Drug Safety

, Volume 36, Supplement 1, pp 123–132 | Cite as

Evaluation of Disproportionality Safety Signaling Applied to Healthcare Databases

  • William DuMouchel
  • Patrick B. Ryan
  • Martijn J. Schuemie
  • David Madigan
Original Research Article

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate the performance of a disproportionality design, commonly used for analysis of spontaneous reports data such as the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System database, as a potential analytical method for an adverse drug reaction risk identification system using healthcare data.

Research Design

We tested the disproportionality design in 5 real observational healthcare databases and 6 simulated datasets, retrospectively studying the predictive accuracy of the method when applied to a collection of 165 positive controls and 234 negative controls across 4 outcomes: acute liver injury, acute myocardial infarction, acute kidney injury, and upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

Measures

We estimate how well the method can be expected to identify true effects and discriminate from false findings and explore the statistical properties of the estimates the design generates. The primary measure was the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.

Results

For each combination of 4 outcomes and 5 databases, 48 versions of disproportionality analysis (DPA) were carried out and the AUC computed. The majority of the AUC values were in the range of 0.35 < AUC < 0.6, which is considered to be poor predictive accuracy, since the value AUC = 0.5 would be expected from mere random assignment. Several DPA versions achieved AUC of about 0.7 for the outcome Acute Renal Failure within the GE database. The overall highest DPA version across all 20 outcome-database combinations was the Bayesian Information Component method with no stratification by age and gender, using first occurrence of outcome and with assumed time-at-risk equal to duration of exposure + 30d, but none were uniformly optimal. The relative risk estimates for the negative control drug-event combinations were very often biased either upward or downward by a factor of 2 or more. Coverage probabilities of confidence intervals from all methods were far below nominal.

Conclusions

The disproportionality methods that we evaluated did not discriminate true positives from true negatives using healthcare data as they seem to do using spontaneous report data.

References

  1. 1.
    Mantel N, Haenszel W. Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1959;22(4):719–48.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Almenoff JS, Pattishall EN, Gibbs TG, DuMouchel W, Evans SJ, Yuen N. Novel statistical tools for monitoring the safety of marketed drugs. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2007;82(2):157–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    DuMouchel W, Pregibon D. Empirical Bayes screening for multi-item associations. In: Proceedings of the seventh ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining. San Francisco: ACM; 2001. p. 67–76.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dumouchel W. Bayesian data mining in large frequency tables, with an application to the FDA spontaneous reporting system. Am Stat. 1999;53(3):177–90.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Norén GN, Hopstadius J, Bate A. Shrinkage observed-to-expected ratios for robust and transparent large-scale pattern discovery. Stat Methods Med Res 2013;22(1):57–69.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hauben M, Madigan D, Gerrits CM, Walsh L, Van Puijenbroek EP. The role of data mining in pharmacovigilance. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2005;4(5):929–48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hauben M, Reich L. Safety related drug-labelling changes: findings from two data mining algorithms. Drug Saf. 2004;27(10):735–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Szarfman A, Machado SG, O’Neill RT. Use of screening algorithms and computer systems to efficiently signal higher-than-expected combinations of drugs and events in the US FDA’s spontaneous reports database. Drug Saf. 2002;25(6):381–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zorych I, Madigan D, Ryan P, Bate A. Disproportionality methods for pharmacovigilance in longitudinal observational databases. Stat Methods Med Res. 2013;22(1):39–56.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bate A, Lindquist M, Edwards IR, Olsson S, Orre R, Lansner A, et al. A Bayesian neural network method for adverse drug reaction signal generation. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1998;54(4):315–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ryan PB, Schuemie M. Evaluating performance of risk identification methods through a large-scale simulation of observational data. Drug Saf. 2013 (in this supplement issue). doi:10.1007/s40264-013-0110-2.
  13. 13.
    Overhage JM, Ryan PB, Schuemie MJ, Stang PE. Desideratum for evidence based epidemiology. Drug Saf. 2013 (in this supplement issue). doi:10.1007/s40264-013-0102-2.
  14. 14.
    Hartzema AG, Reich CG, Ryan PB, Stang PE, Madigan D, Welebob E, et al. Managing data quality for a drug safety surveillance system. Drug Saf. 2013 (in this supplement issue). doi:10.1007/s40264-013-0098-7.
  15. 15.
    Cantor SB, Kattan MW. Determining the area under the ROC curve for a binary diagnostic test. Med Decis Making. 2000;20(4):468–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fram DM, Almenoff JS, DuMouchel W. Empirical Bayesian data mining for discovering patterns in post-marketing drug safety. In: Proceedings of the Ninth ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. Washington, DC: ACM; 2003. p. 359–68.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Almenoff JS, DuMouchel W, Kindman LA, Yang X, Fram D. Disproportionality analysis using empirical Bayes data mining: a tool for the evaluation of drug interactions in the post-marketing setting. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2003;12(6):517–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    DuMouchel W, Smith ET, Beasley R, Nelson H, Yang X, Fram D, et al. Association of asthma therapy and Churg-Strauss syndrome: an analysis of postmarketing surveillance data. Clin Ther. 2004;26(7):1092–104.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Almenoff JS, LaCroix KK, Yuen NA, Fram D, DuMouchel W. Comparative performance of two quantitative safety signalling methods: implications for use in a pharmacovigilance department. Drug Saf. 2006;29(10):875–87.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Solomon R, Dumouchel W. Contrast media and nephropathy: findings from systematic analysis and Food and Drug Administration reports of adverse effects. Invest Radiol. 2006;41(8):651–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    DuMouchel W, Fram D, Yang X, Mahmoud RA, Grogg AL, Engelhart L, et al. Antipsychotics, glycemic disorders, and life-threatening diabetic events: a Bayesian data-mining analysis of the FDA adverse event reporting system (1968-2004). Ann Clin Psychiatry. 2008;20(1):21–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Harpaz R, DuMouchel W, LePendu P, Bauer-Mehren A, Ryan P, Shah NH. Performance of pharmacovigilance signal-detection algorithms for the FDA adverse event reporting system. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2013;93(6):539–46.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schuemie MJ, Coloma PM, Straatman H, et al. Using electronic healthcare records for drug safety signal detection; a comparative evaluation of statistical methods. Med Care. 2012;50(10):890–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • William DuMouchel
    • 1
    • 5
    • 6
  • Patrick B. Ryan
    • 2
    • 6
  • Martijn J. Schuemie
    • 3
    • 6
  • David Madigan
    • 4
    • 6
  1. 1.Oracle Health SciencesBurlingtonUSA
  2. 2.Janssen Research and Development LLCTitusvilleUSA
  3. 3.Department of Medical InformaticsErasmus University Medical Center RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Department of StatisticsColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA
  5. 5.Oracle Health Sciences Global Business UnitTucsonUSA
  6. 6.Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership, Foundation for the National Institutes of HealthBethesdaUSA

Personalised recommendations