Finding Needles in the Haystack: Clinical Utility Score for Prioritisation (CUSP), an Automated Approach for Identifying Spontaneous Reports with the Highest Clinical Utility.

INTRODUCTION: Spontaneous reporting of adverse events has increased steadily over the past decades, and although this trend has contributed to improving post-marketing surveillance pharmacovigilance activities, the consequent amount of data generated is challenging to manually review during assessment, with each individual report requiring review by pharmacovigilance experts. This highlights a clear need for alternative or complementary methodologies to help prioritise review. OBJECTIVE: Here, we aimed to develop and test an automated methodology, the Clinical Utility Score for Prioritisation (CUSP), to assist pharmacovigilance experts in prioritising clinical assessment of safety data to improve the rapidity of case series review when case volumes are large. METHODS: The CUSP method was tested on a reference dataset of individual case safety reports (ICSRs) associated to five drug-event pairs that led to labelling changes. The selected drug-event pairs were of varying characteristics across the portfolio of GSK's products. RESULTS: The mean CUSP score for 'key cases' and 'cases of low utility' was 19.7 (median: 21; range: 7-27) and 17.3 (median: 19; range: 4-27), respectively. CUSP distribution for 'key cases' were skewed toward the higher range of scores compared with 'all cases'. The overall performance across each individual drug-event pair varied considerably, showing higher predictive power for 'key cases' for three of the drug-event pairs (average CUSP between these three: 22.8; range: 22.5-23.0) and lesser power for the remaining two (average CUSP between these two: 17.6; range: 14.5-20.7). CONCLUSION: Although several tools have been developed to assess ICSR completeness and regulatory utility, this is the first attempt to successfully develop an automated clinical utility scoring system that can support the prioritisation of ICSRs for clinical review.

Individual Case Safety Report Replication: An Analysis of Case Reporting Transmission Networks.

INTRODUCTION: The basis of pharmacovigilance is provided by the exchange of Individual Case Safety Reports (ICSRs) between the recipient of the original report and other interested parties, which include Marketing Authorization Holders (MAHs) and Health Authorities (HAs). Different regulators have different reporting requirements for report transmission. This results in replication of each ICSR that will exist in multiple locations. Adding in the fact that each case will go through multiple versions, different recipients may receive different case versions at different times, potentially influencing patient safety decisions and potentially amplifying or obscuring safety signals inappropriately. OBJECTIVE: The present study aimed to investigate the magnitude of replication, the variability among recipients, and the subsequent divergence across recipients of ICSRs. METHODS: Seven participating TransCelerate Member Companies (MCs) queried their respective safety databases covering a 3-year period and provided aggregate ICSR submission statistics for expedited safety reports to an independent project manager. As measured in the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS), ICSR volume for these seven MCs makes up approximately 20% of the total case volume. Aggregate metrics were calculated from the company data, specifically: (i) number of ICSR transmissions, (ii) average number of recipients (ANR) per case version transmitted, (iii) a submission selectivity metric, which measures the percentage of recipients not having received all sequential case version numbers, and (iv) percent of common ISCRs residing in two or more MAH databases. RESULTS: The analysis reflects 2,539,802 case versions, distributed through 7,602,678 submissions. The overall mean replication rate is 3.0 submissions per case version. The distribution of the ANR replication measure was observed to be very long-tailed, with a significant fraction of case versions (~ 12.4% of all transmissions) being sent to ten or more HA recipients. Replication is higher than average for serious, unlisted, and literature cases, ranging from 3.5 to 6.1 submissions per version. Within the subset of ICSR versions sent to three recipients, a significant degree of variability in the actual recipients (i.e., HAs) was observed, indicating that there is not one single combination of the same three HAs predominantly receiving an ICSR. Submission selectivity increases with the case version. For case version 6, the range of the submission selectivity for the MAHs ranges from ~ 10% to over 50%, with a median of 30.2%. Within the participating MAHs, the percentage of cases that reside within at least two safety databases is approximately 2% across five databases. Further analysis of the data from three MAHs showed percentages of 13.4%, 15.6%, and 27.9% of ICSRs originating from HAs and any other partners such as other MAHs and other institutions. CONCLUSION: Replication of ICSRs and the variation of available safety information in recipient databases were quantified and shown to be substantial. Our work shows that multiple processors and medical reviewers will likely handle the same original ICSR as a result of replication. Aside from the obvious duplicate work, this phenomenon could conceivably lead to differing clinical assessments and decisions. If replication could be reduced or even eliminated, this would enable more focus on activities with a benefit for patient safety.

Engaging Patients via Online Healthcare Fora: Three Pharmacovigilance Use Cases.

Increasingly, patient-generated safety insights are shared online, via general social media platforms or dedicated healthcare fora which give patients the opportunity to discuss their disease and treatment options. We evaluated three areas of potential interest for the use of social media in pharmacovigilance. To evaluate how social media may complement existing safety signal detection capabilities, we identified two use cases (drug/adverse event [AE] pairs) and then evaluated the frequency of AE discussions across a range of social media channels. Changes in frequency over time were noted in social media, then compared to frequency changes in Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) data over the same time period using a traditional disproportionality method. Although both data sources showed increasing frequencies of AE discussions over time, the increase in frequency was greater in the FAERS data as compared to social media. To demonstrate the robustness of medical/AE insights of linked posts we manually reviewed 2,817 threads containing 21,313 individual posts from 3,601 unique authors. Posts from the same authors were linked together. We used a quality scoring algorithm to determine the groups of linked posts with the highest quality and manually evaluated the top 16 groups of posts. Most linked posts (12/16; 75%) contained all seven relevant medical insights assessed compared to only one (of 1,672) individual post. To test the capability of actively engage patients via social media to obtain follow-up AE information we identified and sent consents for follow-up to 39 individuals (through a third party). We sent target follow-up questions (identified by pharmacovigilance experts as critical for causality assessment) to those who consented. The number of people consenting to follow-up was low (20%), but receipt of follow-up was high (75%). We observed completeness of responses (37 out of 37 questions answered) and short average time required to receive the follow-up (1.8 days). Our findings indicate a limited use of social media data for safety signal detection. However, our research highlights two areas of potential value to pharmacovigilance: obtaining more complete medical/AE insights via longitudinal post linking and actively obtaining rapid follow-up information on AEs.