Supporting Pharmacovigilance Signal Validation and Prioritization with Analyses of Routinely Collected Health Data: Lessons Learned from an EHDEN Network Study.
Journal
Drug safety
ISSN: 1179-1942
Titre abrégé: Drug Saf
Pays: New Zealand
ID NLM: 9002928
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2023
Dec 2023
Historique:
accepted:
17
09
2023
medline:
29
11
2023
pubmed:
7
10
2023
entrez:
7
10
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Individual case reports are the main asset in pharmacovigilance signal management. Signal validation is the first stage after signal detection and aims to determine if there is sufficient evidence to justify further assessment. Throughout signal management, a prioritization of signals is continually made. Routinely collected health data can provide relevant contextual information but are primarily used at a later stage in pharmacoepidemiological studies to assess communicated signals. The aim of this study was to examine the feasibility and utility of analysing routine health data from a multinational distributed network to support signal validation and prioritization and to reflect on key user requirements for these analyses to become an integral part of this process. Statistical signal detection was performed in VigiBase, the WHO global database of individual case safety reports, targeting generic manufacturer drugs and 16 prespecified adverse events. During a 5-day study-a-thon, signal validation and prioritization were performed using information from VigiBase, regulatory documents and the scientific literature alongside descriptive analyses of routine health data from 10 partners of the European Health Data and Evidence Network (EHDEN). Databases included in the study were from the UK, Spain, Norway, the Netherlands and Serbia, capturing records from primary care and/or hospitals. Ninety-five statistical signals were subjected to signal validation, of which eight were considered for descriptive analyses in the routine health data. Design, execution and interpretation of results from these analyses took up to a few hours for each signal (of which 15-60 minutes were for execution) and informed decisions for five out of eight signals. The impact of insights from the routine health data varied and included possible alternative explanations, potential public health and clinical impact and feasibility of follow-up pharmacoepidemiological studies. Three signals were selected for signal assessment, two of these decisions were supported by insights from the routine health data. Standardization of analytical code, availability of adverse event phenotypes including bridges between different source vocabularies, and governance around the access and use of routine health data were identified as important aspects for future development. Analyses of routine health data from a distributed network to support signal validation and prioritization are feasible in the given time limits and can inform decision making. The cost-benefit of integrating these analyses at this stage of signal management requires further research.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37804398
doi: 10.1007/s40264-023-01353-w
pii: 10.1007/s40264-023-01353-w
pmc: PMC10684396
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1335-1352Subventions
Organisme : Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI)
ID : No 806968
Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2023 Jan;32(1):28-43
pubmed: 36218170
Stat Med. 2012 Dec 30;31(30):4401-15
pubmed: 23015364
Open Med. 2012 Oct 30;6(4):e134-40
pubmed: 23687528
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2017 Oct;26(10):1256-1265
pubmed: 28815800
Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2020 Sep;54(5):1116-1122
pubmed: 32078733
Drug Saf. 2013 Oct;36 Suppl 1:S143-58
pubmed: 24166231
Drug Saf. 2018 Sep;41(9):899-910
pubmed: 29725942
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2009 Dec;18(12):1176-84
pubmed: 19757412
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016 Jul 5;113(27):7329-36
pubmed: 27274072
Drug Saf. 2015 Dec;38(12):1201-10
pubmed: 26370104
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2013 Jul;22(7):700-4
pubmed: 23653370
BMJ Open. 2014 Jan 15;4(1):e004221
pubmed: 24435895
Drug Saf. 2005;28(10):843-50
pubmed: 16180935
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2012 Jun;21(6):611-21
pubmed: 22315152
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2015 May;24(5):486-94
pubmed: 25623045
Med Care. 2007 Oct;45(10 Supl 2):S89-95
pubmed: 17909389
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2012 Jan;21 Suppl 1:291-7
pubmed: 22262619
BMC Med. 2016 Feb 04;14:10
pubmed: 26843061
Drug Saf. 2013 Feb;36(2):75-81
pubmed: 23329541
Drug Saf. 2017 May;40(5):365-372
pubmed: 28247280
JAMIA Open. 2022 Nov 17;5(4):ooac100
pubmed: 36406796
BMJ. 2021 Jun 14;373:n1435
pubmed: 35727911
Drug Saf. 2014 Aug;37(8):617-28
pubmed: 25052742
Ann Intern Med. 2001 Feb 20;134(4):330-4
pubmed: 11182844
Stat Methods Med Res. 2013 Feb;22(1):57-69
pubmed: 21705438
Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2022 Oct;225:107081
pubmed: 36084453
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2022 Nov;31(11):1140-1152
pubmed: 35984046
Drug Saf. 2023 Feb;46(2):109-120
pubmed: 36469249
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2020 Aug;29(8):951-957
pubmed: 32399991
Epidemiology. 2018 Nov;29(6):895-903
pubmed: 30074538
Drug Saf. 2015 Jan;38(1):87-100
pubmed: 25539877
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2022 May;31(5):495-510
pubmed: 35191114
Drug Saf. 2014 Dec;37(12):1059-66
pubmed: 25398646