Abstract
Background
Rare but serious adverse events are often reasons for the modification of drug product labelling, termination of further development and even withdrawal of a treatment from the market.
Objective
Our objective was to use analytical methods to evaluate adverse events of special interest to aid in the determination of whether a particular treatment increases risk above what would be expected in the target population. These methods could be used during drug development and in the post-marketing setting as a supplement to the program safety analysis plan for compounds that have potential for rare serious adverse events.
Methods
Two well-known statistical methods were used in a new way by a cross-functional internal matrix team of safety physicians, scientists, epidemiologists and statisticians to compare background adverse event rates in a specific disease population with the observed rate in clinical trials to date. If the clinical trial rate is similar to the background rates, one can surmise that the study drug has not increased the risk of the event. Method 1 uses binomial probabilities to calculate the probability of observing the event; method 2 uses incidence rates to assess risk. To illustrate our methods, we evaluated two compounds with immunosuppressive characteristics for cases of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy or herpes zoster due to reactivation of the varicella zoster virus. A literature search was used to help determine background rates of these adverse events in the populations of interest.
Results
For method 1, data are presented in tabular form to show the estimated probability of observing one or more cases of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy, assuming a background rate of 0.4% as a result of the disease and 500 subjects exposed to the study medication. For herpes zoster, a background rate of 0.32 per 100 patient-years was predicted from the literature and steps to assess the likelihood of the incidence rates occurring by chance are shown in tabular form.
Conclusions
These analytical tools may contribute to a better understanding of the association of rare serious adverse events with an approved or experimental compound by helping distinguish rates related to the drug vs. that of the underlying disease or other factors. These methods can aid the drug safety professional by providing a quantitative context of a medicine’s benefit-risk profile during drug development and the post-marketing setting.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Arrowsmith J, Miller P. Trial watch: phase II and phase III attrition rates 2011–2012. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2013;12(8):569. doi:10.1038/nrd4090.
Richardson EP Jr. Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy. N Engl J Med. 1961;265:815–23. doi:10.1056/NEJM196110262651701.
Astrom KE, Mancall EL, Richardson EP Jr. Progressive multifocal leuko-encephalopathy; a hitherto unrecognized complication of chronic lymphatic leukaemia and Hodgkin’s disease. Brain. 1958;81(1):93–111.
Richardson EP Jr. Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy 30 years later. N Engl J Med. 1988;318(5):315–7. doi:10.1056/NEJM198802043180510.
Kleinschmidt-DeMasters BK, Tyler KL. Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy complicating treatment with natalizumab and interferon beta-1a for multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(4):369–74. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa051782.
Langer-Gould A, Atlas SW, Green AJ, et al. Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy in a patient treated with natalizumab. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(4):375–81. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa051847.
Boothpur R, Brennan DC. Human polyoma viruses and disease with emphasis on clinical BK and JC. J Clin Virol. 2010;47(4):306–12. doi:10.1016/j.jcv.2009.12.006.
Lima MA, Drislane FW, Koralnik IJ. Seizures and their outcome in progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy. Neurology. 2006;66(2):262–4. doi:10.1212/01.wnl.0000194227.16696.11.
Calabrese LH, Molloy ES. Progressive multifocal leucoencephalopathy in the rheumatic diseases: assessing the risks of biological immunosuppressive therapies. Ann Rheum Dis. 2008;67 Suppl 3:iii64–5. doi:10.1136/ard.2008.097972.
Forbes HJ, Thomas SL, Langan SM. The epidemiology and prevention of herpes zoster. Curr Derm Rep. 2012;1:39. doi:10.1007/s13671-011-0004-4.
Crowe BJ, Xia HA, Berlin JA, et al. Recommendations for safety planning, data collection, evaluation and reporting during drug, biologic and vaccine development: a report of the safety planning, evaluation, and reporting team. Clin Trials. 2009;6(5):430–40. doi:10.1177/1740774509344101.
Xia HA, Crowe BJ, Schriver RC, et al. Planning and core analyses for periodic aggregate safety data reviews. Clin Trials. 2011;8(2):175–82. doi:10.1177/1740774510395635.
Hill D, Eudy A, Bennett D, et al. Benefit-risk analysis and management plan for rare serious adverse events (SAEs): progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML) case example (abstract). Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2015;24(Suppl. S1):1–587. doi:10.1002/pds.3838.
Henegar CE, Eudy AM, Kharat V, et al. Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: a systematic literature review. Lupus. 2016;25(6):617–26. doi:10.1177/0961203315622819.
Stokes ME, Davis CS, Koch GG. Categorical data analysis using SAS. 3rd ed. SAS Institute; 2012.Cary, NC.
Amend KL, Turnbull B, Foskett N, et al. Incidence of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy in patients without HIV. Neurology. 2010;75:1326. doi:10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181f73600.
Tysabri (natalizumab) prescribing information. Cambridge: Biogen, Inc.; 2016. https://www.tysabri.com/content/dam/commercial/multiple-sclerosis/tysabri/pat/en_us/pdfs/tysabri_prescribing_information.pdf. Accessed 13 Jul 2016.
Crowe B, Chuang-Stein C, Lettis S, Brueckner A. Reporting adverse drug reactions in product labels. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2016;50(4):455–63. doi:10.1177/2168479016628574.
Acknowledgements
We thank our co-collaborators on this project, Jonathan Haddad, Sarah Kavanaugh, Barbara Haight, Lorrie Schifano, Marilyn Metcalf and Qiming Liao, for their insights and support.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Funding
This work was sponsored by GlaxoSmithKline.
Conflict of interest
Eric Lewis is a current employee of GlaxoSmithKline and Susan P. Duke, Christi Kleoudis, Margaret Polinkovsky, Dimitri Bennett and Deanna Hill were employees of GlaxoSmithKline and completed this research as part of their employment with GlaxoSmithKline. Currently, Susan P. Duke is with Statistical Sciences, AbbVie; Christi Kleoudis and Margaret Polinkovsky are with Biostatistics, PAREXEL; Dimitri Bennett is with R&D Data Science Institute, Informatics, Pharmacoepidemiology, Takeda; and Deanna Hill is with the Center for Observational and Real-World Evidence, Pharmacoepidemiology, Merck & Co.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Duke, S.P., Kleoudis, C., Polinkovsky, M. et al. Quantitative Methods for Safety Monitoring of Rare Serious Adverse Events. Pharm Med 31, 113–118 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40290-016-0176-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40290-016-0176-0