Advertisement

Implementing Guidelines for Causality Assessment of Adverse Drug Reaction Reports: A Bayesian Network Approach

  • Pedro Pereira Rodrigues
  • Daniela Ferreira-Santos
  • Ana Silva
  • Jorge Polónia
  • Inês Ribeiro-Vaz
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10259)

Abstract

In pharmacovigilance, reported cases are considered suspected adverse drug reactions (ADR). Health authorities have thus adopted structured causality assessment methods, allowing the evaluation of the likelihood that a medicine was the causal agent of an adverse reaction. The aim of this work was to develop and validate a new causality assessment support system used in a regional pharmacovigilance centre. A Bayesian network was developed, for which the structure was defined by an expert, aiming at implementing the current guidelines for causality assessment, while the parameters were learnt from 593 completely-filled ADR reports evaluated by the Portuguese Northern Pharmacovigilance Centre expert between 2000 and 2012. Precision, recall and time to causality assessment (TTA) was evaluated, according to the WHO causality assessment guidelines, in a retrospective cohort of 466 reports (April to September 2014) and a prospective cohort of 1041 reports (January to December 2015). Results show that the network was able to easily identify the higher levels of causality (recall above 80%), although strugling to assess reports with a lower level of causality. Nonetheless, the median (Q1:Q3) TTA was 4 (2:8) days using the network and 8 (5:14) days using global introspection, meaning the network allowed a faster time to assessment, which has a procedural deadline of 30 days, improving daily activities in the centre.

Keywords

Adverse drug events Causality assessment Bayesian nets 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work has been developed under the scope of project NanoSTIMA [NORTE-01-0145-FEDER-000016], which was financed by the North Portugal Regional Operational Programme [NORTE 2020], under the PORTUGAL 2020 Partnership Agreement, and through the European Regional Development Fund [ERDF].

References

  1. 1.
    Agbabiaka, T.B., Savović, J., Ernst, E.: Methods for causality assessment of adverse drug reactions: a systematic review. Drug Saf. 31(1), 21–37 (2008). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18095744 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arimone, Y., Bégaud, B., Miremont-Salamé, G., Fourrier-Réglat, A., Moore, N., Molimard, M., Haramburu, F.: Agreement of expert judgment in causality assessment of adverse drug reactions. Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 61, 169–173 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arimone, Y., Miremont-Salamé, G., Haramburu, F., Molimard, M., Moore, N., Fourrier-Réglat, A., Bégaud, B.: Inter-expert agreement of seven criteria in causality assessment of adverse drug reactions. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 64(4), 482–488 (2007). http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2048553&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Darwiche, A.: Modeling and Reasoning with Bayesian Networks. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2009). http://www.amazon.com/Modeling-Reasoning-Bayesian-Networks-Darwiche/dp/0521884381 CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Darwiche, A.: Bayesian networks. Commun. ACM 53(12), 80–90 (2010). http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=1859204.1859227 CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Højsgaard, S.: Graphical independence networks with the gRain package for R. J. Stat. Softw. 46(10), 1–26 (2012). http://www.jstatsoft.org/v46/i10/paper Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    INFARMED: Farmacovigilância em Portugal. Technical report (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jones, J.: Adverse drug reactions in the community health setting: approaches to recognizing, counseling, and reporting. Fam. Community Health 5(2), 58–67 (1982). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10278126 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Karch, F.E., Lasagna, L.: Toward the operational identification of adverse drug reactions. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 21(3), 247–254 (1977). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/837643 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Latoszek-Berendsen, A., Tange, H., van den Herik, H.J., Hasman, A.: From clinical practice guidelines to computer-interpretable guidelines. A literature overview. Methods Inf. Med. 49(6), 550–570 (2010). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21085744 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lauritzen, S.L., Spiegelhalter, D.J.: Local computations with probabilities on graphical structures and their application to expert systems. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B 50(2), 157–224 (1988). http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/24233/ MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lindquist, M., Staahl, M., Bate, A., Edwards, I.R., Meyboom, R.H.: A retrospective evaluation of a data mining approach to aid finding new adverse drug reaction signals in the WHO international database. Drug Saf. 23(6), 533–542 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lucas, P.: Bayesian analysis, pattern analysis, and data mining in health care. Current Opin. Crit. Care 10(5), 399–403 (2004). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15385759 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lucas, P.J.F., van der Gaag, L.C., Abu-Hanna, A.: Bayesian networks in biomedicine and health-care. Artif. Intell. Med. 30(3), 201–214 (2004). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15081072 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Miremont, G., Haramburu, F., Bégaud, B., Péré, J.C., Dangoumau, J.: Adverse drug reactions: physicians’ opinions versus a causality assessment method. Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 46, 285–289 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Naranjo, C.A., Busto, U., Sellers, E.M., Sandor, P., Ruiz, I., Roberts, E.A., Janecek, E., Domecq, C., Greenblatt, D.J.: A method for estimating the probability of adverse drug reactions. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 30, 239–245 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    R Core Team: R: A Language and environment for statistical computing (2015). http://www.r-project.org/
  18. 18.
    Robin, X., Turck, N., Hainard, A., Tiberti, N., Lisacek, F., Sanchez, J.C., Müller, M.: pROC: an open-source package for R and S+ to analyze and compare ROC curves. BMC Bioinf. 12, 77 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Scutari, M.: Learning Bayesian networks with the bnlearn R Package. J. Stat. Softw. 35, 22 (2010). http://arXiv.org/abs/0908.3817
  20. 20.
    World Health Organization. Uppsala Monitoring Centre (2017). http://www.who-umc.org/

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pedro Pereira Rodrigues
    • 1
    • 2
  • Daniela Ferreira-Santos
    • 1
  • Ana Silva
    • 3
  • Jorge Polónia
    • 1
    • 3
  • Inês Ribeiro-Vaz
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.CINTESIS - Centre for Health Technology and Services ResearchPortoPortugal
  2. 2.MEDCIDS-FMUPFaculty of Medicine of the University of PortoPortoPortugal
  3. 3.UFN - Northern Pharmacovigilance Centre, FMUPPortoPortugal

Personalised recommendations