Abstract
Pharmacovigilance aims at detecting adverse effects of marketed drugs. It is generally based on a Spontaneous Reporting System (SRS) that consists of the spontaneous reporting, by health professionals, of events that are supposed to be adverse effects of marketed drugs. SRS supply huge databases, the human-based exploitation of which cannot be exhaustive. Automated signal generation methods have been proposed in the literature but no consensus exists concerning their efficiency and applicability due to the difficulties in evaluating the methods on real data.
The objective is to propose SRS modelling in order to simulate realistic data sets that would permit completion of the methods’ evaluation and comparison. In fact, as the status of the drug-event relationships is known in the simulated data sets, generated signals can be labelled as “true” or “false.”
The spontaneous reporting is viewed as a Poisson process depending on: the drug’s exposure frequency, the delay from the drug’s launch, the adverse events’ background incidence and seriousness, and the reporting probability. This reporting probability, quantitatively unknown, is derived from the qualitative knowledge found in the literature and expressed by experts. This knowledge is represented and exploited by means of a set of fuzzy rules.
Then, we show that the SRS modelling permits to evaluate the automatic signal generation methods proposed within pharmacovigilance and contribute to generate a consensus on drugs’ postmarketing surveillance strategies.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Bate, A., Lindquist, M., Edwards, I. R., Olsson, S., Orre, R., Lansner, A., and De Freitas, R. M. (1998). A Bayesian neural network method for adverse drug reaction signal generation, European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 54, 315–321.
Bouchon-Meunier, B., and Marsala, C. (2003). Méthodes de raisonnement, In Logique floue, principes, aide à la décision, Hermès Science, London, England.
DuMouchel, W. (1999). Bayesian data mining in large frequency tables, with an application to the FDA spontaneous reporting system, The American Statistician, 53, 177–190.
DuMouchel, W., and Pregibon, D. (2001). Empirical Bayes screening for multi-item associations, In Proceedings of 7th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD 2001), San Francisco, California, USA.
Egberts, A. C. G., Meyboom, R. H. B., and Van Puijenbroek, E. P. (2002). Use of measure of disproportionality in pharmacovigilance — three Dutch examples, Drug Safety, 25, 453–458.
Eklund, P., Kallin, L., and Riissanen, T. (2000). Fuzzy systems, Report, pp. 27–32, Umeå University.
Evans, S. (2003). Sequential probability ratio tests applied to public health problems, Controlled Clinical Trials, 24, 67S.
Evans, S. J., Waller, P. C., and Davis, S. (2001). Use of proportional reporting ratios (PRRs) for signal generation from spontaneous adverse drug reaction reports, Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, 10, 483–486.
Gould, A. L. (2003). Practical pharmacovigilance analysis strategies, Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, 12, 559–574.
Rothman, K. J., Lanes, S., and Sacks, S. T. (2004). The reporting odds ratio and its advantages over the proportional reporting ratio, Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, 13, 519–523.
Thiessard, F., Miremont-Salame, G., Fourrier, A., Haramburu, F., Auriche, P., Kreft-Jais, C., Tubert-Bitter, P., Roux, E., and Bégaud, B. (2003). Description of the French pharmacovigilance system: Reports from 1985 to 2001, In Proceedings of 19th International Conference on Pharmacoepidemiology and 1st International Conference on Therapeutic Risk Management, pp. 22–24, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Tubert, P. (1993). Modelling in pharmacovigilance, In Methodological Approaches in Pharmacoepidemiology (Eds., ARME-P). pp. 151–156, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Tubert, P., Bégaud, B., Péré, J.-C., Haramburu, F., and Lellouch, J. (1992). Power and weakness of spontaneous reporting: A probabilistic approach, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 45, 283–286.
Tubert-Bitter, P., Haramburu, F., Bégaud, B., Chaslerie, A., Abraham, E., and Hagry, C. (1998). Spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions: Who reports and what? Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, 7, 323–329.
Van Puijenbroek, E. P., Bate, A., Leufkens, H., Lindquist, M., Orre, R. and Egberts, A. C. G. (2002). A comparaison of measures of disproportionality for signal detection in spontaneous reporting systems for adverse drug reaction, Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, 11, 3–10.
Van Puijenbroek, E. P., Diemont, W. L. and Van Grootheest, K. (2003). Application of quantitative signal detection in the Dutch spontaneous reporting system for adverse drug reactions, Drug Safety, 26, 293–301.
Waller, P., Van Puijenbroek, E., Egberts, A. and Evans, S. (2004). The reporting odds ratio versus the proportional reporting ratio: ‘deuce’, Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, 13, 525–526.
Weber, J. C. P. (1986). Mathematical models in adverse drug reaction assessment, In Iatrogenic Diseases (Eds., P. F. Arcy, and J. P. Griffin), Oxford University Press, London, England.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2007 Birkhäuser Boston
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Roux, E., Thiessard, F., Fourrier, A., Bégaud, B., Tubert-Bitter, P. (2007). Spontaneous Reporting System Modelling for the Evaluation of Automatic Signal Generation Methods in Pharmacovigilance. In: Auget, JL., Balakrishnan, N., Mesbah, M., Molenberghs, G. (eds) Advances in Statistical Methods for the Health Sciences. Statistics for Industry and Technology. Birkhäuser Boston. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-8176-4542-7_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-8176-4542-7_5
Publisher Name: Birkhäuser Boston
Print ISBN: 978-0-8176-4368-3
Online ISBN: 978-0-8176-4542-7
eBook Packages: Mathematics and StatisticsMathematics and Statistics (R0)