Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Our journals
    • Clinical Medicine
    • Future Healthcare Journal
  • Subject collections
  • About the RCP
  • Contact us

Clinical Medicine Journal

  • ClinMed Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
  • Author guidance
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit online
  • About ClinMed
    • Scope
    • Editorial board
    • Policies
    • Information for reviewers
    • Advertising

User menu

  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
RCP Journals
Home
  • Log in
  • Home
  • Our journals
    • Clinical Medicine
    • Future Healthcare Journal
  • Subject collections
  • About the RCP
  • Contact us
Advanced

Clinical Medicine Journal

clinmedicine Logo
  • ClinMed Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
  • Author guidance
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit online
  • About ClinMed
    • Scope
    • Editorial board
    • Policies
    • Information for reviewers
    • Advertising

Modern methods of pharmacovigilance: detecting adverse effects of drugs

G Niklas Norén and I Ralph Edwards
Download PDF
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7861/clinmedicine.9-5-486
Clin Med October 2009
G Niklas Norén
WHO Collaborating Centre for International Drug Monitoring, Uppsala, Sweden
Roles: Manager, Research
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: niklas.noren@who-umc.org
I Ralph Edwards
WHO Collaborating Centre for International Drug Monitoring, Uppsala, Sweden
Roles: Professor in Medicine; Director
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
Loading
Key Words
  • adverse drug reaction
  • cohort-event monitoring
  • individual case safety report
  • longitudinal electronic patient records

Medicines improve health and the chances of survival in a wide variety of conditions. At the same time, no substance with pharmacological effects is without hazard. Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) can be associated with the intended pharmacological effect of the medicine (eg bleeding from warfarin), mediated by other mechanisms (eg anti-cholinergic effects of tricyclic antidepressants) or can be altogether unexpected (eg hypersensitivity reactions to abacavir).

Some ADRs can be identified early in the development of a medicine, but knowledge of the adverse effects profile is provisional when the medicine is first marketed and usually changes over time. Premarketing clinical trials include too few patients and are too short to detect every outcome that will affect public health and individual patient safety. In addition, clinical trials are carried out in controlled settings that differ from real-world practice. This reduces their power to detect ADRs, for example those that are due to drug-drug interactions or that affect only susceptible subgroups (eg phocomelia due to thalidomide). Safety needs to be evaluated continuously throughout the life-cycle of a medicinal product.1,2 A key challenge is to identify emerging problems as early as possible, without generating false alarms.

Individual case safety reports

Individual case reports (technically, ‘individual case safety reports’, even though they deal with harms) include reports to national regulatory authorities, such as the yellow card system of the pharmacovigilance section of the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and anecdotal reports in medical journals. They communicate genuine concerns about real-life suspected ADRs.3 Their strength in signalling causal associations between medicinal products and adverse events depends on the skill and experience of the reporter and the documentation and characteristics of the event, including its time-course and the effect of withdrawing and/or reintroducing the suspected medication.3 Most safety alerts are based on accumulated information from several independent sources, but strong and well-documented case reports can occasionally motivate action in their own right.4,5 On the other hand, early warnings of potential ADRs are possible in the absence of convincing index cases if there is no plausible explanation for an apparently excessive reporting rate of an event.6 Case reports represent the first line of evidence and provide powerful means of recognising the unexpected.7 Their status as a cornerstone of drug safety surveillance is clear. For example, they were the most commonly cited support for regulatory action to withdraw medicinal products from the UK and US markets between 1999 and 2001.8

Clinical review of case reports

Collections of individual case reports are complex and heterogeneous. Not all reports are submitted to pharmacovigilance systems by health professionals (such as doctors, dentists, nurses and pharmacists). Some are published in journals and others emerge in association with lawsuits. Direct patient reporting provides additional opportunities and challenges. The quality of reports is variable, and some important information is available only in the form of free text, and not as structured database fields. Detailed clinical review is therefore essential for effective knowledge discovery.

At the same time, clinical review constitutes the primary bottleneck: large national and international organisations collect hundreds of thousands of reports each year, every one of which cannot possibly be reviewed by the available experts. For example, the World Health Organization (WHO) Programme for International Drug Monitoring currently holds over 4.7 million reports from 94 countries with around 300,000 added each year.

Even if each report could be reviewed, important reporting patterns would be missed in the vast amounts of data involved. Computational methods have therefore been developed to help highlight the most urgent problems for clinical review9–12 and to identify complex patterns such as those that suggest drug-drug interactions13 or clusters of related reports.14 Predefined triage helps prioritise outstanding reporting patterns based on their clinical relevance and urgency.15 Figure 1 shows a schematic overview of the process used in the WHO programme. Table 1 lists some problems highlighted prospectively by this approach.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 1.

Problems prospectively highlighted by quantitative screening of individual case reports, later communicated to national pharmacovigilance centres and relevant pharmaceutical companies, and finally supported by scientific publications or changes to the official product safety information.

Fig 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig 1.

Schematic overview of the knowledge discovery process for individual case reports of suspected adverse drug reactions used in the World Health Organization Programme for International Drug Monitoring.

Key points

Safety needs to be continuously evaluated through the lifecycle of a medicine

No single method can be relied upon exclusively in global adverse drug reaction surveillance

Individual case reports represent the first line of evidence and provide powerful means of recognising the unexpected

Cohort-event monitoring allows quantification of adverse event rates and solicits information on events that may not otherwise be reported

The analysis of longitudinal patient records can detect a wide variety of temporal patterns relating medical diagnoses to drug prescriptions

Individual case reports bring health professionals and consumers into the process of regulating the medicines they use and also encourage individual educational feedback and sharing of important observations. Recurrent reports of known ADRs may convey an important message about how much prescribing physicians know about a given ADR.

Cohort-event monitoring

To complement individual case reports, some countries have implemented cohort-event monitoring (CEM) systems for intensified follow-up of selected medicinal products. Examples include New Zealand's Intensive Medicines Monitoring Programme16 and prescription-event monitoring in the UK.17 CEM encourages health professionals to report adverse events and solicits information about events that may not otherwise be reported. The cohort sizes typically range from a few thousand to tens of thousands of patients. The well-specified cohorts, together with encouragement to report all events, ideally allow incidence rates to be estimated and compared across medicinal products. The main limitations of CEM are its restriction to a small subset of medicinal products, the relatively small fraction (globally) of the population covered and the lack of data from unexposed patients. It may be especially valuable for ADR surveillance in places where there is no established pharmacovigilance system and the collection of individual case reports is not practicable, such as for major public health programmes in developing countries.

Longitudinal electronic patient records

Collections of longitudinal electronic patient records are extremely valuable but underused in analysing real-world use of medicines. They cover large populations, provide detailed information on extended parts of medical histories and include information on both exposed and unexposed patients. The range of clinical information available may include prescriptions, laboratory test results, hospital referrals and admissions, and notes on symptoms, signs and diagnoses. Ideally, anonymised information is extracted directly from the computer systems in which physicians store patients’ data, so that no extra effort is required to provide the information and the risk of omissions is minimised. Privacy protection for patients and physicians is of the utmost importance and needs to be carefully controlled. In the UK, general practitioners’ records provide an important source of information and have formed the basis of the General Practice Research Database,18 the IMS Disease Analyzer and the Health

Improvement Network datasets. Relative to individual case reports, patient records carry more complete information on the medical history, potential susceptibility factors and other medications taken before and after the event of interest. They do not usually communicate explicit clinical concerns (although suspected ADRs are sometimes identified) so associations must be inferred from the time-course of events.

Screening patient records

Patient records are already an important resource for confirmatory pharmacoepidemiological studies. In recent years interest has increased in extending their use to exploratory analysis and routine drug surveillance.19–21 Many methods focus exclusively on one specific aspect of the drug-event association, such as the time from first exposure to the medicine to the first occurrence of the event19 or differences in the frequencies of the event in the same patients when exposed and unexposed.21 However, there is great variation in temporal patterns of potential interest, including those related to:

  • suspected ADRs22

  • potential beneficial effects of medicines

  • events related to the underlying disease

  • periodic patterns and trends, and

  • medical events that are generally common in exposed patients.

Graphical presentation of temporal associations

For true open-ended pattern discovery, extended parts of the underlying patient histories need to be studied simultaneously; it may be useful to present results graphically.20 As an illustration, Figs 2 and 3 present examples of a transient and a persistent temporal association, respectively, identified in a large collection of UK electronic patient records. The graphs indicate the recording rates of the medical event in different time frames relative to first prescriptions of the medicine (at time zero). The bottom graph in each figure displays observed and expected numbers of events, where the expected value accounts for the finite length of patient histories and the tendency of doctors’ visits to cluster in time.20 The top graph displays the logarithm of the ratio between the observed and expected number of events (with a variance-stabilising transformation) so that positive values correspond to higher than expected registration rates and vice versa. In the same spirit as the self-controlled case series design,21 patients are used as their own controls to isolate temporal associations from underlying characteristics of those receiving the medicine, such as the indication for treatment.

Fig 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig 2.

Example of a transient increase in the recording of a medical event subsequent to prescription in longitudinal electronic patient records; flushing subsequent to nifedipine is a transient effect. The upper graph displays a smoothed version of the logarithm of the ration of the observed to expected number of events. IC = information component.

Fig 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig 3.

Example of a persistent increase in the recording of a medical event subsequent to prescription in longitudinal electronic patient records; peripheral oedema subsequent to nifedipine persists. The upper graph displays a smoothed version of the logarithm of the ratio of the observed to expected number of events. IC = information component.

Conclusions

No single method can be relied on exclusively for global ADR surveillance. Individual case reports have considerable value in eliciting the observations of those who use medicines in their daily lives, including information on medication errors, drug-drug and drug-food interactions, and susceptibility factors. CEM allows quantification of adverse event rates and is better than individual case reports in detecting ADRs which might not be obvious to health professionals or patients. Longitudinal patient records allow comparisons of cohorts of exposed patients with themselves as controls when they were not exposed to the medicine (particularly before treatment). Together, these three sources of information allow hazards to be detected at an early stage. Further evaluation may require specifically targeted and powered observational or experimental studies.

  • © 2009 Royal College of Physicians

References

  1. ↵
    1. Finney DJ
    . Monitoring adverse reactions to drugs – its logic and its weaknesses. Proc Eur Soc Study Drug Toxicol 1966;7:198–207.
    OpenUrl
  2. ↵
    1. Evans SJ
    . Pharmacovigilance: a science or fielding emergencies? Stat Med 2000;19:3199–209.doi:10.1002/1097-0258(20001215)19:23<3199::AID-SIM621>3.0.CO;2-Q
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Edwards IR
    . Spontaneous reporting – of what? Clinical concerns about drugs. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1999;48:138–41.doi:10.1046/j.1365-2125.1999.00000.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Meyboom RH
    , Egberts AC, Edwards IR et al. Principles of signal detection in pharmacovigilance. Drug Saf 1997;16:355–65.doi:10.2165/00002018-199716060-00002
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Aronson JK
    , Hauben M. Anecdotes that provide definitive evidence. BMJ 2006;333:1267–9.doi:10.1136/bmj.39036.666389.94
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. Edwards IR
    , Lindquist M, Wiholm BE, Napke E. Quality criteria for early signals of possible adverse drug reactions. Lancet 1990;336:156–8.doi:10.1016/0140-6736(90)91669-2
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Vandenbroucke JP
    . In defense of case reports and case series. Ann Intern Med 2001;134:330–4.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Clarke A
    , Deeks JJ, Shakir SA. An assessment of the publicly disseminated evidence of safety used in decisions to withdraw medicinal products from the UK and US markets. Drug Saf 2006;29:175–81.doi:10.2165/00002018-200629020-00008
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Bate A
    , Lindquist M, Edwards IR et al. A Bayesian neural network method for adverse drug reaction signal generation. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1998;54:315–21.doi:10.1007/s002280050466
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Evans SJ
    , Waller PC, Davis S. Use of proportional reporting ratios (PRRs) for signal generation from spontaneous adverse drug reaction reports. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2001;10:483–6.doi:10.1002/pds.677
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. DuMouchel W
    . Bayesian data mining in large frequency tables, with an application to the FDA Spontaneous Reporting System. Am Stat 1999;53:177–90.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  10. ↵
    1. Egberts AC
    , Meyboom RH, van Puijenbroek E. Use of measures of disproportionality in pharmacovigilance: three Dutch examples. Drug Saf 2002;25:453–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Norén GN
    , Sundberg R, Bate A, Edwards IR. A statistical methodology for drug-drug interaction surveillance. Stat Med 2008;27:3057–70.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Norén GN
    , Orre R, Bate A, Edwards IR. Duplicate detection in adverse drug reaction surveillance. Data Min Knowl Disc 2007;14:305–28.
    OpenUrl
  13. ↵
    1. Ståhl M
    , Lindquist M, Edwards IR, Brown EG. Introducing triage logic as a new strategy for the detection of signals in the WHO Drug Monitoring Database. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2004;13:355–63.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Coulter DM
    . The New Zealand Intensive Medicines Monitoring Programme. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 1998;7:79–90.doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1557(199803/04)7:2<79::AID-PDS330>3.0.CO;2-1
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Mann RD
    . Prescription-event monitoring – recent progress and future horizons. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1998;46:195–201.doi:10.1046/j.1365-2125.1998.00774.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Wood L
    , Martinez C. The general practice research database: role in pharmacovigilance. Drug Saf 2004;27:871–81.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Brown JS
    , Kulldorff M, Chan KA et al. Early detection of adverse drug events within population-based health networks: application of sequential testing methods. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2007;16:1275–84.doi:10.1002/pds.1509
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Norén GN
    , Bate A, Hopstadius J, Star K, Edwards IR. Temporal pattern discovery for trends and transient effects: its application to patient records. In: Proceeding of the 14th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 24–27 August 2008, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA.
  19. ↵
    1. Hocine MN
    , Musonda P, Andrews NJ, Farrington C. Sequential case series analysis for pharmacovigilance. J R Stat Soc Ser A (Statistics in Society) 2009;172:213–36.doi:10.1111/j.1467-985X.2008.00555.x
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  20. ↵
    1. Aronson JK
    , Ferner RE. Joining the DoTS: new approach to classifying adverse drug reactions. BMJ 2003;327:1222–5.doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7425.1222
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
Back to top
Previous articleNext article

Article Tools

Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Citation Tools
Modern methods of pharmacovigilance: detecting adverse effects of drugs
G Niklas Norén, I Ralph Edwards
Clinical Medicine Oct 2009, 9 (5) 486-489; DOI: 10.7861/clinmedicine.9-5-486

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Modern methods of pharmacovigilance: detecting adverse effects of drugs
G Niklas Norén, I Ralph Edwards
Clinical Medicine Oct 2009, 9 (5) 486-489; DOI: 10.7861/clinmedicine.9-5-486
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Individual case safety reports
    • Clinical review of case reports
    • Cohort-event monitoring
    • Longitudinal electronic patient records
    • Conclusions
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Predicting Adverse Drug Events Using Pharmacological Network Models
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • The need for a prescribing competency framework to address the burden of complex polypharmacy among multiple long-term conditions
  • Rational prescribing: the principles of drug selection
  • Adverse drug reactions
Show more CME Clinical Pharmacology

Similar Articles

FAQs

  • Difficulty logging in.

There is currently no login required to access the journals. Please go to the home page and simply click on the edition that you wish to read. If you are still unable to access the content you require, please let us know through the 'Contact us' page.

  • Can't find the CME questionnaire.

The read-only self-assessment questionnaire (SAQ) can be found after the CME section in each edition of Clinical Medicine. RCP members and fellows (using their login details for the main RCP website) are able to access the full SAQ with answers and are awarded 2 CPD points upon successful (8/10) completion from:  https://cme.rcplondon.ac.uk

Navigate this Journal

  • Journal Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Archive

Related Links

  • ClinMed - Home
  • FHJ - Home
clinmedicine Footer Logo
  • Home
  • Journals
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
HighWire Press, Inc.

Follow Us:

  • Follow HighWire Origins on Twitter
  • Visit HighWire Origins on Facebook

Copyright © 2021 by the Royal College of Physicians