James R Rogers1,2, Ameet Sarpatwari1, Rishi J Desai1, Justin M Bohn1, Nazleen F Khan1, Aaron S Kesselheim1, Michael A Fischer1, Joshua J Gagne3, John G Connolly1. 1. Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, 1620 Tremont Street, Suite 3030, Boston, MA, 02120, USA. 2. Department of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. 3. Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, 1620 Tremont Street, Suite 3030, Boston, MA, 02120, USA. jgagne@bwh.harvard.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Lawyer-submitted reports may have unintended consequences on safety signal detection in spontaneous adverse event reporting systems. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to assess the impact of lawyer-submitted reports primarily for one adverse event (AE) on the ability to detect a signal of disproportional reporting for another AE for the same drug in the US FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS). METHODS: FAERS reports from January 2004 to September 2015 were used to estimate yearly cumulative proportional reporting ratios (PRRs) for three known drug-AE pairs-isotretinoin-birth defects, atorvastatin-rhabdomyolysis, and rosuvastatin-rhabdomyolysis-with and without lawyer-submitted reports. Isotretinoin and atorvastatin have been the subject of high-profile tort litigation regarding other AEs. A lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of one or more based on three or more reports defined a signal. RESULTS: Cumulative PRRs met signaling criteria in all analyses. For isotretinoin, lawyer-submitted reports increased PRRs for birth defects before 2008, with the largest increase in 2006 (2.9 [95% CI 2.4-3.5] to 3.3 [95% CI 2.8-3.9]); lawyer-submitted reports decreased PRRs for birth defects after 2011, with the largest decrease in 2013 (2.2 [95% CI 2.0-2.5] to 1.9 [95% CI 1.7-2.1]). For atorvastatin, lawyer-submitted reports reduced PRRs for rhabdomyolysis after 2013, with the largest decrease in 2015 (18.0 [95% CI 17.1-19.1] to 15.4 [95% CI 14.5-16.2]). Lawyer-submitted reports had little impact on PRRs for rosuvastatin and rhabdomyolysis. CONCLUSIONS: Inclusion of lawyer-submitted reports in FAERS did not meaningfully distort known safety signals for two drugs subject to high-profile tort litigation for other AEs.
INTRODUCTION: Lawyer-submitted reports may have unintended consequences on safety signal detection in spontaneous adverse event reporting systems. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to assess the impact of lawyer-submitted reports primarily for one adverse event (AE) on the ability to detect a signal of disproportional reporting for another AE for the same drug in the US FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS). METHODS: FAERS reports from January 2004 to September 2015 were used to estimate yearly cumulative proportional reporting ratios (PRRs) for three known drug-AE pairs-isotretinoin-birth defects, atorvastatin-rhabdomyolysis, and rosuvastatin-rhabdomyolysis-with and without lawyer-submitted reports. Isotretinoin and atorvastatin have been the subject of high-profile tort litigation regarding other AEs. A lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of one or more based on three or more reports defined a signal. RESULTS: Cumulative PRRs met signaling criteria in all analyses. For isotretinoin, lawyer-submitted reports increased PRRs for birth defects before 2008, with the largest increase in 2006 (2.9 [95% CI 2.4-3.5] to 3.3 [95% CI 2.8-3.9]); lawyer-submitted reports decreased PRRs for birth defects after 2011, with the largest decrease in 2013 (2.2 [95% CI 2.0-2.5] to 1.9 [95% CI 1.7-2.1]). For atorvastatin, lawyer-submitted reports reduced PRRs for rhabdomyolysis after 2013, with the largest decrease in 2015 (18.0 [95% CI 17.1-19.1] to 15.4 [95% CI 14.5-16.2]). Lawyer-submitted reports had little impact on PRRs for rosuvastatin and rhabdomyolysis. CONCLUSIONS: Inclusion of lawyer-submitted reports in FAERS did not meaningfully distort known safety signals for two drugs subject to high-profile tort litigation for other AEs.
Authors: Allen D Brinker; Jenna Lyndly; Joseph Tonning; David Moeny; Jonathan G Levine; Mark I Avigan Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 5.606
Authors: Gianmario Candore; Kristina Juhlin; Katrin Manlik; Bharat Thakrar; Naashika Quarcoo; Suzie Seabroke; Antoni Wisniewski; Jim Slattery Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 5.606
Authors: E J Lammer; D T Chen; R M Hoar; N D Agnish; P J Benke; J T Braun; C J Curry; P M Fernhoff; A W Grix; I T Lott Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1985-10-03 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Eli D Ehrenpreis; Parakkal Deepak; Humberto Sifuentes; Radha Devi; Hongyan Du; Jerrold B Leikin Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 12.045
Authors: Antoni F Z Wisniewski; Andrew Bate; Cedric Bousquet; Andreas Brueckner; Gianmario Candore; Kristina Juhlin; Miguel A Macia-Martinez; Katrin Manlik; Naashika Quarcoo; Suzie Seabroke; Jim Slattery; Harry Southworth; Bharat Thakrar; Phil Tregunno; Lionel Van Holle; Michael Kayser; G Niklas Norén Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2016-06 Impact factor: 5.606
Authors: Michael Fralick; Martin Kulldorff; Donald Redelmeier; Shirley V Wang; Seanna Vine; Sebastian Schneeweiss; Elisabetta Patorno Journal: Endocrinol Diabetes Metab Date: 2021-04-06