Drug Safety

, Volume 35, Issue 5, pp 395–406

A Pharmacoepidemiological Network Model for Drug Safety Surveillance

Statins and Rhabdomyolysis
  • Ben Y. Reis
  • Karen L. Olson
  • Lu Tian
  • Rhonda L. Bohn
  • John S. Brownstein
  • Peter J. Park
  • Mark J. Cziraky
  • Marcus D. Wilson
  • Kenneth D. Mandl
Original Research Article


Background: Recent withdrawals of major drugs have highlighted the critical importance of drug safety surveillance in the postmarketing phase. Limitations of spontaneous report data have led drug safety professionals to pursue alternative postmarketing surveillance approaches based on healthcare administrative claims data. These data are typically analysed by comparing the adverse event rates associated with a drug of interest to those of a single comparable reference drug.

Objective: The aim of this study was to determine whether adverse event detection can be improved by incorporating information from multiple reference drugs. We developed a pharmacological network model that implemented this approach and evaluated its performance.

Methods: We studied whether adverse event detection can be improved by incorporating information from multiple reference drugs, and describe two approaches for doing so. The first, reported previously, combines a set of related drugs into a single reference cohort. The second is a novel pharmacoepidemiological network model, which integrates multiple pair-wise comparisons across an entire set of related drugs into a unified consensus safety score for each drug. We also implemented a single reference drug approach for comparison with both multi-drug approaches. All approaches were applied within a sequential analysis framework, incorporating new information as it became available and addressing the issue of multiple testing over time. We evaluated all these approaches using statin (HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors) safety data from a large healthcare insurer in the US covering April 2000 through March 2005.

Results: We found that both multiple reference drug approaches offer earlier detection (6–13 months) than the single reference drug approach, without triggering additional false positives.

Conclusions: Such combined approaches have the potential to be used with existing healthcare databases to improve the surveillance of therapeutics in the postmarketing phase over single-comparator methods. The proposed network approach also provides an integrated visualization framework enabling decision makers to understand the key high-level safety relationships amongst a group of related drugs.


  1. 1.
    Staffa JA, Chang J, Green L. Cerivastatin and reports of fatal rhabdomyolysis. N Engl J Med 2002 Feb 14; 346(7): 539–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Charatan F. Bayer decides to withdraw cholesterol lowering drug. BMJ (Clin Res Ed) 2001 Aug 18; 323 (7309): 359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Psaty BM, Furberg CD, Ray WA, et al. Potential for conflict of interest in the evaluation of suspected adverse drug reactions: use of cerivastatin and risk of rhabdomyolysis. JAMA 2004 Dec 1; 292(21): 2622–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bresalier RS, Sandler RS, Quan H, et al. Cardiovascular events associated with rofecoxib in a colorectal adenoma chemoprevention trial. N Engl J Med 2005 Mar 17; 352(11): 1092–102PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Curfman GD, Morrissey S, Drazen JM. Expression of concern reaffirmed [comment]. N Engl J Med 2006 Mar 16; 354(11): 1193PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    McGettigan P, Henry D. Cardiovascular risk and inhibition of cyclooxygenase: a systematic review of the observational studies of selective and nonselective inhibitors of cyclooxygenase 2. JAMA 2006 Oct 4; 296(13): 1633–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Juni P, Nartey L, Reichenbach S, et al. Risk of cardiovascular events and rofecoxib: cumulative meta-analysis. Lancet 2004 Dec 4–10; 364(9450): 2021–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wadman M. Experts call for active surveillance of drug safety. Nature 2007 Mar 22; 446(7134): 358–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Strom BL. How the US drug safety system should be changed. JAMA 2006 May 3; 295(17): 2072–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Baciu A, Stratton K, Burke SP, editors. The future of drug safety: promoting and protecting the health of the public. Institute of Medicine ad hoc Committee on the Assessment of the US Drug Safety System. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2006 Sep 22Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Psaty BM, Burke SP. Protecting the health of the public: Institute of Medicine recommendations on drug safety. N Engl J Med 2006 Oct 26; 355(17): 1753–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hennessy S, Strom BL. PDUFA reauthorization: drug safety’s golden moment of opportunity? N Engl J Med 2007 Apr 26; 356(17): 1703–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fontanarosa PB, Rennie D, DeAngelis CD. Postmarketing surveillance: lack of vigilance, lack of trust. JAMA 2004 Dec 1; 292(21): 2647–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hampton T. Postmarket “pharmacovigilance” program on alert for adverse events from drugs. JAMA 2007 Aug 22; 298(8): 851–2PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Klein DF. The flawed basis for FDA post-marketing safety decisions: the example of anti-depressants and children. Neuropsychopharmacology 2006 Apr; 31(4): 689–99PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Klein DF, O’Brien CP. Improving detection of adverse effects of marketed drugs. JAMA 2007 Jul 18; 298(3): 333–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Platt R, Madre L, Reynolds R, et al. Active drug safety surveillance: a tool to improve public health. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2008 Dec; 17(12): 1175–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tiihonen J, Lonnqvist J, Wahlbeck N et al. Antidepressants and the risk of suicide, attempted suicide, and overall mortality in a nationwide cohort. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2006 Dec; 63(12): 1358–67PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Meijer WE, Heerdink ER, Nolen WA, et al. Association of risk of abnormal bleeding with degree of serotonin reuptake inhibition by antidepressants. Arch Intern Med 2004 Nov 22; 164(21): 2367–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Brownstein JS, Sordo M, Kohane IS, et al. The tell-tale heart: population-based surveillance reveals an association of rofecoxib and celecoxib with myocardial infarction. PLoS ONE 2007; 2(9): e840PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Andrade SE, Graham DJ, Staffa JA, et al. Health plan administrative databases can efficiently identify serious myopathy and rhabdomyolysis. J Clin Epidemiol 2005 Feb; 58(2): 171–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Graham DJ, Staffa JA, Shatin D, et al. Incidence of hospitalized rhabdomyolysis in patients treated with lipid-lowering drugs. JAMA 2004 Dec 1; 292(21): 2585–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cziraky MJ, Willey VJ, McKenney JM, et al. Statin safety: an assessment using an administrative claims database. Am J Cardiol 2006 Apr 17; 97(8A): 61–8CCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Brown JS, Kulldorff M, Chan KA, et al. Early detection of adverse drug events within population-based health networks: application of sequential testing methods. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2007 Dec; 16(12): 1275–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kulldorff M, Davis RL, Kolczak M, et al. A maximized sequential probability ratio test for drug and vaccine safety surveillance [online]. Available from URL: http://www.populationmedicine.org/content/docs/maxSPRTsubm.pdf [Accessed 2012 Mar 29]
  26. 26.
    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 Mar; 18(3): 226–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Reis BY, Kohane IS, Mandl KD. An epidemiological network model for disease outbreak detection. PLoS Medicine 2007 Jun; 4(6): e210PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Reis BY, Kirby C, Hadden LE, et al. AEGIS: a robust and scalable real-time public health surveillance system. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2007 Sep-Oct; 14(5): 581–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Reis BY, Pagano M, Mandl KD. Using temporal context to improve biosurveillance. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2003 Feb 18; 100(4): 1961–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Law M, Rudnicka AR. Statin safety: a systematic review. Am J Cardiol 2006 Apr 17; 97(8A): 52–60CCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bays H. Statin safety: an overview and assessment of the data —2005. Am J Cardiol 2006 Apr 17; 97(8A): 6–26CCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, et al. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 1987; 40(5): 373–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Fisher RA. Combining independent tests of significance. Am Stat 1948; 2(5): 30Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wang J, Donnan PT, Steinke D, et al. The multiple propensity score for analysis of dose-response relationships in drug safety studies. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2001 Mar–Apr; 10(2): 105–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Seeger JD, Kurth T, Walker AM. Use of propensity score technique to account for exposure-related covariates: an example and lesson. Med Care 2007 Oct; 45 (10 Suppl. 2): S143–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ben Y. Reis
    • 1
  • Karen L. Olson
    • 1
  • Lu Tian
    • 2
  • Rhonda L. Bohn
    • 3
  • John S. Brownstein
    • 1
  • Peter J. Park
    • 1
  • Mark J. Cziraky
    • 3
  • Marcus D. Wilson
    • 3
  • Kenneth D. Mandl
    • 1
  1. 1.Children’s Hospital Informatics Program, Children’s Hospital, Harvard Medical SchoolHarvard-MIT Division of Health Sciences and TechnologyBostonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Health Research and PolicyStanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  3. 3.HealthCore, Inc.WilmingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations