Advertisement

Drug Safety

, Volume 42, Issue 1, pp 85–93 | Cite as

Effect of Lawyer-Submitted Reports on Signals of Disproportional Reporting in the Food and Drug Administration’s Adverse Event Reporting System

  • James R. Rogers
  • Ameet Sarpatwari
  • Rishi J. Desai
  • Justin M. Bohn
  • Nazleen F. Khan
  • Aaron S. Kesselheim
  • Michael A. Fischer
  • Joshua J. GagneEmail author
  • John G. Connolly
Short Communication

Abstract

Introduction

Lawyer-submitted reports may have unintended consequences on safety signal detection in spontaneous adverse event reporting systems.

Objective

Our objective was to assess the impact of lawyer-submitted reports primarily for one adverse event (AE) on the ability to detect a signal of disproportional reporting for another AE for the same drug in the US FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS).

Methods

FAERS reports from January 2004 to September 2015 were used to estimate yearly cumulative proportional reporting ratios (PRRs) for three known drug–AE pairs—isotretinoin–birth defects, atorvastatin–rhabdomyolysis, and rosuvastatin–rhabdomyolysis—with and without lawyer-submitted reports. Isotretinoin and atorvastatin have been the subject of high-profile tort litigation regarding other AEs. A lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of one or more based on three or more reports defined a signal.

Results

Cumulative PRRs met signaling criteria in all analyses. For isotretinoin, lawyer-submitted reports increased PRRs for birth defects before 2008, with the largest increase in 2006 (2.9 [95% CI 2.4–3.5] to 3.3 [95% CI 2.8–3.9]); lawyer-submitted reports decreased PRRs for birth defects after 2011, with the largest decrease in 2013 (2.2 [95% CI 2.0–2.5] to 1.9 [95% CI 1.7–2.1]). For atorvastatin, lawyer-submitted reports reduced PRRs for rhabdomyolysis after 2013, with the largest decrease in 2015 (18.0 [95% CI 17.1–19.1] to 15.4 [95% CI 14.5–16.2]). Lawyer-submitted reports had little impact on PRRs for rosuvastatin and rhabdomyolysis.

Conclusions

Inclusion of lawyer-submitted reports in FAERS did not meaningfully distort known safety signals for two drugs subject to high-profile tort litigation for other AEs.

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

James R. Rogers previously served as a paid consultant to Aetion, Inc., a software company, for unrelated work; he is currently a student at the Department of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA. Ameet Sarpatwari previously served as a paid consultant to Aetion, Inc., for unrelated work. Rishi J. Desai was the principal investigator of a research grant from Merck to Brigham & Women’s Hospital for unrelated work. Aaron S. Kesselheim has received prior research grants from the FDA Office of Generic Drugs and Division of Health Communication, for unrelated work. Joshua J. Gagne has received salary support from grants from Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation and Eli Lilly and Company to Brigham and Women’s Hospital and is a consultant to Aetion, Inc. and to Optum, Inc., all for unrelated work. Justin M. Bohn, Nazleen F. Khan, Michael A. Fischer, and John G. Connolly have no conflicts of interest.

Funding

 Drs. Sarpatwari and Kesselheim's work was funded by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, as well as the Harvard Program in Therapeutic Science and Engelberg Foundation.

References

  1. 1.
    Drug Approvals and Databases—FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) [Internet]. [cited 2016 Jan 22]. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/InformationOnDrugs/ucm135151.htm.
  2. 2.
    McAdams M, Staffa J, Dal Pan G. Estimating the extent of reporting to FDA: a case study of statin-associated rhabdomyolysis. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2008;17(3):229–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brinker AD, Lyndly J, Tonning J, Moeny D, Levine JG, Avigan MI. Profiling cumulative proportional reporting ratios of drug-induced liver injury in the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database. Drug Saf. 2013;36(12):1169–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Coloma PM, Trifirò G, Patadia V, Sturkenboom M. Postmarketing safety surveillance: where does signal detection using electronic healthcare records fit into the big picture? Drug Saf. 2013;36(3):183–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lester J, Neyarapally GA, Lipowski E, Graham CF, Hall M, Dal Pan G. Evaluation of FDA safety-related drug label changes in 2010. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2013;22(3):302–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rothman KJ, Lanes S, Sacks ST. The reporting odds ratio and its advantages over the proportional reporting ratio. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2004;13(8):519–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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):483–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Candore G, Juhlin K, Manlik K, Thakrar B, Quarcoo N, Seabroke S, et al. Comparison of statistical signal detection methods within and across spontaneous reporting databases. Drug Saf. 2015;38(6):577–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Alvarez Y, Hidalgo A, Maignen F, Slattery J. Validation of statistical signal detection procedures in eudravigilance post-authorization data: a retrospective evaluation of the potential for earlier signalling. Drug Saf. 2010;33(6):475–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ehrenpreis ED, Deepak P, Sifuentes H, Devi R, Du H, Leikin JB. The metoclopramide black box warning for tardive dyskinesia: effect on clinical practice, adverse event reporting, and prescription drug lawsuits. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013;108(6):866–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stobaugh DJ, Deepak P, Ehrenpreis ED. Alleged isotretinoin-associated inflammatory bowel disease: disproportionate reporting by attorneys to the Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2013;69(3):393–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Goodman MJ, Nordin J. Vaccine adverse event reporting system reporting source: a possible source of bias in longitudinal studies. Pediatrics. 2006;117(2):387–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Maignen F, Hauben M, Dogné J-M. A mathematical framework to quantify the masking effect associated with the confidence intervals of measures of disproportionality. Ther Adv Drug Saf. 2017;8(7):231–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wang H, Hochberg AM, Pearson RK, Hauben M. An experimental investigation of masking in the US FDA adverse event reporting system database. Drug Saf. 2010;33(12):1117–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Holbrook A, Wright M, Sung M, Ribic C, Baker S. Statin-associated rhabdomyolysis: is there a dose-response relationship? Can J Cardiol. 2011;27(2):146–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Abroms L, Maibach E, Lyon-Daniel K, Feldman SR. What is the best approach to reducing birth defects associated with isotretinoin? PLoS Med. 2006;3(11):e483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Antons KA, Williams CD, Baker SK, Phillips PS. Clinical perspectives of statin-induced rhabdomyolysis. Am J Med. 2006;119(5):400–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chang JT, Staffa JA, Parks M, Green L. Rhabdomyolysis with HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors and gemfibrozil combination therapy. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2004;13(7):417–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lammer EJ, Chen DT, Hoar RM, Agnish ND, Benke PJ, Braun JT, et al. Retinoic acid embryopathy. N Engl J Med. 1985;313(14):837–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Carlson J. Statins on trial. Pfizer faces clot of lawsuits that claim Lipitor caused women’s diabetes. Mod Healthc. 2014;44(20):20–2.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tenner S. Isotretinoin and inflammatory bowel disease: trial lawyer misuse of science and FDA warnings. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014;109(4):570–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    McCarrell v. Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc. (227 N.J. 569 2016).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities—Summary | NCBO BioPortal [Internet]. [cited 2016 Feb 2]. Available from: http://bioportal.bioontology.org/ontologies/MEDDRA.
  24. 24.
    Hauben M, Reich L, Gerrits CM. Reports of hyperkalemia after publication of RALES—a pharmacovigilance study. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2006;15(11):775–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wisniewski AFZ, Bate A, Bousquet C, Brueckner A, Candore G, Juhlin K, et al. Good signal detection practices: evidence from IMI PROTECT. Drug Saf. 2016;39:469–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • James R. Rogers
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ameet Sarpatwari
    • 1
  • Rishi J. Desai
    • 1
  • Justin M. Bohn
    • 1
  • Nazleen F. Khan
    • 1
  • Aaron S. Kesselheim
    • 1
  • Michael A. Fischer
    • 1
  • Joshua J. Gagne
    • 1
    Email author
  • John G. Connolly
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of MedicineBrigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biomedical InformaticsColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations