OBJECTIVE: Medication safety requires that each drug be monitored throughout its market life as early detection of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) can lead to alerts that prevent patient harm. Recently, electronic medical records (EMRs) have emerged as a valuable resource for pharmacovigilance. This study examines the use of retrospective medication orders and inpatient laboratory results documented in the EMR to identify ADRs. METHODS: Using 12 years of EMR data from Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC), we designed a study to correlate abnormal laboratory results with specific drug administrations by comparing the outcomes of a drug-exposed group and a matched unexposed group. We assessed the relative merits of six pharmacovigilance measures used in spontaneous reporting systems (SRSs): proportional reporting ratio (PRR), reporting OR (ROR), Yule's Q (YULE), the χ(2) test (CHI), Bayesian confidence propagation neural networks (BCPNN), and a gamma Poisson shrinker (GPS). RESULTS: We systematically evaluated the methods on two independently constructed reference standard datasets of drug-event pairs. The dataset of Yoon et al contained 470 drug-event pairs (10 drugs and 47 laboratory abnormalities). Using VUMC's EMR, we created another dataset of 378 drug-event pairs (nine drugs and 42 laboratory abnormalities). Evaluation on our reference standard showed that CHI, ROR, PRR, and YULE all had the same F score (62%). When the reference standard of Yoon et al was used, ROR had the best F score of 68%, with 77% precision and 61% recall. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that EMR-derived laboratory measurements and medication orders can help to validate previously reported ADRs, and detect new ADRs.
OBJECTIVE: Medication safety requires that each drug be monitored throughout its market life as early detection of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) can lead to alerts that prevent patient harm. Recently, electronic medical records (EMRs) have emerged as a valuable resource for pharmacovigilance. This study examines the use of retrospective medication orders and inpatient laboratory results documented in the EMR to identify ADRs. METHODS: Using 12 years of EMR data from Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC), we designed a study to correlate abnormal laboratory results with specific drug administrations by comparing the outcomes of a drug-exposed group and a matched unexposed group. We assessed the relative merits of six pharmacovigilance measures used in spontaneous reporting systems (SRSs): proportional reporting ratio (PRR), reporting OR (ROR), Yule's Q (YULE), the χ(2) test (CHI), Bayesian confidence propagation neural networks (BCPNN), and a gamma Poisson shrinker (GPS). RESULTS: We systematically evaluated the methods on two independently constructed reference standard datasets of drug-event pairs. The dataset of Yoon et al contained 470 drug-event pairs (10 drugs and 47 laboratory abnormalities). Using VUMC's EMR, we created another dataset of 378 drug-event pairs (nine drugs and 42 laboratory abnormalities). Evaluation on our reference standard showed that CHI, ROR, PRR, and YULE all had the same F score (62%). When the reference standard of Yoon et al was used, ROR had the best F score of 68%, with 77% precision and 61% recall. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that EMR-derived laboratory measurements and medication orders can help to validate previously reported ADRs, and detect new ADRs.
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: Huidong Warren Jin; Jie Chen; Hongxing He; Graham J Williams; Chris Kelman; Christine M O'Keefe Journal: IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed Date: 2008-07
Authors: A Bate; M Lindquist; I R Edwards; S Olsson; R Orre; A Lansner; R M De Freitas Journal: Eur J Clin Pharmacol Date: 1998-06 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: N P Tatonetti; J C Denny; S N Murphy; G H Fernald; G Krishnan; V Castro; P Yue; P S Tsao; P S Tsau; I Kohane; D M Roden; R B Altman Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2011-05-25 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Josh F Peterson; Yaping Shi; Josh C Denny; Michael E Matheny; Jonathan S Schildcrout; Lemuel R Waitman; Randolph A Miller Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2010-11-13
Authors: I Tegeder; M Levy; U Muth-Selbach; R Oelkers; F Neumann; H Dormann; T Azaz-Livshits; M Criegee-Rieck; H T Schneider; E Hahn; K Brune; G Geisslinger Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 1999-05 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Suehyun Lee; Jongsoo Han; Rae Woong Park; Grace Juyun Kim; John Hoon Rim; Jooyoung Cho; Kye Hwa Lee; Jisan Lee; Sujeong Kim; Ju Han Kim Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 5.606
Authors: Srinivasan V Iyer; Rave Harpaz; Paea LePendu; Anna Bauer-Mehren; Nigam H Shah Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2013-10-24 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Suehyun Lee; Jeong Hoon Lee; Grace Juyun Kim; Jong-Yeup Kim; Hyunah Shin; Inseok Ko; Seon Choe; Ju Han Kim Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2022-10-06 Impact factor: 7.076
Authors: Jeffery A Goldstein; Lisa A Bastarache; Joshua C Denny; Jill M Pulley; David M Aronoff Journal: Am J Reprod Immunol Date: 2018-05-04 Impact factor: 3.886