Serious Cardiovascular Adverse Events Reported with Intravenous Sedatives: A Retrospective Analysis of the MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting System.

BACKGROUND: Serious cardiovascular adverse events (SCAEs) associated with intravenous sedatives remain poorly characterized. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare SCAE incidence, types, and mortality between intravenous benzodiazepines (i.e., diazepam, lorazepam, and midazolam), dexmedetomidine, and propofol in the USA over 8 years regardless of the clinical setting where it was administered. METHODS: The Food and Drug Administration's MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting System was searched between 2004 and 2011 using the Evidex® platform from Advera Health Analytics, Inc. to identify all reports that included one or more of ten different SCAEs (package insert incidence ≥ 1%) and where an intravenous benzodiazepine, dexmedetomidine, or propofol was the primary suspected drug. RESULTS: Among the 2326 Food and Drug Administration's MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting System cases reported, 394 (16.9%) were related to a SCAE. The presence of a SCAE (vs. a non-SCAE) is associated with higher mortality (34 vs. 8%, p < 0.001). The percentage of cases with one or more SCAE, the case mortality rate (%), and the incidence of each SCAE (per 106 days of sedative exposure), respectively, were benzodiazepines (14, 26, 13) [diazepam (13, 23, 31); lorazepam (15, 43, 14); midazolam (14, 20, 11)]; dexmedetomidine (40, 15, 13); and propofol (17, 39, 7). Propofol (vs. either a benzodiazepine or dexmedetomidine) was associated with more total SCAEs (268 vs. 126, p < 0.001) but a lower incidence (per 106 days of sedative exposure) of SCAE (7 vs. 13, p = 0.0001) and cardiac arrest [6.3 (benzodiazepine) vs. 6.7 (dexmedetomidine) vs. 1.4 (propofol), p < 0.0001]. CONCLUSIONS: Serious cardiac adverse events account for nearly one-fifth of intravenous sedative Food and Drug Administration's MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting System reports. These SCAEs appear to be associated with greater mortality than non-cardiac serious adverse events. Serious cardiac events may be more prevalent with either benzodiazepines or dexmedetomidine than propofol.

Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Associated with Statin Use: A Disproportionality Analysis of the FDA's Adverse Event Reporting System.

INTRODUCTION: Apparent elevations in reporting of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS)-like conditions associated with statin use have been previously described from data obtained via US and European databases. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine US FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) data to compare reporting odds ratios (RORs) of ALS and ALS-like conditions between statins and other drugs, for each statin agent. METHODS: We assessed for disproportional rates of reported ALS and ALS-related conditions for each statin agent separately by using the ROR formula. FAERS data were analyzed through September 2015. RESULTS: RORs for ALS were elevated for all statins, with elevations possibly stronger for lipophilic statins. RORs ranged from 9.09 (6.57-12.6) and 16.2 (9.56-27.5) for rosuvastatin and pravastatin (hydrophilic) to 17.0 (14.1-20.4), 23.0 (18.3-29.1), and 107 (68.5-167) for atorvastatin, simvastatin, and lovastatin (lipophilic), respectively. For simvastatin, an ROR of 57.1 (39.5-82.7) was separately present for motor neuron disease. CONCLUSION: These findings extend previous evidence showing that significantly elevated ALS reporting extends to individual statin agents, and add to concerns about potential elevated occurrence of ALS-like conditions in association with statin usage.

Analysis of Spontaneous Postmarket Case Reports Submitted to the FDA Regarding Thromboembolic Adverse Events and JAK Inhibitors.

INTRODUCTION: The Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor baricitinib is approved in Europe and Japan for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. In April 2017, the US FDA expressed concern about thromboembolic events (deep venous thrombosis [DVT] and pulmonary embolism [PE]) observed in placebo-controlled clinical trials of baricitinib. The European and Japanese labels for baricitinib were recently updated to include a precaution related to potential thromboembolic events in patients at risk. Given that the FDA-approved drugs tofacitinib and ruxolitinib are in the same class, we conducted a safety review of the FDA's Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) to assess postmarketing reporting rates for related thromboembolic risks. METHODS: Adverse event (AE) data for tofacitinib, tofacitinib extended-release (XR), and ruxolitinib were obtained from the FAERS. Reporting odds ratios (RORs) and the R package 'PhViD' to estimate the empirical Bayesian geometric mean (EBGM) were used to detect AEs with higher-than-expected reporting rates within the FAERS. RESULTS: We did not find evidence in the FAERS for elevated reporting rates for DVT and PE across the three JAK inhibitors we analyzed. However, multiple drug-AE combinations relating to thromboembolic events had both RORs and EBGM values above 1, indicating a trend toward higher-than-expected reporting rates. For pulmonary thrombosis, the ROR values for ruxolitinib, tofacitinib, and tofacitinib XR were 1.46 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76-2.80), 2.46 (1.55-3.91), and 2.48 (0.80-7.71), respectively, while the EBGM values were 1.25 (0.70), 2.46 (1.64), and 1.56 (0.57), respectively. Ruxolitinib had ROR values of 4.08 (2.25-7.38) and 1.22 (0.97-1.53) for portal vein thrombosis and thrombosis, respectively. The EBGM values for the same drug-AE combinations were 3.04 (1.79) and 1.16 (0.96). CONCLUSIONS: Our safety review of postmarketing FAERS reports associated with three FDA-approved JAK inhibitors did not find elevated reporting rates for DVT and PE specifically. However, the FAERS data indicated that pulmonary thrombosis may potentially be a class-wide issue for JAK inhibitors. Portal vein thrombosis may also be a potential risk for ruxolitinib. While these FAERS data add to a growing body of evidence that JAK inhibitors may be contraindicated in patients at risk of thromboembolic events, the data need to be confirmed by future AE reporting trends, analysis of electronic health records, and/or future clinical trials.

A Pharmacovigilance Signaling System Based on FDA Regulatory Action and Post-Marketing Adverse Event Reports.

INTRODUCTION: Many serious drug adverse events (AEs) only manifest well after regulatory approval. Therefore, the development of signaling methods to use with post-approval AE databases appears vital to comprehensively assess real-world drug safety. However, with millions of potential drug-AE pairs to analyze, the issue of focus is daunting. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to develop a signaling platform that focuses on AEs with historically demonstrated regulatory interest and to analyze such AEs with a disproportional reporting method that offers broad signal detection and acceptable false-positive rates. METHODS: We analyzed over 1500 US FDA regulatory actions (safety communications and drug label changes) from 2008 to 2015 to construct a list of eligible signal AEs. The FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) was used to evaluate disproportional reporting rates, constrained by minimum case counts and confidence interval limits, of these selected AEs for 109 training drugs. This step led to 45 AEs that appeared to have a low likelihood of being added to a label by FDA, so they were removed from the signal eligible list. We measured disproportional reporting for the final group of eligible AEs on a test group of 29 drugs that were not used in either the eligible list construction or the training steps. RESULTS: In a group of 29 test drugs, our model reduced the number of potential drug-AE signals from 41,834 to 97 and predicted 73 % of individual drug label changes. The model also predicted at least one AE-drug pair label change in 66 % of all the label changes for the test drugs. CONCLUSIONS: By concentrating on AE types with already demonstrated interest to FDA, we constructed a signaling system that provided focus regarding drug-AE pairs and suitable accuracy with regard to the issuance of FDA labeling changes. We suggest that focus on historical regulatory actions may increase the utility of pharmacovigilance signaling systems.

A Drug Safety Rating System Based on Postmarketing Costs Associated with Adverse Events and Patient Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Given the multiple limitations associated with relatively homogeneous preapproval clinical trials, inadequate data disclosures, slow reaction times from regulatory bodies, and deep-rooted bias against disclosing and publishing negative results, there is an acute need for the development of analytics that reflect drug safety in heterogeneous, real-world populations. OBJECTIVE: To develop a drug safety statistic that estimates downstream medical costs associated with serious adverse events (AEs) and unfavorable patient outcomes associated with the use of 706 FDA-approved drugs. METHODS: All primary suspect case reports for each drug were collected from the FDA's Adverse Event Reporting System database (FAERS) from 2010-2014. The Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) was used to code serious AEs and outcomes, which were tallied for each case report. Medical costs associated with AEs and poor patient outcomes were derived from Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) survey data, and their corresponding ICD-9-CM codes were mapped to MedDRA terms. Nonserious AEs and outcomes were not included. For each case report, either the highest AE cost or, if no eligible AE was listed, the highest outcome cost was used. All costed cases were aggregated for each drug and divided by the number of patients exposed to obtain a downstream estimated direct medical cost burden per exposure. Each drug was assigned a corresponding 1-100 point total. RESULTS: The 706 drugs showed an exponential distribution of downstream costs, and the data were transformed using the natural log to approximate a normal distribution. The minimum score was 8.29, and the maximum score was 99.25, with a mean of 44.32. Drugs with the highest individual scores tended to be kinase inhibitors, thalidomide analogs, and endothelin receptor antagonists. When scores were analyzed across Established Pharmacologic Class (EPC), the kinase inhibitor and endothelin receptor antagonist classes had the highest total. However, other EPCs with median scores of 75 and above included hepatitis C virus NS3/4A protease inhibitor, recombinant human interferon beta, vascular endothelial growth factor-directed antibody, and tumor necrosis factor blocker. When Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical classifications were analyzed, antineoplastic drugs were outliers with approximately 80% of their individual scores 60 and above, while approximately 20%-30% of blood and anti-infective drugs had scores of 60 and above. Within-drug class results served to differentiate similar drugs. For example, 6 serotonin reuptake inhibitors had a score range of 35 to 53. CONCLUSIONS: This scoring system is based on estimated direct medical costs associated with postmarketing AEs and poor patient outcomes and thereby helps fill a large information gap regarding drug safety in real-world patient populations.

Stimulated reporting: the impact of US food and drug administration-issued alerts on the adverse event reporting system (FAERS).

BACKGROUND: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) uses the Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) to support post-marketing safety surveillance programs. Currently, almost one million case reports are submitted to FAERS each year, making it a vast repository of drug safety information. Sometimes cited as a limitation of FAERS, however, is the assumption that "stimulated reporting" of adverse events (AEs) occurs in response to warnings, alerts, and label changes that are issued by the FDA. OBJECTIVE: To determine the extent of "stimulated reporting" in the modern-day FAERS database. METHODS: One hundred drugs approved by the FDA between 2001 and 2010 were included in this analysis. FDA alerts were obtained by a comprehensive search of the FDA's MedWatch and main websites. Publicly available FAERS data were used to assess the "primary suspect" AE reporting pattern for up to four quarters before, and after, the issuance of an FDA alert. RESULTS: A few drugs did demonstrate "stimulated reporting" trends. A majority of the drugs, however, showed little evidence for significant reporting changes associated with the issuance of alerts. When we compared the percentage changes in reporting after an FDA alert with those after a sham "control alert", the overall reporting trends appeared to be quite similar. Of 100 drugs analyzed for short-term reporting trends, 21 real alerts and 25 sham alerts demonstrated an increase (greater than or equal to 1 %) in reporting. The long-term analysis of 91 drugs showed that 24 real alerts and 28 sham alerts demonstrated a greater than or equal to 1 % increase. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that most of modern day FAERS reporting is not significantly affected by the issuance of FDA alerts.

The Weber effect and the United States Food and Drug Administration's Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS): analysis of sixty-two drugs approved from 2006 to 2010.

BACKGROUND: The United States Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) consists of adverse event (AE) reports linked to approved drugs. The database is widely used to support post-marketing safety surveillance programs. Sometimes cited as a limitation to the usefulness of FAERS, however, is the 'Weber effect,' which is often summarized by stating that AE reporting peaks at the end of the second year after a regulatory authority approves a drug. Weber described this effect in 1984 based upon a single class of medications prescribed in the United Kingdom. Since that time, the FDA has made a concerted effort to improve both reporting and the database itself. Both volume and quality of AE reporting has dramatically improved since Weber's report, with an estimated 800,000 yearly reports now being logged into FAERS. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine if current FAERS reporting follows the trend described by Weber. METHODS: Sixty-two drugs approved by the FDA between 2006 and 2010 were included in this analysis. Publicly available FAERS data were used to assess the 'primary suspect' AE reporting pattern for up to a 4-year period following each drug's approval date. RESULTS: A total of 334,984 AE reports were logged into FAERS for the 62 drugs analyzed here. While a few of the drugs demonstrated what could be considered 'Weber effect' curves, a majority of the drugs showed little evidence for the effect. In fact, the general AE reporting pattern observed in this study appears to consist simply of increasing case counts over the first three quarters after approval followed by relatively constant counts thereafter. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that most of the modern adverse event reporting into FAERS does not follow the pattern described by Weber. Factors that may have contributed to this finding include large increases in the volume of AE reports since the Weber effect was described, as well as a concerted effort by the FDA to increase awareness regarding the utility of post-marketing AE reporting.

A survey of the FDA's AERS database regarding muscle and tendon adverse events linked to the statin drug class.

BACKGROUND: Cholesterol management drugs known as statins are widely used and often well tolerated; however, a variety of muscle-related side effects can arise. These adverse events (AEs) can have serious impact, and form a significant barrier to therapy adherence. Surveillance of post-marketing AEs is of vital importance to understand real-world AEs and reporting differences between individual statin drugs. We conducted a review of post-approval muscle and tendon AE reports in association with statin use, to assess differences within the drug class. METHODS: We analyzed all case reports from the FDA AE Reporting System (AERS) database linking muscle-related AEs to statin use (07/01/2005-03/31/2011). Drugs examined were: atorvastatin, simvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, rosuvastatin, and fluvastatin. RESULTS: Relative risk rates for rosuvastatin were consistently higher than other statins. Atorvastatin and simvastatin showed intermediate risks, while pravastatin and lovastatin appeared to have the lowest risk rates. Relative risk of muscle-related AEs, therefore, approximately tracked with per milligram LDL-lowering potency, with fluvastatin an apparent exception. Incorporating all muscle categories, rates for atorvastatin, simvastatin, pravastatin, and lovastatin were, respectively, 55%, 26%, 17%, and 7.5% as high, as rosuvastatin, approximately tracking per milligram potency (Rosuvastatin>Atorvastatin>Simvastatin>Pravastatin ≈ Lovastatin) and comporting with findings of other studies. Relative potency, therefore, appears to be a fundamental predictor of muscle-related AE risk, with fluvastatin, the least potent statin, an apparent exception (risk 74% vs rosuvastatin). INTERPRETATION: AE reporting rates differed strikingly for drugs within the statin class, with relative reporting aligning substantially with potency. The data presented in this report offer important reference points for the selection of statins for cholesterol management in general and, especially, for the rechallenge of patients who have experienced muscle-related AEs (for whom agents of lower expected potency should be preferred).