The Reporting of a Disproportionality Analysis for Drug Safety Signal Detection Using Individual Case Safety Reports in PharmacoVigilance (READUS-PV): Development and Statement.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Disproportionality analyses using reports of suspected adverse drug reactions are the most commonly used quantitative methods for detecting safety signals in pharmacovigilance. However, their methods and results are generally poorly reported in published articles and existing guidelines do not capture the specific features of disproportionality analyses. We here describe the development of a guideline (REporting of A Disproportionality analysis for drUg Safety signal detection using individual case safety reports in PharmacoVigilance [READUS-PV]) for reporting the results of disproportionality analyses in articles and abstracts. METHODS: We established a group of 34 international experts from universities, the pharmaceutical industry, and regulatory agencies, with expertise in pharmacovigilance, disproportionality analyses, and assessment of safety signals. We followed a three-step process to develop the checklist: (1) an open-text survey to generate a first list of items; (2) an online Delphi method to select and rephrase the most important items; (3) a final online consensus meeting. RESULTS: Among the panel members, 33 experts responded to round 1 and 30 to round 2 of the Delphi and 25 participated to the consensus meeting. Overall, 60 recommendations for the main body of the manuscript and 13 recommendations for the abstracts were retained by participants after the Delphi method. After merging of some items together and the online consensus meeting, the READUS-PV guidelines comprise a checklist of 32 recommendations, in 14 items, for the reporting of disproportionality analyses in the main body text and four items, comprising 12 recommendations, for abstracts. CONCLUSIONS: The READUS-PV guidelines will support authors, editors, peer-reviewers, and users of disproportionality analyses using individual case safety report databases. Adopting these guidelines will lead to more transparent, comprehensive, and accurate reporting and interpretation of disproportionality analyses, facilitating the integration with other sources of evidence.

The REporting of A Disproportionality Analysis for DrUg Safety Signal Detection Using Individual Case Safety Reports in PharmacoVigilance (READUS-PV): Explanation and Elaboration.

In pharmacovigilance, disproportionality analyses based on individual case safety reports are widely used to detect safety signals. Unfortunately, publishing disproportionality analyses lacks specific guidelines, often leading to incomplete and ambiguous reporting, and carries the risk of incorrect conclusions when data are not placed in the correct context. The REporting of A Disproportionality analysis for drUg Safety signal detection using individual case safety reports in PharmacoVigilance (READUS-PV) statement was developed to address this issue by promoting transparent and comprehensive reporting of disproportionality studies. While the statement paper explains in greater detail the procedure followed to develop these guidelines, with this explanation paper we present the 14 items retained for READUS-PV guidelines, together with an in-depth explanation of their rationale and bullet points to illustrate their practical implementation. Our primary objective is to foster the adoption of the READUS-PV guidelines among authors, editors, peer reviewers, and readers of disproportionality analyses. Enhancing transparency, completeness, and accuracy of reporting, as well as proper interpretation of their results, READUS-PV guidelines will ultimately facilitate evidence-based decision making in pharmacovigilance.

Global Landscape of Benefit-Risk Considerations for Medicinal Products: Current State and Future Directions.

In the last decade there has been a significant increase in the literature discussing the use of benefit-risk methods in medical product (including devices) development. Government agencies, medical product industry groups, academia, and collaborative consortia have extensively discussed the advantages of structured benefit-risk assessments. However, the abundance of information has not resulted in a consistent way to utilize these findings in medical product development. Guidelines and papers on methods, even though well structured, have not led to a firm consensus on a clear and consistent approach. This paper summarizes the global landscape of benefit-risk considerations for product- or program-level decisions from available literature and regulatory guidance, providing the perspectives of three stakeholder groups-regulators, collaborative groups and consortia, and patients. The paper identifies key themes, potential impact on benefit-risk assessments, and significant future trends.

Reporting Adverse Drug Reactions in Product Labels.

Product labels are intended to provide health care professionals with clear and concise prescribing information that will enhance the safe and effective use of drug products. In this manuscript, we offer suggestions to improve product labels. First, we recommend that product labels that include comparator data be changed to include adjusted incidence proportions (or adjusted incidence rates when needed and appropriate) for adverse drug reactions that are somewhat common. Second, we believe that including comparator incidence in product labels is a good practice, as it gives health care providers and patients appropriate information to put the absolute risks in perspective. Finally, we recommend changing the practice of reporting extremely rare events based on the "Rule of 3" in the Summary of Product Characteristics in Europe. We recommend that these adverse drug reactions be put in a separate table from other adverse drug reactions with a note that it is difficult to reliably estimate their incidences. In exceptional circumstances, it may be possible to present an estimate of their incidence based on postmarketing data. We believe the proposed changes could help product labels to better reflect the risk of a drug relative to a comparator.

Good Signal Detection Practices: Evidence from IMI PROTECT.

Over a period of 5 years, the Innovative Medicines Initiative PROTECT (Pharmacoepidemiological Research on Outcomes of Therapeutics by a European ConsorTium) project has addressed key research questions relevant to the science of safety signal detection. The results of studies conducted into quantitative signal detection in spontaneous reporting, clinical trial and electronic health records databases are summarised and 39 recommendations have been formulated, many based on comparative analyses across a range of databases (e.g. regulatory, pharmaceutical company). The recommendations point to pragmatic steps that those working in the pharmacovigilance community can take to improve signal detection practices, whether in a national or international agency or in a pharmaceutical company setting. PROTECT has also pointed to areas of potentially fruitful future research and some areas where further effort is likely to yield less.

Methodology to assess clinical liver safety data.

Analysis of liver safety data has to be multivariate by nature and needs to take into account time dependency of observations. Current standard tools for liver safety assessment such as summary tables, individual data listings, and narratives address these requirements to a limited extent only. Using graphics in the context of a systematic workflow including predefined graph templates is a valuable addition to standard instruments, helping to ensure completeness of evaluation, and supporting both hypothesis generation and testing. Employing graphical workflows interactively allows analysis in a team-based setting and facilitates identification of the most suitable graphics for publishing and regulatory reporting. Another important tool is statistical outlier detection, accounting for the fact that for assessment of Drug-Induced Liver Injury, identification and thorough evaluation of extreme values has much more relevance than measures of central tendency in the data. Taken together, systematical graphical data exploration and statistical outlier detection may have the potential to significantly improve assessment and interpretation of clinical liver safety data. A workshop was convened to discuss best practices for the assessment of drug-induced liver injury (DILI) in clinical trials.

Short-term acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin) use for pain, fever, or colds - gastrointestinal adverse effects: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Acetylsalicylic acid (ASA [aspirin]) is a commonly used over-the-counter drug for the treatment of pain, fever, or colds, but data on the safety of this use are very limited. The aim of this study was to provide data on the safety of this treatment pattern, which is of interest to clinicians, regulators, and the public. METHODS: A meta-analysis of individual patient data from 67 studies sponsored by Bayer HealthCare was completed. The primary endpoints were patient-reported gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events (AEs); the secondary endpoints were the incidence of patient-reported non-GI AEs. Event incidence and odds ratios (ORs) based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel estimates are reported. In total, 6181 patients were treated with ASA, 3515 with placebo, 1145 with acetaminophen (paracetamol), and 754 with ibuprofen. Exposure to ASA was short term (82.5% of patients had a single dose). RESULTS: GI AEs were more frequent with ASA (9.9%) than with placebo (9.0%).[OR 1.3; 95% CI 1.1, 1.5]. Dyspeptic symptoms were infrequent (4.6% in placebo subjects). The ORs for ASA were 1.3 (95% CI 1.1, 1.6) versus placebo; 1.55 (95% CI 0.7, 3.3) versus ibuprofen; and 1.04 (95% CI 0.8, 1.4) versus acetaminophen. There were very few serious GI AEs (one ASA case; three placebo cases). No differences were found for non-GI AEs and no cases of cerebral hemorrhage were reported. CONCLUSION: Short-term, mostly single-dose exposure to ASA for the treatment of pain, fever, or colds was associated with a small but significant increase in the risk of dyspepsia relative to placebo. No serious GI complications were reported.