Drug safety · 2024
Comparators in Pharmacovigilance: A Quasi-Quantification Bias Analysis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Gravel Christopher A, Bai William, Douros Antonios
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: It is unclear which comparator is the most appropriate for bias reduction in disproportionality analyses based on spontaneous reports. We conducted a quasi-quantitative bias analysis using two well-studied drug-event combinations to assess how different comparators influence the directionality of bias in pharmacovigilance.
METHODS: We used the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System focusing on two drug-event combinations with a propensity for stimulated reporting: rivaroxaban and hepatotoxicity, and canagliflozin and acute kidney injury. We assessed the directionality of three disproportionality analysis estimates (reporting odds ratio, proportional reporting ratio, information component) using one unrestricted comparator (full data) and two restricted comparators (active comparator, active comparator with class exclusion). Analyses were conducted within two calendar time periods, defined based on external events (approval of direct oral anticoagulants, Food and Drug Administration safety warning on acute kidney injury with sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors) hypothesized to alter reporting rates.
RESULTS: There were no false-positive signals for rivaroxaban and hepatotoxicity irrespective of the comparator. Restricting to the initial post-approval period led to false-positive signals, with restricted comparators performing worse. There were false-positive signals for canagliflozin and acute kidney injury, with restricted comparators performing better. Restricting to the period before the Food and Drug Administration warning weakened the false-positive signal for canagliflozin and acute kidney injury across comparators.
CONCLUSIONS: We could not identify a consistent and predictable pattern to the directionality of disproportionality analysis estimates with specific comparators. Calendar time-based restrictions anchored on relevant external events had a considerable impact.
METHODS: We used the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System focusing on two drug-event combinations with a propensity for stimulated reporting: rivaroxaban and hepatotoxicity, and canagliflozin and acute kidney injury. We assessed the directionality of three disproportionality analysis estimates (reporting odds ratio, proportional reporting ratio, information component) using one unrestricted comparator (full data) and two restricted comparators (active comparator, active comparator with class exclusion). Analyses were conducted within two calendar time periods, defined based on external events (approval of direct oral anticoagulants, Food and Drug Administration safety warning on acute kidney injury with sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors) hypothesized to alter reporting rates.
RESULTS: There were no false-positive signals for rivaroxaban and hepatotoxicity irrespective of the comparator. Restricting to the initial post-approval period led to false-positive signals, with restricted comparators performing worse. There were false-positive signals for canagliflozin and acute kidney injury, with restricted comparators performing better. Restricting to the period before the Food and Drug Administration warning weakened the false-positive signal for canagliflozin and acute kidney injury across comparators.
CONCLUSIONS: We could not identify a consistent and predictable pattern to the directionality of disproportionality analysis estimates with specific comparators. Calendar time-based restrictions anchored on relevant external events had a considerable impact.