Paediatric safety signals identified in VigiBase: Methods and results from Uppsala Monitoring Centre.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to uncover previously unrecognised risks of medicines in paediatric pharmacovigilance reports and thereby advance a safer use of medicines in paediatrics. METHODS: Individual case safety reports (ICSRs) with ages less than 18 years were retrieved from VigiBase, the World Health Organization (WHO) global database of ICSRs, in September 2014. The reports were grouped according to the following age spans: 0 to 27 days; 28 days to 23 months; 2 to 11 years; and 12 to 17 years. vigiRank, a data-driven predictive model for emerging safety signals, was used to prioritise the list of drug events by age groups. The list was manually assessed, and potential signals were identified to undergo in-depth assessment to determine whether a signal should be communicated. RESULTS: A total of 472 drug-event pairs by paediatric age groups were the subject of an initial manual assessment. Twenty-seven drug events from the two older age groups were classified as potential signals. An in-depth assessment resulted in eight signals, of which one concerned harm in connection with off-label use of dextromethorphan and another with accidental overdose of olanzapine by young children, and the remaining signals referred to potentially new causal associations for atomoxetine (two signals), temozolamide, deferasirox, levetiracetam, and desloratadine that could be relevant also for adults. CONCLUSIONS: Clinically relevant signals were uncovered in VigiBase by using vigiRank applied to paediatric age groups. Further refinement of the methodology is needed to identify signals in reports with ages under 2 years and to capture signals specific to the paediatric population as a risk group.

Evaluation of Facebook and Twitter Monitoring to Detect Safety Signals for Medical Products: An Analysis of Recent FDA Safety Alerts.

INTRODUCTION: The rapid expansion of the Internet and computing power in recent years has opened up the possibility of using social media for pharmacovigilance. While this general concept has been proposed by many, central questions remain as to whether social media can provide earlier warnings for rare and serious events than traditional signal detection from spontaneous report data. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to examine whether specific product-adverse event pairs were reported via social media before being reported to the US FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS). METHODS: A retrospective analysis of public Facebook and Twitter data was conducted for 10 recent FDA postmarketing safety signals at the drug-event pair level with six negative controls. Social media data corresponding to two years prior to signal detection of each product-event pair were compiled. Automated classifiers were used to identify each 'post with resemblance to an adverse event' (Proto-AE), among English language posts. A custom dictionary was used to translate Internet vernacular into Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA®) Preferred Terms. Drug safety physicians conducted a manual review to determine causality using World Health Organization-Uppsala Monitoring Centre (WHO-UMC) assessment criteria. Cases were also compared with those reported in FAERS. FINDINGS: A total of 935,246 posts were harvested from Facebook and Twitter, from March 2009 through October 2014. The automated classifier identified 98,252 Proto-AEs. Of these, 13 posts were selected for causality assessment of product-event pairs. Clinical assessment revealed that posts had sufficient information to warrant further investigation for two possible product-event associations: dronedarone-vasculitis and Banana Boat Sunscreen--skin burns. No product-event associations were found among the negative controls. In one of the positive cases, the first report occurred in social media prior to signal detection from FAERS, whereas the other case occurred first in FAERS. CONCLUSIONS: An efficient semi-automated approach to social media monitoring may provide earlier insights into certain adverse events. More work is needed to elaborate additional uses for social media data in pharmacovigilance and to determine how they can be applied by regulatory agencies.

Current Safety Concerns with Human Papillomavirus Vaccine: A Cluster Analysis of Reports in VigiBase®.

INTRODUCTION: A number of safety signals-complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), and chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS)-have emerged with human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines, which share a similar pattern of symptomatology. Previous signal evaluations and epidemiological studies have largely relied on traditional methodologies and signals have been considered individually. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore global reporting patterns for HPV vaccine for subgroups of reports with similar adverse event (AE) profiles. METHODS: All individual case safety reports (reports) for HPV vaccines in VigiBase® until 1 January 2015 were identified. A statistical cluster analysis algorithm was used to identify natural groupings based on AE profiles in a data-driven exploratory analysis. Clinical assessment of the clusters was performed to identify clusters relevant to current safety concerns. RESULTS: Overall, 54 clusters containing at least five reports were identified. The four largest clusters included 71 % of the analysed HPV reports and described AEs included in the product label. Four smaller clusters were identified to include case reports relevant to ongoing safety concerns (total of 694 cases). In all four of these clusters, the most commonly reported AE terms were headache and dizziness and fatigue or syncope; three of these four AE terms were reported in >50 % of the reports included in the clusters. These clusters had a higher proportion of serious cases compared with HPV reports overall (44-89 % in the clusters compared with 24 %). Furthermore, only a minority of reports included in these clusters included AE terms of diagnoses to explain these symptoms. Using proportional reporting ratios, the combination of headache and dizziness with either fatigue or syncope was found to be more commonly reported in HPV vaccine reports compared with non-HPV vaccine reports for females aged 9-25 years. This disproportionality remained when results were stratified by age and when those countries reporting the signals of CRPS (Japan) and POTS (Denmark) were excluded. CONCLUSIONS: Cluster analysis reveals additional reports of AEs following HPV vaccination that are serious in nature and describe symptoms that overlap those reported in cases from the recent safety signals (POTS, CRPS, and CFS), but which do not report explicit diagnoses. While the causal association between HPV vaccination and these AEs remains uncertain, more extensive analyses of spontaneous reports can better identify the relevant case series for thorough signal evaluation.

Patient-Reported Safety Information: A Renaissance of Pharmacovigilance?

The role of patients as key contributors in pharmacovigilance was acknowledged in the new EU pharmacovigilance legislation. This contains several efforts to increase the involvement of the general public, including making patient adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting systems mandatory. Three years have passed since the legislation was introduced and the key question is: does pharmacovigilance yet make optimal use of patient-reported safety information? Independent research has shown beyond doubt that patients make an important contribution to pharmacovigilance signal detection. Patient reports provide first-hand information about the suspected ADR and the circumstances under which it occurred, including medication errors, quality failures, and 'near misses'. Patient-reported safety information leads to a better understanding of the patient's experiences of the ADR. Patients are better at explaining the nature, personal significance and consequences of ADRs than healthcare professionals' reports on similar associations and they give more detailed information regarding quality of life including psychological effects and effects on everyday tasks. Current methods used in pharmacovigilance need to optimise use of the information reported from patients. To make the most of information from patients, the systems we use for collecting, coding and recording patient-reported information and the methodologies applied for signal detection and assessment need to be further developed, such as a patient-specific form, development of a severity grading and evolution of the database structure and the signal detection methods applied. It is time for a renaissance of pharmacovigilance.

Pharmacovigilance is... Vigilance.

The world changes continuously and pharmacovigilance as a new discipline also must change. There are new fields opening with novel challenges whilst we are still perfecting ways to manage and improve the basic challenges such as inadequate data for decision making and under-reporting. Traditional medicines, vaccines, poisoning and medication error are all aspects of the safety of medicines that we have monitored for decades, though without perhaps paying enough attention to their special aspects. There are many new stakeholders taking serious interest in pharmacovigilance outside the regulatory sphere and they often focus on improving individual patient care, rather than the more traditional concentration on broad public health. The same stakeholders are also drawing attention to other iatrogenic outcomes that should be recognised, evaluated and their outcomes compared and contrasted with medication, such as harm from medical devices. The vigilance methods used for medication are very much applicable to all these new fields, though more and different expertise will be needed to evaluate outcomes.

Quantitative benefit-risk assessment of methylprednisolone in multiple sclerosis relapses.

BACKGROUND: High-dose short-term methylprednisolone is the recommended treatment in the management of multiple sclerosis relapses, although it has been suggested that lower doses may be equally effective. Also, glucocorticoids are associated with multiple and often dose-dependent adverse effects. This quantitative benefit-risk assessment compares high- and low-dose methylprednisolone (at least 2000 mg and less than 1000 mg, respectively, during at most 31 days) and a no treatment alternative, with the aim of determining which regimen, if any, is preferable in multiple sclerosis relapses. METHODS: An overall framework of probabilistic decision analysis was applied, combining data from different sources. Effectiveness as well as risk of non-serious adverse effects were estimated from published clinical trials. However, as these trials recorded very few serious adverse effects, risk intervals for the latter were derived from individual case reports together with a range of plausible distributions. Probabilistic modelling driven by logically implied or clinically well motivated qualitative relations was used to derive utility distributions. RESULTS: Low-dose methylprednisolone was not a supported option in this assessment; there was, however, only limited data available for this treatment alternative. High-dose methylprednisolone and the no treatment alternative interchanged as most preferred, contingent on the risk distributions applied for serious adverse effects, the assumed level of risk aversiveness in the patient population, and the relapse severity. CONCLUSIONS: The data presently available do not support a change of current treatment recommendations. There are strong incentives for further clinical research to reduce the uncertainty surrounding the effectiveness and the risks associated with methylprednisolone in multiple sclerosis relapses; this would enable better informed and more precise treatment recommendations in the future.

Longitudinal medical records as a complement to routine drug safety signal analysis.

PURPOSE: To explore whether and how longitudinal medical records could be used as a source of reference in the early phases of signal detection and analysis of novel adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in a global pharmacovigilance database. METHODS: Drug and ADR combinations from the routine signal detection process of VigiBase® in 2011 were matched to combinations in The Health Improvement Network (THIN). The number and type of drugs and ADRs from the data sets were investigated. For unlabelled combinations, graphical display of longitudinal event patterns (chronographs) in THIN was inspected to determine if the pattern supported the VigiBase combination. RESULTS: Of 458 combinations in the VigiBase data set, 190 matched to corresponding combinations in THIN (after excluding drugs with less than 100 prescriptions in THIN). Eighteen percent of the VigiBase and 9% of the matched THIN combinations referred to new drugs reported with serious reactions. Of the 112 unlabelled combinations matched to THIN, 52 chronographs were inconclusive mainly because of lack of data; 34 lacked any outstanding pattern around the time of prescription; 24 had an elevation of events in the pre-prescription period, hence weakened the suspicion of a drug relationship; two had an elevated pattern of events exclusively in the post-prescription period that, after review of individual patient histories, did not support an association. CONCLUSIONS: Longitudinal medical records were useful in understanding the clinical context around a drug and suspected ADR combination and the probability of a causal relationship. A drawback was the paucity of data for newly marketed drugs with serious reactions.

Valproic acid and fatalities in children: a review of individual case safety reports in VigiBase.

INTRODUCTION: Valproic acid is an effective first line drug for the treatment of epilepsy. Hepatotoxicity is a rare and potentially fatal adverse reaction for this medicine. OBJECTIVE: Firstly to characterise valproic acid reports on children with fatal outcome and secondly to determine reporting over time of hepatotoxicity with fatal outcome. METHODS: Individual case safety reports (ICSRs) for children ≤ 17 years with valproic acid and fatal outcome were retrieved from the WHO Global ICSR database, VigiBase, in June 2013. Reports were classified into hepatotoxic reactions or other reactions. Shrinkage observed-to-expected ratios were used to explore the relative reporting trend over time and for patient age. The frequency of polytherapy, i.e. reports with more than one antiepileptic medicine, was investigated. RESULTS: There have been 268 ICSRs with valproic acid and fatal outcome in children, reported from 25 countries since 1977. A total of 156 fatalities were reported with hepatotoxicity, which has been continuously and disproportionally reported over time. There were 31 fatalities with pancreatitis. Other frequently reported events were coma/encephalopathy, seizures, respiratory disorders and coagulopathy. Hepatotoxicity was disproportionally and most commonly reported in children aged 6 years and under (104/156 reports) but affected children of all ages. Polytherapy was significantly more frequently reported for valproic acid with fatal outcome (58%) compared with non-fatal outcome (34%). CONCLUSION: Hepatotoxicity remains a considerable problem. The risk appears to be greatest in young children (6 years and below) but can occur at any age. Polytherapy is commonly reported and seems to be a risk factor for hepatotoxicity, pancreatitis and other serious adverse drug reactions with valproic acid.

Adverse drug effects and their clinical management: a personal view.

This paper describes the personal views of the author about diagnosis and management of an adverse drug effect. It proposes that diagnosis is complicated and is also supported by carefully observed management of changes in drug therapy. Drug-related adverse effects may be due to the drug itself, though many are due to systematic errors occurring in the process from diagnosis of the primary treated condition, through prescribing and dispensing, to the way the drug is used by the patient. Bringing awareness of such systematic errors for consideration and management is part of a health care professional's responsibilities.

Computing limits on medicine risks based on collections of individual case reports.

BACKGROUND: Quantifying a medicine's risks for adverse effects is crucial in assessing its value as a therapeutic agent. Rare adverse effects are often not detected until after the medicine is marketed and used in large and heterogeneous patient populations, and risk quantification is even more difficult. While individual case reports of suspected harm from medicines are instrumental in the detection of previously unknown adverse effects, they are currently not used for risk quantification. The aim of this article is to demonstrate how and when limits on medicine risks can be computed from collections of individual case reports. METHODS: We propose a model where drug exposures in the real world may be followed by adverse episodes, each containing one or several adverse effects. Any adverse episode can be reported at most once, and each report corresponds to a single adverse episode. Based on this model, we derive upper and lower limits for the per-exposure risk of an adverse effect for a given drug. RESULTS: An upper limit for the per-exposure risk of the adverse effect Y for a given drug X is provided by the reporting ratio of X together with Y relative to all reports on X, under two assumptions: (i) the average number of adverse episodes following exposure to X is one or less; and (ii) adverse episodes that follow X and contain Y are more frequently reported than adverse episodes in general that follow X. Further, a lower risk limit is provided by dividing the number of reports on X together with Y by the total number of exposures to X, under the assumption that exposures to X that are followed by Y generate on average at most one report on X together with Y. Using real data, limits for the narcolepsy risk following Pandemrix vaccination and the risk of coeliac disease following antihypertensive treatment were computed and found to conform to reference risk values from epidemiological studies. CONCLUSIONS: Our framework enables quantification of medicine risks in situations where this is otherwise difficult or impossible. It has wide applicability, but should be particularly useful in structured benefit-risk assessments that include rare adverse effects.

Pharmacovigilance for children's sake.

Child age-specific information on efficacy and risk of medicines can be limited for healthcare professionals and patients. It is therefore very important to make the best use of a risk planned approach to the pharmacological treatment of children. This means pharmacovigilance in the broadest sense of gaining the best data from the use of medicines in clinical practice. We consider issues that complicate safe medication use in paediatric care, as well as current progress and provide suggestions for building knowledge within paediatric pharmacovigilance to be used to minimise patient harm. The continuous development in children constitutes a challenge to prescribing and administering age-suitable doses for individual children. Children are not only different from adults but differ vastly within their own age group. Physical growth during childhood is apparent to the eye, but less obvious is the ongoing maturation of organ function important for drug disposition and action. Systematic issues such as medication errors, off-label use and the lack of age-suitable formulations are considerable obstacles for safe medication use in paediatrics. The recognition of emerging adverse drug reactions could be more challenging in developing children. Initiatives to improve the situation have been made by the WHO and regulators in the USA and EU. Age-specific changes in physiology, pharmacology and psychology, as well as systematic issues specific for children need to be considered in the work of assessing spontaneous reports in children. Pharmacovigilance needs to broaden its aims considerably beyond merely capturing new associations between drugs and events, and encompass careful collection on patient characteristics and circumstances around the reported adverse drug reaction to provide essential information that will give clues on how to prevent harm to children.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Safety Event Reporting: PROSPER Consortium guidance.

The Patient-Reported Outcomes Safety Event Reporting (PROSPER) Consortium was convened to improve safety reporting by better incorporating the perspective of the patient. PROSPER comprises industry, regulatory authority, academic, private sector and patient representatives who are interested in the area of patient-reported outcomes of adverse events (PRO-AEs). It has developed guidance on PRO-AE data, including the benefits of wider use and approaches for data capture and analysis. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) encompass the full range of self-reporting, rather than only patient reports collected by clinicians using validated instruments. In recent years, PROs have become increasingly important across the spectrum of healthcare and life sciences. Patient-centred models of care are integrating shared decision making and PROs at the point of care; comparative effectiveness research seeks to include patients as participatory stakeholders; and industry is expanding its involvement with patients and patient groups as part of the drug development process and safety monitoring. Additionally, recent pharmacovigilance legislation from regulatory authorities in the EU and the USA calls for the inclusion of patient-reported information in benefit-risk assessment of pharmaceutical products. For patients, technological advancements have made it easier to be an active participant in one's healthcare. Simplified internet search capabilities, electronic and personal health records, digital mobile devices, and PRO-enabled patient online communities are just a few examples of tools that allow patients to gain increased knowledge about conditions, symptoms, treatment options and side effects. Despite these changes and increased attention on the perceived value of PROs, their full potential has yet to be realised in pharmacovigilance. Current safety reporting and risk assessment processes remain heavily dependent on healthcare professionals, though there are known limitations such as under-reporting and discordant perspectives between patient reports and clinician perceptions of adverse outcomes. PROSPER seeks to support the wider use of PRO-AEs. The scope of this guidance document, which was completed between July 2011 and March 2013, considered a host of domains related to PRO-AEs, including definitions and suitable taxonomies, the range of datasets that could be used, data collection mechanisms, and suitable analytical methodologies. PROSPER offers an innovative framework to differentiate patient populations. This framework considers populations that are prespecified (such as those in clinical trials, prospective observational studies and some registries) and non-prespecified populations (such as those in claims databases, PRO-enabled online patient networks, and social websites in general). While the main focus of this guidance is on post-approval PRO-AEs from both prespecified and non-prespecified population groups, PROSPER has also considered pre-approval, prespecified populations. The ultimate aim of this guidance is to ensure that the patient 'voice' and perspective feed appropriately into collection of safety data. The guidance also covers a minimum core dataset for use by industry or regulators to structure PRO-AEs (accessible in the online appendix) and how data, once collected, might be evaluated to better inform on the safe and effective use of medicinal products. Structured collection of such patient data can be considered both a means to an end (improving patient safety) as well as an end in itself (expressing the patient viewpoint). The members of the PROSPER Consortium therefore direct this PRO-AE guidance to multiple stakeholders in drug safety, including industry, regulators, prescribers and patients. The use of this document across the entirety of the drug development life cycle will help to better define the benefit-risk profile of new and existing medicines. Because of the clinical relevance of 'real-world' data, PROs have the potential to contribute important new knowledge about the benefits and risks of medicinal products, communicated through the voice of the patient.

The development and evaluation of triage algorithms for early discovery of adverse drug interactions.

BACKGROUND: Around 20 % of all adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are due to drug interactions. Some of these will only be detected in the postmarketing setting. Effective screening in large collections of individual case safety reports (ICSRs) requires automated triages to identify signals of adverse drug interactions. Research so far has focused on statistical measures, but clinical information and pharmacological characteristics are essential in the clinical assessment and may be of great value in first-pass filtering of potential adverse drug interaction signals. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to develop triages for adverse drug interaction surveillance, and to evaluate these prospectively relative to clinical assessment. METHODS: A broad set of variables were considered for inclusion in the triages, including cytochrome P450 (CYP) activity, explicit suspicions of drug interactions as noted by the reporter, dose and treatment overlap, and a measure of interaction disproportionality. Their unique contributions in predicting signals of adverse drug interactions were determined through logistic regression. This was based on the reporting in the WHO global ICSR database, VigiBase™, for a set of known adverse drug interactions and corresponding negative controls. Three triages were developed, each producing an estimated probability that a given drug-drug-ADR triplet constitutes an adverse drug interaction signal. The triages were evaluated against two separate benchmarks derived from expert clinical assessment: adverse drug interactions known in the literature and prospective adverse drug interaction signals. For reference, the triages were compared with disproportionality analysis alone using the same benchmarks. RESULTS: The following were identified as valuable predictors of adverse drug interaction signals: plausible CYP metabolism; notes of suspected interaction by the reporter; and reports of unexpected therapeutic response, altered therapeutic effect with dose information and altered therapeutic effect when only two drugs had been used. The new triages identified reporting patterns corresponding to both prospective signals of adverse drug interactions and already established ones. They perform better than disproportionality analysis alone relative to both benchmarks. CONCLUSIONS: A range of predictors for adverse drug interaction signals have been identified. They substantially improve signal detection capacity compared with disproportionality analysis alone. The value of incorporating clinical and pharmacological information in first-pass screening is clear.

Pharmacovigilance and biosimilars: considerations, needs and challenges.

INTRODUCTION: Biosimilars are biologic medicines that are highly similar to approved biologics, notwithstanding minor differences in clinically inactive components. Since 2007, biosimilars have been approved for use in patients in the European Union (EU) and other regions. European experience provides several lessons as the United States (US) healthcare system prepares for biosimilar approvals. These lessons emphasize the need for adequate efficacy and safety studies, post-marketing surveys and a robust pharmacovigilance system that can accurately track and trace biologics, including biosimilars and their reference products, from the patient to the manufacturer. AREAS COVERED: We review the EU experience with biosimilar pharmacovigilance and discuss the implications for biosimilar pharmacovigilance in the USA. Furthermore, we review several aspects of biosimilar pharmacovigilance, including cohort event monitoring, traceability, biosimilar interchangeability, pharmacovigilance system development, nomenclature and counterfeit tracking. EXPERT OPINION: The availability of biosimilars as lower-cost biologics must carefully consider issues of safety, efficacy and traceability. Stringent pharmacovigilance procedures are required to detect potential differences in safety signals between biosimilars and their reference products. Pharmacovigilance of biologics should include processes that are easily used by prescribing practitioners to ensure that data are consistent and new safety signals are properly reported and assigned to the correct product.

Attitudes among healthcare professionals to the reporting of adverse drug reactions in Nepal.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare professional's knowledge and attitudes to adverse drug reaction (ADR) and ADR reporting play vital role to report any cases of ADR. Positive attitudes may favour ADR reporting by healthcare professionals. This study was aimed to investigate the attitudes towards and ways to improve adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting among healthcare professionals working at four Regional Pharmacovigilance Centres (RPCs) of Nepal. METHODS: A cross sectional study was done by survey using a self-administered structured questionnaire. The questionnaire was distributed to 450 healthcare professionals working at four RPCs. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 74.0%. There were 74.8% of healthcare professionals who had seen patient experiencing an ADR; however, only 20.1% had reported. Reporting form not available (48.1%) and other colleagues not reporting ADR cases (46.9%) would significantly discourage the ADR reporting among healthcare professionals working at four RPCs. Healthcare professionals perceived that seriousness of the reaction (75.6%); unusual reaction (64.6%); reaction to new product (71.2%); new reaction to existing product (70.2%); and confidence in diagnosis of ADR (60.8%) were important factors on the decision to report ADR. Awareness among healthcare professionals (85.9%), training (76.0%), collaboration (67.0%), and involve pharmacist for ADR reporting (63.1%) were mostly recognized ways to improve reporting. Regular newsletter on current awareness in drug safety (71.2%), information on new ADR (65.8%), and international drug safety information (64.0%) were the identified feedbacks they would like to receive from the Nepal pharmacovigilance programme. CONCLUSION: Healthcare professionals working at four RPCs of Nepal have positive attitudes towards ADR reporting. Awareness among healthcare professionals, training and collaboration would likely improve reporting provided they would receive appropriate feedback from the national pharamcovigilance programme.