Drug Safety

, Volume 30, Issue 10, pp 891–898 | Cite as

Impact of Safety Alerts on Measures of Disproportionality in Spontaneous Reporting Databases The Notoriety Bias

  • Antoine Pariente
  • Fleur Gregoire
  • Annie Fourrier-Reglat
  • Françoise Haramburu
  • Nicholas Moore
Original Research Article

Abstract

Background: Disproportionality analysis of spontaneous reporting is increasingly used, but it may be influenced in unknown ways by safety alerts (notoriety bias).

Objective: To explore the consequences of safety alerts on reporting disproportionality.

Methods: Within the French national pharmacovigilance database, disproportionality of reporting was tested, using the reporting odds ratio (ROR) and its 95% confidence interval, before and after four safety alerts: valvulopathies with pergolide; tuberculosis with infliximab; strokes with atypical antipsychotics; and rhabdomyolysis with HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) [after cerivastatin withdrawal].

Results: No cases of valvulopathy were reported in association with pergolide before the safety alert and 63 cases were reported after the alert, (ROR 9400; 95% CI4300, 20 000), of which five had occurred before the alert. Twenty-five reports mentioned rhabdomyolysis associated with statins (not including cerivastatin) before the safety alert (ROR 5.8; 95% CI 3.8, 9.0), and 63 did so after the alert (ROR 9.4; 95% CI 7.0, 13.0). Approximately 280 cases involving cerivastatin were reported after its withdrawal. There were two reports of tuberculosis associated with infliximab before the alert (ROR 1500; 95% CI 130, 18 000) and seven after the alert (ROR 430; 95% CI 110, 1700). There was one report of a stroke in association with atypical antipsychotic treatment before the safety alert (ROR 0.10; 95% CI 0.01, 0.63) and 16 after the alert (ROR 1.10; 95% CI 0.70, 1.90). After excluding events involving treatment with anticoagulant agents, the RORs for stroke in association with atypical antipsychotic treatment were 0.14 (95% CI 0.02, 1.00) before the alert and 2.0 (95% CI 1.2, 3.4) after the alert.

Conclusion: Disproportionality in spontaneous reporting databases increases after a safety alert because of increased reporting of the event of interest, including reports of such events that occurred before the alert. This may overflow to increased reporting of the event in association with other drugs.

Keywords

Infliximab Adverse Drug Reaction Atypical Antipsychotic Spontaneous Reporting Pergolide 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The French Pharmacovigilance Database was established and is maintained by the French Pharmacovigilance System. No funding was provided specifically to assist in the preparation of this study. The investigators who conducted this study were employed by the Universite de Bordeaux and/or the CHU de Bordeaux. The study was performed as part of their regular work schedule and was part of their statutory activities.

The authors have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this study.

References

  1. 1.
    Bate A, Lindquist M, Edwards IR, et al. A Bayesian neural network method for adverse drug reaction signal generation. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1998; 54(4): 315–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Evans SJ, Waller PC, Davis S. Use of proportional reporting ratios (PRRs) for signal generation from spontaneous adverse drug reaction reports. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2001; 10(6): 483–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Roux E, Thiessard F, Fourrier A, et al. Evaluation of statistical association measures for the automatic signal generation in pharmacovigilance. IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed 2005; 9(4): 518–27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    van Puijenbroek EP, Bate A, Leufkens HG, et al. A comparison of measures of disproportionality for signal detection in spontaneous reporting systems for adverse drug reactions. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2002; 11(1): 3–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Waller PC, Coulson RA, Wood SM. Regulatory pharmacovigilance in the United Kingdom: current principles and practice. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 1996; 5(6): 363–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Moore N, Kreft-Jais C, Haramburu F, 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 1997; 44(5): 513–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rothman KJ, Lanes S, Sacks ST. The reporting odds ratio and its advantages over the proportional reporting ratio. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2004; 13(8): 519–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Moore N, Hall G, Sturkenboom M, et al. Biases affecting the proportional reporting ratio (PPR) in spontaneous reports pharmacovigilance databases: the example of sertindole. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2003; 12(4): 271–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hauben M, Reich L, Van Puijenbroek EP, et al. Data mining in pharmacovigilance: lessons from phantom ships. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2006; 62(11): 967–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stephenson WP, Hauben M. Data mining for signals in spontaneous reporting databases: proceed with caution. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2007; 16(4): 359–65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Strom LB. Pharmacoepidemiology. 4th ed. Chichester: Wiley, 2005Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    van Puijenbroek EP, van Grootheest K, Diemont WL, et al. Determinants of signal selection in a spontaneous reporting system for adverse drug reactions. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2001; 52(5): 579–86PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Begaud B. Dictionary of pharmacoepidemiology. Chichester: John Wiley & sons, 2000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Communiqué de presse: REMICADE® (infliximab)/Tuberculose. 2000 Dec 28. Agence Française de Sécurité Sanitaire des Produits de Sante [online]. Available from URL: http://afssaps.sante.fr/htm/10/filcoprs/indcompr.htm [Accessed 2007 Aug 9]
  15. 15.
    Mac Carty EP, for Bayer Corporation. Market withdrawal of Baycol® (cerivastatin). 2001 Aug 8. US FDA [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/medWatch/safety/2001/Baycol2.htm [Accessed 2007 Aug 9]
  16. 16.
    Ravoire S, for Lilly France. Information importante de pharmacovigilance Celance® (pergolide). Agence Française de Sécurité Sanitaire des Produits de Santé [online]. Available on URL: http://agmed.sante.gouv.fr/htm/10/filcoprs/041102.htm [Accessed 2007 Aug 9]
  17. 17.
    Communiqué de presse: Sécurité d’emploi des neuroleptiques chez les patients âgés atteints de démence. 2004 Mar 9. Agence Française de Sécurité Sanitaire des Produits de Santé [online]. Available from URL: http://afssaps.sante.fr/htm/10/filcoprs/indcompr.htm [Accessed 2007 Aug 9]
  18. 18.
    Brodaty H, Ames D, Snowdon J, et al. A randomized placebo-controlled trial of risperidone for the treatment of aggression, agitation, and psychosis of dementia. J Clin Psychiatry 2003; 64(2): 134–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wooltorton E. Olanzapine (Zyprexa): increased incidence of cerebrovascular events in dementia trials. CMAJ 2004; 170(9): 1395PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Moore N, Biour M, Paux G, et al. Adverse drug reaction monitoring: doing it the French way. Lancet 1985; 2(8463): 1056–8Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Moore N, Noblet C, Kreft-Jais C, et al. French pharmacovigilance database system: examples of utilisation [in French]. Therapie 1995; 50(6): 557–62PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kramer M. Clinical epidemiology and biostatistics. Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Griffin JP, Weber JC. Voluntary systems of adverse reaction reporting — part I. Adverse Drug React Acute Poisoning Rev 1985; 4(4): 213–30PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antoine Pariente
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Fleur Gregoire
    • 3
  • Annie Fourrier-Reglat
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Françoise Haramburu
    • 2
    • 3
  • Nicholas Moore
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Département de Pharmacologie, INSERM U657, BP 36Université Victor Segolen Bordeaux 2BordeauxFrance
  2. 2.INSERM U657BordeauxFrance
  3. 3.CHU de BordeauxBordeauxFrance

Personalised recommendations