Drug Safety

, Volume 37, Issue 3, pp 151–161

Near-Real-Time Monitoring of New Drugs: An Application Comparing Prasugrel Versus Clopidogrel

  • Joshua J. Gagne
  • Jeremy A. Rassen
  • Niteesh K. Choudhry
  • Rhonda L. Bohn
  • Amanda R. Patrick
  • Gayathri Sridhar
  • Gregory W. Daniel
  • Jun Liu
  • Sebastian Schneeweiss
Original Research Article



Methods for near-real-time monitoring of new drugs in electronic healthcare data are needed.


In a novel application, we prospectively monitored ischemic, bleeding, and mortality outcomes among patients initiating prasugrel versus clopidogrel in routine care during the first 2 years following the approval of prasugrel.


Using the HealthCore Integrated Research Database, we conducted a prospective cohort study comparing prasugrel and clopidogrel initiators in the 6 months following the introduction of prasugrel and every 2 months thereafter. We identified patients who initiated antiplatelets within 14 days following discharge from hospitalizations for myocardial infarction (MI) or acute coronary syndrome. We matched patients using high-dimensional propensity scores (hd-PSs) and followed them for ischemic (i.e., MI and ischemic stroke) events, bleed (i.e., hemorrhagic stroke and gastrointestinal bleed) events, and all-cause mortality. For each outcome, we applied sequential alerting algorithms.


We identified 1,282 eligible new users of prasugrel and 8,263 eligible new users of clopidogrel between September 2009 and August 2011. In hd-PS matched cohorts, the overall MI rate difference (RD) comparing prasugrel with clopidogrel was −23.1 (95 % confidence interval [CI] −62.8–16.7) events per 1,000 person-years and RDs were −0.5 (−12.9–11.9) and −2.8 (−13.2–7.6) for a composite bleed event outcome and death from any cause, respectively. No algorithms generated alerts for any outcomes.


Near-real-time monitoring was feasible and, in contrast to the key pre-marketing trial that demonstrated the efficacy of prasugrel, did not suggest that prasugrel compared with clopidogrel was associated with an increased risk of gastrointestinal and intracranial bleeding.


  1. 1.
    Wiviott SD, Braunwald E, McCabe CH, et al. Prasugrel versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:2001–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bhatt DL. Prasugrel in clinical practice. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:940–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schneeweiss S. Developments in post-marketing comparative effectiveness research. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2007;82:143–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wiviott SD, Antman EM, Gibson CM, et al. Evaluation of prasugrel compared with clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes: design and rationale for the TRial to assess Improvement in Therapeutic Outcomes by optimizing platelet InhibitioN with prasugrel Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction 38 (TRITON-TIMI 38). Am Heart J. 2006;152:627–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schneeweiss S, Gagne JJ, Glynn RJ, Ruhl M, Rassen JA. Assessing the comparative effectiveness of newly marketed medications: methodological challenges and implications for drug development. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2011;90:777–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Resnic FS, Gross TP, Marinac-Dabic D, et al. Automated surveillance to detect postprocedure safety signals of approved cardiovascular devices. JAMA. 2010;304:2019–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wahl PM, Gagne JJ, Wasser TE, et al. Early steps in the development of a claims-based targeted healthcare safety monitoring system and application to three empirical examples. Drug Saf. 2012;35:407–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gagne JJ, Glynn RJ, Rassen JA, et al. Active safety monitoring of newly marketed medications in a distributed data network: application of a semi-automated monitoring system. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2012;92:80–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gagne JJ, Rassen JA, Walker AM, Glynn RJ, Schneeweiss S. Active safety monitoring of new medical products using electronic healthcare data: selecting alerting rules. Epidemiology. 2012;23:238–46.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ray WA. Evaluating medication effects outside of clinical trials: new-user designs. Am J Epidemiol. 2003;158:915–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schneeweiss S. A basic study design for expedited safety signal evaluation based on electronic healthcare data. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2010;19:858–68.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wahl PM, Rodgers K, Schneeweiss S, et al. Validation of claims-based diagnostic and procedure codes for cardiovascular and gastrointestinal serious adverse events in a commercially-insured population. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2010;19:596–603.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tirschwell DL, Longstreth WT Jr. Validating administrative data in stroke research. Stroke. 2002;33:2465–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schneeweiss S, Seeger JD, Maclure M, Wang PS, Avorn J, Glynn RJ. Performance of comorbidity scores to control for confounding in epidemiologic studies using claims data. Am J Epidemiol. 2001;154:854–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gagne JJ, Glynn RJ, Avorn J, Levin R, Schneeweiss S. A combined comorbidity score predicted mortality in elderly patients better than existing scores. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:749–59.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika. 1983;70:41–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schneeweiss S, Rassen JA, Glynn RJ, Avorn J, Mogun H, Brookhart MA. High-dimensional propensity score adjustment in studies of treatment effects using health care claims data. Epidemiology. 2009;20:512–22.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rassen JA, Schneeweiss S. Using high-dimensional propensity scores to automate confounding control in a distributed medical product safety surveillance system. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2012;21(Suppl 1):41–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Toh S, Gagne JJ, Rassen JA, Fireman BH, Kulldorff M, Brown JS. Confounding adjustment in comparative effectiveness research conducted within distributed research networks. Med Care. 2013;51:S4–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rassen JA, Glynn RJ, Brookhart MA, Schneeweiss S. Covariate selection in high-dimensional propensity score analyses of treatment effects in small samples. Am J Epidemiol. 2011;173:1404–13.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gagne JJ, Walker AM, Glynn RJ, Rassen JA, Schneeweiss S. An event-based approach for comparing the performance of methods for prospective medical product monitoring. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2012;21:631–9.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL. Modern epidemiology. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008. p. 273–4.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Goldberg NH, Schneeweiss S, Kowal MK, Gagne JJ. Availability of comparative efficacy data at the time of drug approval in the United States. JAMA. 2011;305:1786–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Roe MT, Armstrong PW, Fox KA, et al. Prasugrel versus clopidogrel for acute coronary syndromes without revascularization. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(14):1297–309.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gagne JJ, Fireman B, Ryan PB, et al. Design considerations in an active medical product safety monitoring system. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2012;21(Suppl 1):32–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Choudhry NK, Avorn J, Glynn RJ, et al. Full coverage for preventive medications after myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:2088–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dregan A, Toschke MA, Wolfe CD, Rudd A, Ashworth M, Gulliford MC. Utility of electronic patient records in primary care for stroke secondary prevention trials. BMC Public Health. 2011;11:86.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Staa TP, Goldacre B, Gulliford M, et al. Pragmatic randomised trials using routine electronic health records: putting them to the test. BMJ. 2012;344:e55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gagne JJ. You can observe a lot (about medical products) by watching (those who use them). Epidemiology. 2013;24:700–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gagne JJ, Bykov K, Willke RJ, Kahler KH, Subedi P, Schneeweiss S. Treatment dynamics of newly marketed drugs and implications for comparative effectiveness research. Value Health. 2013;16:1054–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Behrman RE, Benner JS, Brown JS, McClellan M, Woodcock J, Platt R. Developing the sentinel system—a national resource for evidence development. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:498–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Platt R, Carnahan RM, Brown JS, et al. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration‘s Mini-Sentinel program: status and direction. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2012;21(Suppl 1):1–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joshua J. Gagne
    • 1
  • Jeremy A. Rassen
    • 1
  • Niteesh K. Choudhry
    • 1
  • Rhonda L. Bohn
    • 2
  • Amanda R. Patrick
    • 1
  • Gayathri Sridhar
    • 3
  • Gregory W. Daniel
    • 4
  • Jun Liu
    • 1
  • Sebastian Schneeweiss
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of MedicineBrigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  2. 2.Rhonda L. Bohn, LLCWabanUSA
  3. 3.HealthCore IncWilmingtonUSA
  4. 4.The Engelberg Center for Health Care ReformBrookings InstitutionWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations