Desai; Moa Park; Joshua J Gagne; Mehdi Najafzadeh; Jerry Avorn Journal: Med Care Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Joshua J Gagne; Shirley V Wang; Jeremy A Rassen; Sebastian Schneeweiss Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2014-04-30 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Yihua Xu; Xiaofeng Zhou; Brandon T Suehs; Abraham G Hartzema; Michael G Kahn; Yola Moride; Brian C Sauer; Qing Liu; Keran Moll; Margaret K Pasquale; Vinit P Nair; Andrew Bate Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 5.606
Authors: Joshua J Gagne; Jeremy A Rassen; Niteesh K Choudhry; Rhonda L Bohn; Amanda R Patrick; Gayathri Sridhar; Gregory W Daniel; Jun Liu; Sebastian Schneeweiss Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 5.606
Authors: Arja Helin-Salmivaara; Piia Lavikainen; Emma Aarnio; Risto Huupponen; Maarit Jaana Korhonen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-03-10 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: J J Gagne; R J Glynn; J A Rassen; A M Walker; G W Daniel; G Sridhar; S Schneeweiss Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2012-05-16 Impact factor: 6.875