Modelling the Time to Onset of Adverse Reactions with Parametric Survival Distributions A Potential Approach to Signal Detection and Evaluation
Original Research Article First Online: 21 November 2012
8
Citations
115
Downloads
Abstract Background: It has been postulated that the time to onset of adverse drug reactions is connected to the underlying pharmacological (or toxic) mechanism of adverse drug reactions whether the reaction is time dependent or not.
Objective: We have conducted a preliminary study using the parametric modelling of the time to onset of adverse reactions as an approach to signal detection on spontaneous reporting system databases.
Methods: We performed a parametric modelling of the reported time to onset of adverse drug reactions for which the underlying toxic mechanism is characterized. For the purpose of our study, we have used the reported liver injuries associated with bosentan, and the infections associated with the use of the tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab, which are used in Crohn’s disease and rheumatoid arthritis, reported to EudraVigilance between December 2001 and September 2006.
Results: The main results reflect the fact that the reported time to onset is a surrogate of the true time to onset of the reaction and combines three hazards (occurrence, diagnosis and reporting) that cannot be disentangled. Consequently, the modelling of the time to onset of reactions reported with TNF inhibitors showed differences that could reflect different pharmacological activities, indications, monitoring of the patients or different reporting patterns. These variations could also limit the interpretation of the parametric modelling.
Conclusions: Some consistency that was found between the occurrences of the infections with the TNF inhibitors suggests a causal association. There are statistical issues that are important to keep in mind when interpreting the results (the impact of the data quality on the fit of the distributions and the absence of a test of hypothesis linked to the absence of a relevant comparator). The study suggests that the modelling of the reported time to onset of adverse reactions could be a useful adjunct to other signal detection methods.
References 1.
Aronson J. Anecdotes as evidence. BMJ 2003; 326: 1346
PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar 2.
Kelly WN, Arellano FM, Barnes J, et al. Guidelines for submitting adverse event reports for publication. Pharmacolepidemiol Drug Saf 2007; 16: 581–7
CrossRef Google Scholar 3.
Abenhaim L, Moore N, Begaud B. The role of pharmacoepidemiology in pharmacovigilance: a conference at the 6th ESOP meeting, Budapest, 28 September 1998. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 1999; 8: S1–7
PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar 4.
Narukawa M, Yafume A. A note on post-marketing safety study design to characterise time-dependent adverse events. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2007; 16: 1146–52
PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar 5.
Kraemer HC. Tutorials in biostatistics. Events per person-time (incidence rate): a misleading statistic? Statist Med 2009; 28: 1028–39
Google Scholar 6.
Aronson JK, Ferner RE. Joining the DoTS: new approach to classifying adverse drug reactions. BMJ 2003; 327: 1222–5
PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar 7.
Benahmed S, Picot MC, Dumas F, et al. Accuracy of a pharmacovigilance algorithm in diagnosing drug hypersensitivity reactions. Arch Intern Med 2005; 165: 1500–5
PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar 8.
Bénichou C. Imputability of unexpected or toxic drug reactions: the official French method of causality assessment in adverse drug reactions.A practical guide to diagnosis and management. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, 1994: 271–6
Google Scholar 9.
Criteria for drug-induced liver disorders: report of an International Consensus Meeting. J Hepatol 1990; 11: 272–6
Google Scholar 10.
Guideline on the use of statistical signal detection methods implemented in the EudraVigilance data analysis system. EMEA/106464/2006, rev. 1, 2008 Jun 26 [online]. Available from URL:
http://www.ema.europa.eu/pdfs/human/phvwp/10646406enfin.pdf [Accessed 2010 Mar 31]
11.
Bate A, Evans SJW. Quantitative signal detection using spontaneous ADR reporting. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2009; 18: 427–36
PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar 12.
Perrio M, Voss S, Shakir SAW. Application of the Bradford Hill criteria to assess the causality of cisapride-induced arrhythmia: a model for assessing causal association in pharmacovigilance. Drug Saf 2007; 30(4): 333–46
PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar 13.
Shakir SAW, Layton D. Causal association in pharmacovigilance and pharmacoepidemiology: thoughts on the application of the Austin Bradford-Hill criteria. Drug Saf 2002; 25(6): 467–71
PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar 14.
Channick RN, Simmonneau G, Sitbon O, et al. Effects of the dual endothelin-receptor antagonist bosentan in patients with pulmonary hypertension: a randomised placebo-controlled study. Lancet 2001 Oct 6; 358(9288): 1119–23
PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar 15.
Rubin LJ, Badesch DB, Barst RJ, et al. Bosentan therapy for pulmonary arterial hypertension. N Engl J Med 2002 Mar 21; 346(12): 896–903
PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar 16.
Klabfleisch JD, Prentice RL. The statistical analysis of failure time data. 2nd ed. Hoboken: Wiley and Sons, 2002
CrossRef Google Scholar 17.
European Medicines Agency. European public assessment report for Tracleer [online]. Available from URL:
http://www.emea.europa.eu/humandocs/Humans/EPAR/tracleer/tracleer.htm [Accessed 2007 Jun 26]
18.
Segal ES, Valette C, Oster L, et al. Risk management strategies in the postmarketing period: safety experience with the US and European bosentan surveillance programmes. Drug Saf 2005; 28: 971–80
PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar 19.
Abboud G, Kaplowitz N. Drug-induced liver injury. Drug Saf 2007; 30: 277–94
PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar 20.
Khanna D, McMahon M, Furst DE, et al. Safety of tumour necrosis factor-α antagonists. Drug Saf 2004; 27: 307–24
PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar 21.
Day R. Adverse reactions to TNF-α inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis. Lancet 2002; 359: 540–1
PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar 22.
Bongartz T, Sutton AJ, Sweeting MJ, et al. Anti-TNF antibody therapy in rheumatoid arthritis and the risk of serious infections and malignancies: systematic review and meta-analysis of rare harmful effects in randomised controlled trials. JAMA 2006; 295: 2275–85
PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar 23.
European Medicines Agency. European public assessment report for Enbrel [online]. Available from URL:
http://www.emea.europa.eu/humandocs/Humans/EPAR/enbrel/enbrel.htm [Accessed 2007 Jun 26]
24.
European Medicines Agency. European public assessment report for Humira [online]. Available from URL:
http://www.emea.europa.eu/humandocs/Humans/EPAR/humira/humira.htm [Accessed 2007 Jun 26]
25.
European Medicines Agency. European public assessment report for Remicade [online]. Available from URL:
http://www.emea.europa.eu/humandocs/Humans/EPAR/remicade/remicade.htm [Accessed 2007 Jun 26]
26.
Dixon WG, Watson K, Lunt M, et al. Rates of serious infection, including site-specific and bacterial intracellular infection, in rheumatoid arthritis patients receiving anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy: results from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register. Arthritis Rheum 2006 Aug; 54(8): 2368–76
PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar 27.
Furst DE, Wallis R, Broder M, et al. Tumor necrosis factor antagonists: different kinetics and/or mechanisms of action may explain differences in the risk for developing granulomatous infection. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2006 Dec; 36(3): 159–67
PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar 28.
Dinarello CA. Differences between anti-tumor necrosis factor-α monoclonal antibodies and soluble TNF receptors in host defense impairment. J Rheumatol 2005; 32 Suppl. 74: 40–7
Google Scholar 29.
Askling J, Fored CM, Brandt L, et al. Risk and case characteristics of tuberculosis in rheumatoid arthritis associated with tumor necrosis factor antagonists in Sweden. Arthritis Rheum 2005; 52(7): 1986–92
PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar 30.
Keane J, Gershon S, Wise RP, et al. Tuberculosis associated with infliximab, a tumor necrosis α-neutralizing agent. N Engl J Med 2001; 345: 1098–104
PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar 31.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Tuberculosis associated with blocking agents against tumor necrosis factor-alpha: California, 2002–2003. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2004 Aug 6; 53(30): 683–6
Google Scholar 32.
Mohan AK, Coté TR, Block JA, et al. Tuberculosis following the use of etanercept, a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor. Clin Infect Dis 2004 Aug 1; 39(3): 295–9
PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar 33.
Schiff MH, Burmester GR, Kent JD, et al. Safety analyses of adalimumab (HUMIRA) in global clinical trials and US postmarketing surveillance of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2006 Jul; 65(7): 889–94
PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar 34.
Malipeddi AS, Rajendran R, Kallarackel G, et al. Disseminated tuberculosis after anti-TNFalpha treatment. Lancet 2007 Jan 13; 369(9556): 162
PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar 35.
Wallis RS, Broder M, Wong J, et al. Granulomatous infectious diseases associated with tumor necrosis factor antagonists. Clin Infect Dis 2004 May 1; 38(9): 1261–5
PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar 36.
Wallis RS. Reactivation of latent tuberculosis by TNF blockade: the role of interferon gamma. J Investig Dermatol Symp Proc 2007 May; 12(1): 16–21
PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar 37.
Ehlers S. Tumor necrosis factor and its blockade in granulomatous infections: differential modes of action of infliximab and etanercept? Clin Infect Dis 2005 Aug 1; 41 Suppl. 3: S199–203
PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar 38.
Ehlers S. Role of tumour necrosis factor (TNF) in host defence against tuberculosis: implications for immunotherapies targeting TNF. Ann Rheum Dis 2003 Nov; 62 Suppl. 2: ii37–42
PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar 39.
Saliu OY, Sofer C, Stein DS, et al. Tumor-necrosis-factor blockers: differential effects on mycobacterial immunity. J Infect Dis 2006 Aug 15; 194(4): 486–92
PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar 40.
Raval A, Akhavan-Toyserkani G, Brinker A, et al. Brief communication: characteristics of spontaneous cases of tuberculosis associated with infliximab. Ann Intern Med 2007 Nov 20; 147(10): 699–702
PubMed Google Scholar 41.
Gardam MA, Keystone EC, Menzies R, et al. Anti-tumour necrosis factor agents and tuberculosis risk: mechanisms of action and clinical management. Lancet Infect Dis 2003; 3: 148–55
PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar 42.
Olsen NJ, Stein CM. New drugs for rheumatoid arthritis. N Engl J Med 2004; 350: 2167–79
PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar 43.
Bonnel RA, Graham DJ, Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Memorandum 2002 Nov 7. Safety: postmarketing safety review. Leflunomide: severe hepatotoxicity and liver failure [online]. Available from URL:
http://www.fda.gov [Accessed 2010 Mar 31]
44.
Almenoff J, Tonning JM, Gould AL, et al. Perspectives on the use of data mining in pharmacovigilance. Drug Saf 2005; 28(11): 981–1007
PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar © Adis Data Information BV 2010
Authors and Affiliations 1. Pharmacovigilance and Risk Management Sector European Medicines Agency London UK 2. EudraVigilance Expert Working Group London UK 3. EMAS Hitchin UK