Supporting Pharmacovigilance Signal Validation and Prioritization with Analyses of Routinely Collected Health Data: Lessons Learned from an EHDEN Network Study.

INTRODUCTION: Individual case reports are the main asset in pharmacovigilance signal management. Signal validation is the first stage after signal detection and aims to determine if there is sufficient evidence to justify further assessment. Throughout signal management, a prioritization of signals is continually made. Routinely collected health data can provide relevant contextual information but are primarily used at a later stage in pharmacoepidemiological studies to assess communicated signals. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine the feasibility and utility of analysing routine health data from a multinational distributed network to support signal validation and prioritization and to reflect on key user requirements for these analyses to become an integral part of this process. METHODS: Statistical signal detection was performed in VigiBase, the WHO global database of individual case safety reports, targeting generic manufacturer drugs and 16 prespecified adverse events. During a 5-day study-a-thon, signal validation and prioritization were performed using information from VigiBase, regulatory documents and the scientific literature alongside descriptive analyses of routine health data from 10 partners of the European Health Data and Evidence Network (EHDEN). Databases included in the study were from the UK, Spain, Norway, the Netherlands and Serbia, capturing records from primary care and/or hospitals. RESULTS: Ninety-five statistical signals were subjected to signal validation, of which eight were considered for descriptive analyses in the routine health data. Design, execution and interpretation of results from these analyses took up to a few hours for each signal (of which 15-60 minutes were for execution) and informed decisions for five out of eight signals. The impact of insights from the routine health data varied and included possible alternative explanations, potential public health and clinical impact and feasibility of follow-up pharmacoepidemiological studies. Three signals were selected for signal assessment, two of these decisions were supported by insights from the routine health data. Standardization of analytical code, availability of adverse event phenotypes including bridges between different source vocabularies, and governance around the access and use of routine health data were identified as important aspects for future development. CONCLUSIONS: Analyses of routine health data from a distributed network to support signal validation and prioritization are feasible in the given time limits and can inform decision making. The cost-benefit of integrating these analyses at this stage of signal management requires further research.

Sex Differences in Reported Adverse Drug Reactions to COVID-19 Drugs in a Global Database of Individual Case Safety Reports.

INTRODUCTION: In late 2019, a new coronavirus-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-was discovered in Wuhan, China, and the World Health Organization later declared coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) a pandemic. Numerous drugs have been repurposed and investigated for therapeutic effectiveness in the disease, including those from "Solidarity," an international clinical trial (azithromycin, chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, the fixed combination lopinavir/ritonavir, and remdesivir). OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to evaluate adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting for drugs when used in the treatment of COVID-19 compared with use for other indications, specifically focussing on sex differences. METHOD: We extracted reports on COVID-19-specific treatments from the global ADR database, VigiBase, using an algorithm developed to identify reports that listed COVID-19 as the indication. The Solidarity trial drugs were included, as were any drugs reported ≥ 100 times. We performed a descriptive comparison of reports for the same drugs used in non-COVID-19 indications. The data lock point date was 7 June 2020. RESULTS: In total, 2573 reports were identified for drugs used in the treatment of COVID-19. In order of frequency, the most reported ADRs were electrocardiogram QT-prolonged, diarrhoea, nausea, hepatitis, and vomiting in males and diarrhoea, electrocardiogram QT-prolonged, nausea, vomiting, and upper abdominal pain in females. Other hepatic and kidney-related events were included in the top ten ADRs in males, whereas no hepatic or renal terms were reported for females. COVID-19-related reporting patterns differed from non-pandemic reporting for these drugs. CONCLUSION: Review of a global database of suspected ADR reports revealed sex differences in the reporting patterns for drugs used in the treatment of COVID-19. Patterns of ADR sex differences need further elucidation.

Safety Concerns Reported by Patients Identified in a Collaborative Signal Detection Workshop using VigiBase: Results and Reflections from Lareb and Uppsala Monitoring Centre.

INTRODUCTION: Patient reporting in pharmacovigilance is important and contributes to signal detection. However, descriptions of methodologies for using patient reports in signal detection are scarce, and published experiences of how patient reports are used in pharmacovigilance are limited to a few individual countries. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to explore the contribution of patient reports to global signal detection in VigiBase. METHODS: Data were retrieved from VigiBase in September 2016. Drug-event-combination series were restricted to those with >50% patient reports, defined as reporter type "Consumer/non-health professional" per E2B reporting standard. vigiRank was applied to patient reports to prioritize combinations for assessment. Product information for healthcare professionals (HCPs) as well as patient information leaflets (PILs) were used as reference for information on adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Staff from the Uppsala Monitoring Centre and the Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb categorized the combinations. Potential signals proceeded to a more in-depth clinical review to determine whether the safety concern should be communicated as a "signal." RESULTS: Of the 212 combinations assessed, 20 (9%) resulted in eight signals communicated within the World Health Organization (WHO) programme for international drug monitoring. Review of PILs revealed insufficient ADR descriptions for patients and examples of poor consistency with product information for HCPs. Patient narratives provided details regarding the experience and impact of ADRs and evidence that patients make causality and personal risk assessments. CONCLUSIONS: Safety concerns described in patient reports can be identified in a global database including previously unknown ADRs as well as new aspects of known ADRs. Patient reports provide unique information valuable in signal assessment and should be included in signal detection. Novel approaches to highlighting patient reports in statistical signal detection can further improve the contribution of patient reports to pharmacovigilance.

Varenicline and abnormal sleep related events.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To assess adverse drug reaction reports of "abnormal sleep related events" associated with varenicline, a partial agonist to the α4ß2 subtype of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors on neurones, indicated for smoking cessation. DESIGN: Twenty-seven reports of "abnormal sleep related events" often associated with abnormal dreams, nightmares, or somnambulism, which are known to be associated with varenicline use, were identified in the World Health Organisation (WHO) Global Individual Case Safety Reports Database. Original anonymous reports were obtained from the four national pharmacovigilance centers that submitted these reports and assessed for reaction description and causality. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: These 27 reports include 10 of aggressive activity occurring during sleep and seven of other sleep related harmful or potentially harmful activities, such as apparently deliberate self-harm, moving a child or a car, or lighting a stove or a cigarette. Assessment of these 17 reports of aggression or other actual or potential harm showed that nine patients recovered or were recovering on varenicline withdrawal and there were no consistent alternative explanations. Thirteen patients experienced single events, and two had multiple events. Frequency was not stated for the remaining two patients. CONCLUSIONS: The descriptions of the reports of aggression during sleep with violent dreaming are similar to those of rapid eye movement sleep behavior disorder and also nonrapid eye movement (NREM) sleep parasomnias in some adults. Patients who experience somnambulism or dreams of a violent nature while taking varenicline should be advised to consult their health providers. Consideration should be given to clarifying the term sleep disorders in varenicline product information and including sleep related harmful and potentially harmful events.