Advertisement

Drug Safety

, Volume 39, Issue 3, pp 251–260 | Cite as

A Method for the Minimization of Competition Bias in Signal Detection from Spontaneous Reporting Databases

  • Mickael Arnaud
  • Francesco Salvo
  • Ismaïl Ahmed
  • Philip Robinson
  • Nicholas Moore
  • Bernard Bégaud
  • Pascale Tubert-Bitter
  • Antoine Pariente
Original Research Article

Abstract

Introduction

The two methods for minimizing competition bias in signal of disproportionate reporting (SDR) detection—masking factor (MF) and masking ratio (MR)—have focused on the strength of disproportionality for identifying competitors and have been tested using competitors at the drug level.

Objectives

The aim of this study was to develop a method that relies on identifying competitors by considering the proportion of reports of adverse events (AEs) that mention the drug class at an adequate level of drug grouping to increase sensitivity (Se) for SDR unmasking, and its comparison with MF and MR.

Methods

Reports in the French spontaneous reporting database between 2000 and 2005 were selected. Five AEs were considered: myocardial infarction, pancreatitis, aplastic anemia, convulsions, and gastrointestinal bleeding; related reports were retrieved using standardized Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA®) queries. Potential competitors of AEs were identified using the developed method, i.e. Competition Index (ComIn), as well as MF and MR. All three methods were tested according to Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification levels 2–5. For each AE, SDR detection was performed, first in the complete database, and second after removing reports mentioning competitors; SDRs only detected after the removal were unmasked. All unmasked SDRs were validated using the Summary of Product Characteristics, and constituted the reference dataset used for computing the performance for SDR unmasking (area under the curve [AUC], Se).

Results

Performance of the ComIn was highest when considering competitors at ATC level 3 (AUC: 62 %; Se: 52 %); similar results were obtained with MF and MR.

Conclusion

The ComIn could greatly minimize the competition bias in SDR detection. Further study using a larger dataset is needed.

Keywords

Acute Myocardial Infarction Acute Pancreatitis Aplastic Anemia Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Reference Dataset 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all members of the 31 French regional pharmacovigilance centers, as well as the French National Agency for Drug Safety [Agence Nationale de Sécurité des Médicaments et des produits de santé (ANSM)] for providing the data.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding

This study is part of a research project that has received funding from the French National Agency for Drug Safety (ANSM) under Grant agreement number 2013–2050—the SPOON-KIM project. The funding source had no role in study design; collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; writing of the report; and the decision to submit the paper for publication.

Conflict of interest

Mickael Arnaud, Francesco Salvo, Ismaïl Ahmed, Philip Robinson, Nicholas Moore, Bernard Bégaud, Pascale Tubert-Bitter, and Antoine Pariente have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this study.

Supplementary material

40264_2015_375_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (1 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 1066 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Moore N. The past, present and perhaps future of pharmacovigilance: homage to Folke Sjoqvist. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2013;69:33–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pariente A, Gregoire F, Fourrier-Reglat A, Haramburu F, Moore N. Impact of safety alerts on measures of disproportionality in spontaneous reporting databases: the notoriety bias. Drug Saf. 2007;30:891–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gould A. Practical pharmacovigilance analysis strategies. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2003;12:559–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hauben M, Madigan D, Gerrits CM, Walsh L, Van Puijenbroek EP. The role of data mining in pharmacovigilance. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2005;4:929–48.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pariente A, Didailler M, Avillach P, Miremont-Salamé G, Fourrier-Reglat A, Haramburu F, et al. A potential competition bias in the detection of safety signals from spontaneous reporting databases. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2010;19:1166–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Evans SJW, Waller PC, Davis S. Use of proportional reporting ratios (PRRs) for signal generation from spontaneous adverse drug reaction reports. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2001;10:483–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Juhlin K, Ye X, Star K, Norén GN. Outlier removal to uncover patterns in adverse drug reaction surveillance—a simple unmasking strategy. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2013;22:1119–29.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Maignen F, Hauben M, Hung E, Holle LV, Dogne J-M. A conceptual approach to the masking effect of measures of disproportionality. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2014;23:208–17.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pariente A, Avillach P, Salvo F, Thiessard F, Miremont-Salamé G, Fourrier-Reglat A, et al. Effect of competition bias in safety signal generation. Drug Saf. 2012;35:855–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Salvo F, Raschi E, Moretti U, Chiarolanza A, Fourrier-Réglat A, Moore N, et al. Pharmacological prioritisation of signals of disproportionate reporting: proposal of an algorithm and pilot evaluation. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2014;70:617–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Maignen F, Hauben M, Hung E, Van Holle L, Dogne J-M. Assessing the extent and impact of the masking effect of disproportionality analyses on two spontaneous reporting systems databases. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2014;23:195–207.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Salvo F, Raschi E, Moretti U, Chiarolanza A, Fourrier-Réglat A, Moore N, et al. Pharmacological prioritisation of signals of disproportionate reporting: proposal of an algorithm and pilot evaluation. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2014;70:617–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Trifiro G, Pariente A, Coloma PM, Kors JA, Polimeni G, Miremont-Salamé G, et al. Data mining on electronic health record databases for signal detection in pharmacovigilance: which events to monitor? Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2009;18:1176–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    European Medicines Agency. Summary of product characteristics (EU). 2014. http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/. Accessed 8 Sep 2015.
  15. 15.
    Vidal 2014: le dictionnaire. 90e ed. Issy-les-Moulineaux: Vidal; 2014.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cantor SB, Kattan MW. Determining the area under the ROC curve for a binary diagnostic test. Med Decis Making. 2000;20:468–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology. 1982;143:29–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    van Puijenbroek EP, Bate A, Leufkens HGM, Lindquist M, Orre R, Egberts ACG. A comparison of measures of disproportionality for signal detection in spontaneous reporting systems for adverse drug reactions. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2002;11:3–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Géniaux H, Assaf D, Miremont-Salamé G, Raspaud B, Gouverneur A, Robinson P, et al. Performance of the standardised MedDRA® queries for case retrieval in the French spontaneous reporting database. Drug Saf. 2014;37:537–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Moore N, Kreft-Jais C, Haramburu F, Noblet C, Andrejak M, Ollagnier M, et al. Reports of hypoglycaemia associated with the use of ACE inhibitors and other drugs: a case/non-case study in the French pharmacovigilance system database. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2003;44:513–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bate A, Lindquist M, Edwards IR, Olsson S, Orre R, Lansner A, et al. A Bayesian neural network method for adverse drug reaction signal generation. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1998;54:315–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    DuMouchel W. Bayesian data mining in large frequency tables, with an application to the FDA spontaneous reporting system. Am Stat. 1999;53:177–89.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ahmed I, Thiessard F, Miremont-Salame G, Haramburu F, Kreft-Jais C, Bégaud B, et al. Early detection of pharmacovigilance signals with automated methods based on false discovery rates. Drug Saf. 2012;35:495–506.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ryan PB, Schuemie MJ, Welebob E, Duke J, Valentine S, Hartzema AG. Defining a reference set to support methodological research in drug safety. Drug Saf. 2013;36:33–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mickael Arnaud
    • 1
    • 2
  • Francesco Salvo
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Ismaïl Ahmed
    • 4
    • 5
    • 6
  • Philip Robinson
    • 1
    • 7
  • Nicholas Moore
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 7
  • Bernard Bégaud
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Pascale Tubert-Bitter
    • 4
    • 5
    • 6
  • Antoine Pariente
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 7
  1. 1.Université de BordeauxBordeaux CedexFrance
  2. 2.INSERM U657BordeauxFrance
  3. 3.CHU BordeauxBordeauxFrance
  4. 4.Université de Versailles St QuentinVillejuifFrance
  5. 5.INSERM UMR 1181, Biostatistics, Biomathematics, Pharmacoepidemiology and Infectious DiseasesVillejuifFrance
  6. 6.Institut PasteurParisFrance
  7. 7.CIC Bordeaux CIC1401BordeauxFrance

Personalised recommendations