Abstract
Background
Monitoring safety in clinical trials by regulatory authorities and sponsors involves the clinical review, often subjectively, of large data sets of different types of safety information which may require considerable resources.
Methods
This study investigated a means of statistically guided clinical review of safety data provided in the Cumulative Table of Serious Adverse Events of a Development Safety Update Report (DSUR). A simple statistical approach that treats every adverse event as independent of all others and uses a reference prior, which avoids infinite estimates of relative risk but does not unduly influence posterior inferences, was used with fixed rules of relative risk to identify a serious adverse event preferred term as a potential risk.
Results
This simple model, using cumulative serious adverse event (SAE) data from 5 DSURs, identified a small group of potential risks that included some not reported by the sponsor as well as most of those reported by the sponsor in the DSUR Summary of Important Risks.
Conclusions
The method provides a systematic and objective approach to analysis of cumulative SAE data that could help to identify potential risks that need further investigation by a regulatory authority or sponsor.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
ICH Guideline E2F, Development safety update report. http://www.ich.org/fileadmin/Public_Web_Site/ICH_Products/Guidelines/Efficacy/E2F/Step4/E2F_Step_4.pdf. Published 2010. Accessed June 16, 2015.
ICH Guideline E2F, Example development safety update report. http://www.ich.org/fileadmin/Public_Web_Site/ICH_Products/Guidelines/Efficacy/E2F/Examples_DSUR/E2F_Example_Commercial_DSUR.pdf. Published 2010. Accessed June 16, 2015.
ICH Guideline E2A, Clinical safety data management: definitions and standards for expedited reporting. http://www.ich.org/fileadmin/Public_Web_Site/ICH_Products/Guidelines/Efficacy/E2A/Step4/E2A_Guideline.pdf. Published 1994. Accessed June 16, 2015.
MedDRA Hierarchy. http://www.meddra.org/how-to-use/basics/hierarchy. Accessed June 16, 2015.
European Medicines Agency policy on publication of clinical data for medicinal products for human use. EMA/240810/2013. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Other/2014/10/WC500174796.pdf. Published October 2, 2014. Accessed June 16, 2015.
Crowe B, Xia HA, Berlin J, 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 (SPERT). Clin Trials. 2009;6:430–440.
Mehrotra DV, Heyse JF. Use of false discovery rate for evaluating clinical safety data. Stat Methods Med Res. 2004;13:227–238.
Mehrotra DV, Adewale AJ. Flagging clinical adverse experiences: reducing false discoveries without materially compromising power for detecting true signals. Stat Med. 2012;31:1918–1930.
Berry SM, Berry DA. Accounting for multiplicities in assessing drug safety: a three-level hierarchical mixed model. Biometrics. 2004;60:418–426.
Xia HA, Ma H, Carlin BP. Bayesian hierarchical modeling for detecting safety signals in clinical trials. J Biopharm Stat. 2011;21:1006–1029.
Southworth H, O’Connell M. Data mining and statistically guided clinical review of adverse event data in clinical trials. J Biopharm Stat. 2009;19:803–817.
Southworth H, Heffernan JE. Extreme value modelling of laboratory safety data from clinical studies. Pharma Stat. 2012;11:361–366.
Introductory Guide for Standardised MedDRA Queries (SMQs). Version 16.0. http://www.meddra.org/sites/default/files/guidance/file/smq_intguide_16_0_english.pdf. Accessed June 16, 2015.
DuMouchel W. Multivariate Bayesian logistic regression for analysis of clinical study safety issues. Stat Sci. 2012;27:319–339.
Evans SJW, Prieto-Merino D, Spiegelhalter DJ, Whittaker J, Smeeth L. Implications of using different types of priors in a three-level hierarchical Bayesian model for the analysis of drug adverse events, presented at the International Biometrical Conference, Dublin, July 13–18, 2008. http://ibc2008abstracts.tibs.org/Bayesian%20Methods/IBC2008_Paper_ref_429.pdf. Accessed June 16, 2015.
Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. www.cochrane-handbook.org.
Brown LD, Tony Cai T, DasGupta A. Confidence intervals for a binomial proportion and asymptotic expansions. Stat Sci. 2001;16:101–133.
Firth D. Bias reduction of maximum likelihood estimates. Biometrika. 1999;80:27–38.
Pawitan Y. In All Likelihood: Statistical Modelling and Inference Using Likelihood. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 2001.
Sterne JAC, Davey Smith G. Sifting the evidence—what’s wrong with significance tests? Br Med J. 2001;322:226–231.
Cox DR. Another comment on the role of statistical methods. Br Med J. 2001;322:231.
Cleveland WS. The Elements of Graphing Data. Summit, NJ: Hobart Press; 1994.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Author Note
This article represents the views of the authors and should not be construed to represent the views of the MHRA.
Electronic supplementary material
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Davis, B., Southworth, H. Statistical Analysis of Cumulative Serious Adverse Event Data From Development Safety Update Reports. Ther Innov Regul Sci 50, 188–194 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479015602735
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479015602735