There is an increased focus on signal detection, signal management, and the use of use of large collections of adverse event databases to meet the evolving regulatory mandates. The basic elements of signaling require an understanding of the different signaling methods, data mining approaches, and the strengths and limitations of disproportionality analysis. The application of signaling thresholds and the resulting statistical interpretation require an understanding of the methods themselves, as well as the strengths, limitations, and biases inherent in the adverse event data sources. This paper will highlight recent developments in these areas as well as provide cautions related to biases that affect reporting and analyses of adverse event databases.
World Health Organization. Glossary of terms used in pharmacovigilance. http://who-umc.org/Graphics/24729.pdf. Published March 2011. Accessed June 18, 2012.
2.
MeyboomRHEgbertsACEdwardsIRHeksterYAde KoningFHGribnauFW. Principles of signal detection in pharmacovigilance. Drug Saf. 1997;16:355–365.
3.
HaubenMAronsonJ. Defining signal and its subtypes. Drug Saf. 2009;32(2):99–110.
Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS). Management of Safety Information from Clinical Trials: Report of CIOMS Working Group VI. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2005.
6.
Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS). Practical Aspects of Signal Detection in Pharmacovigilance: Report of CIOMS Working Group VIII. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2010.
7.
FinneyDJ. Systematic signaling of adverse reactions to drugs. Methods Inf Med. 1974;13(1):1–10.
8.
AmeryWK. Assessment of signals generated from spontaneously generated adverse events. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 1999;8:301–304.
FaichGClarkJ. Safety signaling and risk assessment. In
FettermanJEPinesWLSlatkoGH, eds. Pharmaceutical Risk Management: Practical Application. Washington, DC: Food and Drug Law Institute; 2008.
11.
GogolakV. The effect of backgrounds in safety analysis: the impact of comparison cases on what you see. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2003;12:249–252.
12.
BateAEvansSJW. Quantitative signal detection using spontaneous ADR reporting. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2009;18(6):427–436.
13.
DuMouchelWPregibonD.Empirical Bayes screening for multi-item associations. In: Proceedings of the Seventh ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. New York, NY: ACM; 2001:67–76.
14.
SzarfmanATonningJMDoraiswamyPM. Pharmacovigilance in the 21st century: new systematic tools for an old problem. Pharmacotherapy2004;24(9):1099–1104.
15.
AlmenoffJSPattishallENGibbsTG. Novel statistical tools for monitoring the safety of marketed drugs. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2007;82(2):157–166.
16.
BateALindquistMEdwardsIR. A Bayesian neural network method for adverse drug reaction signal generation, Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1998;54:315–321.
17.
StephensonWPHaubenM. Data mining for signals in spontaneous reporting databases: proceed with caution. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2007;16(4):359–365.
18.
HochbergAMReisingerSJPearsonRK. Using data mining to predict safety actions from FDA adverse event reporting system data. Drug Information Journal. 2007;41(5):633–642.
19.
HaubenMMadiganDHochbergAM. Data mining in pharmacovigilance: computational cost as a neglected performance parameter. International Journal of Pharmaceutical Medicine. 2007;21:319–323.
20.
HochbergAMHaubenMPearsonRK. An evaluation of three signal-detection algorithms using a highly inclusive reference event database. Drug Saf. 2009;32(6):509–525.
Alvarez-RequejoACarvajalABegaudB. Under-reporting of adverse drug effects. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1998;54:483–488.
23.
EvansSJ. Pharmacovigilance: a science or fielding emergencies?Stat Med. 2000;19:3199–3209.
24.
EvansSJWWallerPCDavisS. Use of proportional reporting ratios. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2001;10:483–486.
25.
EvansSJWWallerPDavisS. Proportional reporting ratios: the uses of epidemiological methods for signal generation [abstract]. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 1998;7:S102.
26.
ColmanSzarfman AWyethJ. An evaluation of a data mining signal for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and statins detected in FDA’s spontaneous adverse event reporting systemPharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2008;17(11):1068–1076.
27.
SachsRMBortnichakEA. An evaluation of spontaneous adverse drug reaction monitoring systems. Am J Med. 1986;81(suppl 5b):49–55.
28.
FletcherAP. Spontaneous adverse drug reaction reporting vs event monitoring: a comparison. J R Soc Med. 1991;84:341–344.
29.
LeiperJMLawsonDH. Why do doctors not report adverse drug reactions?Neth J Med. 1985;28:546–550.
30.
HaubenMHochbergAM. Exenatide and pancreatitis: the importance of reporting negative findings in data mining. Pharmaceutical Medicine. 2008;22(4):215–219.
WeberJCP.Epidemiology of adverse reactions to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. In:
WeissmannGSamuelssonBPaolettiR, eds. Advances in Inflammation Research. Vol. 6. New York: Raven Press; 1984: 1–7.
33.
MockenhauptM. Epidemiology and causes of severe cutaneous adverse reactions to drugs. In:
PichlerWJ, ed. Drug Hypersensitivity. Basel, Switzerland: Karger; 2007:18–31.
34.
StromBLMelmonKLMiettinenOS. Post marketing studies of drug efficacy. Arch Intern Med. 1985;145:1791.
