Drug Safety

, Volume 35, Issue 5, pp 407–416

Early Steps in the Development of a Claims-Based Targeted Healthcare Safety Monitoring System and Application to Three Empirical Examples

  • Peter M. Wahl
  • Joshua J. Gagne
  • Thomas E. Wasser
  • Debra F. Eisenberg
  • J. Keith Rodgers
  • Gregory W. Daniel
  • Marcus Wilson
  • Sebastian Schneeweiss
  • Jeremy A. Rassen
  • Amanda R. Patrick
  • Jerry Avorn
  • Rhonda L. Bohn
Original Research Article


Background: Several efforts are under way to develop and test methods for prospective drug safety monitoring using large, electronic claims databases. Prospective monitoring systems must incorporate signalling algorithms and techniques to mitigate confounding in order to minimize false positive and false negative signals due to chance and bias.

Objective: The aim of the study was to describe a prototypical targeted active safety monitoring system and apply the framework to three empirical examples.

Methods: We performed sequential, targeted safety monitoring in three known drug/adverse event (AE) pairs: (i) paroxetine/upper gastrointestinal (UGI) bleed; (ii) lisinopril/angioedema; (iii) ciprofloxacin/Achilles tendon rupture (ATR). Data on new users of the drugs of interest were extracted from the HealthCore Integrated Research Database. New users were matched by propensity score to new users of comparator drugs in each example. Analyses were conducted sequentially to emulate prospective monitoring. Two signalling rules — a maximum sequential probability ratio test and an effect estimate-based approach — were applied to sequential, matched cohorts to identify signals within the system.

Results: Signals were identified for all three examples: paroxetine/UGI bleed in the seventh monitoring cycle, within 2 calendar years of sequential data; lisinopril/angioedema in the second cycle, within the first monitoring year; ciprofloxacin/ATR in the tenth cycle, within the fifth year. Conclusion: In this proof of concept, our targeted, active monitoring system provides an alternative to systems currently in the literature. Our system employs a sequential, propensity score-matched framework and signalling rules for prospective drug safety monitoring and identified signals for all three adverse drug reactions evaluated.


  1. 1.
    US Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human Services. FDAAA Law [online]. Available from URL: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ085.110 [Accessed 2009 Dec 23]
  2. 2.
    Trifiró G, Pariente A, Coloma PM, et al. Data mining on electronic health record databases for signal detection in pharmacovigilance: which events to monitor? Pharmacoe-pidemiol Drug Saf 2009; 18: 1176–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schneeweiss S, Avorn J. A review of uses of health care utilization databases for epidemiologic research on therapeutics. J Clin Epidemiol 2005; 58: 323–37PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Avorn J. In defense of pharmacoepidemiology: embracing the yin and yang of drug research. N Engl J Med 2007; 357: 2219–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Platt R, Wilson M, Chan KA, et al. The new Sentinel Network: improving the evidence of medical-product safety. N Engl J Med 2009; 361: 645–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Platt R, Madre L, Reynolds R, et al. Active drug safety surveillance: a tool to improve public health. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2008; 17: 1175–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brown JS, Moore KM, Braun MM, et al. Active influenza vaccine safety surveillance: potential within a healthcare claims environment. Med Care 2009; 47: 1251–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brown JS, Kulldorff M, Chan A, et al. Early detection of adverse drug events within population-based health networks: application of sequential testing methods. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2007; 16: 1275–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dore DD, Seeger JD, Chan KA. Use of a claims-based active drug safety surveillance system to assess the risk of acute pancreatitis with exenatide or sitagliptin compared to metformin or glyburide. Curr Med Res Opin 2009; 25: 1019–27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Behrman RE, Benner JS, Brown JS, et al. Developing the sentinel system: a national resource for evidence development. N Engl J Med 2011; 364(6): 498–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stang PE, Ryan PB, Racoosin JA, et al. Advancing the science for active surveillance: rationale and design for the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership. Ann Intern Med 2010; 153(9): 600–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dalton SO, Johansen C, Mellemkjaer L, et al. Use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a population-based cohort study. Arch Intern Med 2003; 163: 59–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    de Abajo FJ, Rodriguez LAG, Montero D. Association between selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and upper gastrointestinal bleeding: population based case-control study. BMJ 1999; 319: 1106–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    de Abajo FJ, Montero D, Rodriguez LAG, et al. Antide-pressants and risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol 2006; 98: 304–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dunn NR, Pearce GL, Shakir SAW. Association between SSRIs and upper gastrointestinal bleeding: SSRIs are no more likely than other drugs to cause such bleeding. BMJ 2000; 320: 1405–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Layton D, Clark DWJ, Pearce GL, et al. Is there an association between selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and risk of abnormal bleeding? Results from a cohort study based on prescription event monitoring in England. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2001; 57: 167–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lewis JD, Strom BL, Localio AR, et al. Moderate and high affinity serotonin reuptake inhibitors increase the risk of upper gastrointestinal toxicity. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2008; 17:328–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Meijer WEE, Heerdink ER, Nolen WA, et al. Association of risk of abnormal bleeding with degree of serotonin reuptake inhibition by antidepressants. Arch Intern Med 2004; 164: 2367–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tata LJ, Fortun PJ, Hubbard RB, et al. Does concurrent prescription of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs substantially increase the risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding? Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2005; 22: 175–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    van Walraven C, Mamdani MM, Wells PS, et al. Inhibition of serotonin reuptake by antidepressants and upper gastrointestinal bleeding in elderly patients: retrospective cohort study. BMJ 2001; 323: 655–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vidal X, Ibanez L, Vendrell L, et al. Risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding and the degree of serotonin reuptake inhibition by antidepressants: a case-control study. Drug Saf 2008; 31: 159–68PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wessinger S, Kaplan M, Choi L, et al. Increased use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in patients admitted with gastrointestinal haemorrhage: a multicenter retrospective analysis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2006; 23: 937–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    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. Pharmaceopidemiol and Drug Saf 2010; 19(6): 596–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Raiford DS, Pérez Gutthann S, García Rodríguez LA. Positive predictive value of ICD-9 codes in the identification of cases of complicated peptic ulcer disease in the Saskatchewan hospital automated database. Epidemiology 1996; 7: 101–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Andrade SE, Gurwitz JH, Chan KA, et al. Validation of diagnoses of peptic ulcers and bleeding from administrative databases: a multi-health maintenance organization study. J Clin Epidemiol 2002; 55: 310–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Angioedema due to ACE inhibitors: common and inadequately diagnosed. Prescrire Int 1998; 7 (35): 92–3Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Leenen FH, Nwachuku CE, Black HR, et al. Clinical events in high-risk hypertensive patients randomly assigned to calcium channel blocker versus angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor in the antihypertensive and lipid-lowering treatment to prevent heart attack trial. Hypertension 2006; 48(3): 374–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Piller LB, Ford CE, Davis BR, et al. Incidence and predictors of angioedema in elderly hypertensive patients at high risk for cardiovascular disease: a report from the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT). J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) 2006; 8(9): 649–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Vleeming W, van Amsterdam JG, Stricker BH, et al. ACE inhibitor-induced angioedema: incidence, prevention and management. Drug Saf 1998; 18(3): 171–88PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Seeger JD, West WA, Fife D, et al. Achilles tendon rupture and its association with fluoroquinolone antibiotics and other potential risk factors in a managed care population. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2006; 15(11): 784–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Corrao G, Zambon A, Bertu L, et al. Evidence of tendinitis provoked by fluoroquinolone treatment: a case-control study. Drug Saf 2006; 29(10): 889–96PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sode J, Obel N, Hallas J, et al. Use of fluroquinolone and risk of Achilles tendon rupture: a population-based cohort study. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2007; 63(5): 499–503PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Van der Linden PD, van de Lei J, Nab HW, et al. Achilles tendinitis associated with fluoroquinolones. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1999; 48(3): 433–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Van der Linden PD, Sturkenboom MC, Herings RM, et al. Fluoroquinolones and risk of Achilles tendon disorders: case-control study. BMJ 2002; 324(7349): 1306–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Van der Linden PD, Sturkenboom MC, Herings RM, et al. Increased risk of achilles tendon rupture with quinolone antibacterial use, especially in elderly patients taking oral corticosteroids. Arch Intern Med 2003; 163(15): 1801–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Yee CL, Duffy C, Gerbino PG, et al. Tendon or joint disorders in children after treatment with fluoroquinolones or azithromycin. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2002; 21(6): 525–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Parsons LS. Reducing bias in a propensity score matched-pair sample using greedy matching techniques. Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Annual SAS Users Group International Conference. 2001 Apr 22–25; SAS Institute Inc, Cary (NC)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Li L, Kulldorff M. A conditional maximized sequential probability ratio test for pharmacovigilance. Stat Med 2010; 29(2): 284–95PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Brown JS, Kulldorff M, Petronis KR, et al. Early adverse drug event signal detection within population-based health networks using sequential methods: key methodologic considerations. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf, 2009; 18: 226–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lieu TA, Kulldorff M, Davis RL, et al. Real-time vaccine safety surveillance for the early detection of adverse events. Med Care 2007; 45 (10 Suppl. 2): S89–95PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    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): 483–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Selvin S. Statistical analysis of epidemiologic data. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kulldorff M, Davis RL, Kolczak M, et al. A maximized sequential probability ratio test for drug and vaccine safety surveillance. Seq Anal 2011; 30(1): 58–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Resnic FS, Gross TP, Marinac-Dabic D, et al. Automated surveillance to detect postprocedure safety signals of approved cardiovascular devices. JAMA 2010; 304(18): 2019–27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Nelson J, Cook A, Yu O. Evaluation of signal detection methods for use in prospective post-licensure medical product safety surveillance. FDA Sentinel Initiative Safety Signal Identification Contract, 2009Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Noren GN, Hopstadius J, Bate A, et al. Temporal pattern discovery in longitudinal electronic patient records. Data Min Knowl Discov 2010; 20(3): 361–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Schuemie MJ. Methods for drug safety signal detection in longitudinal observational databases: LGPS and LEOPARD. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2011; 20: 292–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Reisinger SJ, Ryan PB, O’Hara DJ, et al. Development and evaluation of a common data model enabling active drug safety surveillance using disparate healthcare databases. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2010 Nov–Dec; 17(6): 652–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Coloma PM, Trifiró G, Schuemie MJ, et al., on behalf of the EU-ADR consortium. Electronic healthcare databases for active drug safety surveillance: is there enough leverage?. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. Epub 2012 Feb 8Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Seeger JD, Walker AM, Williams PL, et al. A propensity score-matched cohort study of the effect of statins, mainly fluvastatin, on the occurrence of acute myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol 2003; 92(12): 1447–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Seeger JD, Williams PL, Walker AM. An application of propensity score matching using claims data. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2005; 14: 465–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter M. Wahl
    • 1
  • Joshua J. Gagne
    • 1
  • Thomas E. Wasser
    • 2
  • Debra F. Eisenberg
    • 2
  • J. Keith Rodgers
    • 2
  • Gregory W. Daniel
    • 2
  • Marcus Wilson
    • 2
  • Sebastian Schneeweiss
    • 1
  • Jeremy A. Rassen
    • 1
  • Amanda R. Patrick
    • 1
  • Jerry Avorn
    • 1
  • Rhonda L. Bohn
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s HospitalHarvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  2. 2.HealthCore, Inc.WilmingtonUSA
  3. 3.LLCWabanUSA

Personalised recommendations