The development and evaluation of triage algorithms for early discovery of adverse drug interactions.

BACKGROUND: Around 20 % of all adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are due to drug interactions. Some of these will only be detected in the postmarketing setting. Effective screening in large collections of individual case safety reports (ICSRs) requires automated triages to identify signals of adverse drug interactions. Research so far has focused on statistical measures, but clinical information and pharmacological characteristics are essential in the clinical assessment and may be of great value in first-pass filtering of potential adverse drug interaction signals.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to develop triages for adverse drug interaction surveillance, and to evaluate these prospectively relative to clinical assessment.
METHODS: A broad set of variables were considered for inclusion in the triages, including cytochrome P450 (CYP) activity, explicit suspicions of drug interactions as noted by the reporter, dose and treatment overlap, and a measure of interaction disproportionality. Their unique contributions in predicting signals of adverse drug interactions were determined through logistic regression. This was based on the reporting in the WHO global ICSR database, VigiBase™, for a set of known adverse drug interactions and corresponding negative controls. Three triages were developed, each producing an estimated probability that a given drug-drug-ADR triplet constitutes an adverse drug interaction signal. The triages were evaluated against two separate benchmarks derived from expert clinical assessment: adverse drug interactions known in the literature and prospective adverse drug interaction signals. For reference, the triages were compared with disproportionality analysis alone using the same benchmarks.
RESULTS: The following were identified as valuable predictors of adverse drug interaction signals: plausible CYP metabolism; notes of suspected interaction by the reporter; and reports of unexpected therapeutic response, altered therapeutic effect with dose information and altered therapeutic effect when only two drugs had been used. The new triages identified reporting patterns corresponding to both prospective signals of adverse drug interactions and already established ones. They perform better than disproportionality analysis alone relative to both benchmarks.
CONCLUSIONS: A range of predictors for adverse drug interaction signals have been identified. They substantially improve signal detection capacity compared with disproportionality analysis alone. The value of incorporating clinical and pharmacological information in first-pass screening is clear.