BACKGROUND: Several efforts are under way to develop and test methods for prospective drug safety monitoring using large, electronic claims databases. Prospective monitoring systems must incorporate signalling algorithms and techniques to mitigate confounding in order to minimize false positive and false negative signals due to chance and bias. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to describe a prototypical targeted active safety monitoring system and apply the framework to three empirical examples. METHODS: We performed sequential, targeted safety monitoring in three known drug/adverse event (AE) pairs: (i) paroxetine/upper gastrointestinal (UGI) bleed; (ii) lisinopril/angioedema; (iii) ciprofloxacin/Achilles tendon rupture (ATR). Data on new users of the drugs of interest were extracted from the HealthCore Integrated Research Database. New users were matched by propensity score to new users of comparator drugs in each example. Analyses were conducted sequentially to emulate prospective monitoring. Two signalling rules--a maximum sequential probability ratio test and an effect estimate-based approach--were applied to sequential, matched cohorts to identify signals within the system. RESULTS: Signals were identified for all three examples: paroxetine/UGI bleed in the seventh monitoring cycle, within 2 calendar years of sequential data; lisinopril/angioedema in the second cycle, within the first monitoring year; ciprofloxacin/ATR in the tenth cycle, within the fifth year. CONCLUSION: In this proof of concept, our targeted, active monitoring system provides an alternative to systems currently in the literature. Our system employs a sequential, propensity score-matched framework and signalling rules for prospective drug safety monitoring and identified signals for all three adverse drug reactions evaluated.
BACKGROUND: Several efforts are under way to develop and test methods for prospective drug safety monitoring using large, electronic claims databases. Prospective monitoring systems must incorporate signalling algorithms and techniques to mitigate confounding in order to minimize false positive and false negative signals due to chance and bias. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to describe a prototypical targeted active safety monitoring system and apply the framework to three empirical examples. METHODS: We performed sequential, targeted safety monitoring in three known drug/adverse event (AE) pairs: (i) paroxetine/upper gastrointestinal (UGI) bleed; (ii) lisinopril/angioedema; (iii) ciprofloxacin/Achilles tendon rupture (ATR). Data on new users of the drugs of interest were extracted from the HealthCore Integrated Research Database. New users were matched by propensity score to new users of comparator drugs in each example. Analyses were conducted sequentially to emulate prospective monitoring. Two signalling rules--a maximum sequential probability ratio test and an effect estimate-based approach--were applied to sequential, matched cohorts to identify signals within the system. RESULTS: Signals were identified for all three examples: paroxetine/UGI bleed in the seventh monitoring cycle, within 2 calendar years of sequential data; lisinopril/angioedema in the second cycle, within the first monitoring year; ciprofloxacin/ATR in the tenth cycle, within the fifth year. CONCLUSION: In this proof of concept, our targeted, active monitoring system provides an alternative to systems currently in the literature. Our system employs a sequential, propensity score-matched framework and signalling rules for prospective drug safety monitoring and identified signals for all three adverse drug reactions evaluated.
Authors: Preciosa M Coloma; Gianluca Trifirò; Martijn J Schuemie; Rosa Gini; Ron Herings; Julia Hippisley-Cox; Giampiero Mazzaglia; Gino Picelli; Giovanni Corrao; Lars Pedersen; Johan van der Lei; Miriam Sturkenboom Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2012-02-08 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Jeffrey S Brown; Martin Kulldorff; Kenneth R Petronis; Robert Reynolds; K Arnold Chan; Robert L Davis; David Graham; 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: 2009-03 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Stephanie J Reisinger; Patrick B Ryan; Donald J O'Hara; Gregory E Powell; Jeffery L Painter; Edward N Pattishall; Jonathan A Morris Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2010 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Frederic S Resnic; Thomas P Gross; Danica Marinac-Dabic; Nilsa Loyo-Berrios; Sharon Donnelly; Sharon-Lise T Normand; Michael E Matheny Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-11-10 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Frans H H Leenen; Chuke E Nwachuku; Henry R Black; William C Cushman; Barry R Davis; Lara M Simpson; Michael H Alderman; Steven A Atlas; Jan N Basile; Aloysius B Cuyjet; Richard Dart; James V Felicetta; Richard H Grimm; L Julian Haywood; Syed Z A Jafri; Michael A Proschan; Udho Thadani; Paul K Whelton; Jackson T Wright Journal: Hypertension Date: 2006-07-24 Impact factor: 10.190
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: 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: Scott A LeMaire; Lin Zhang; Wei Luo; Pingping Ren; Alon R Azares; Yidan Wang; Chen Zhang; Joseph S Coselli; Ying H Shen Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2018-09-19 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Arja Helin-Salmivaara; Piia Lavikainen; Emma Aarnio; Risto Huupponen; Maarit Jaana Korhonen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-03-10 Impact factor: 3.240