ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2014
Orphan therapies: making best use of postmarket data.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sequential analysis for post-marketing drug safety surveillance using routinely collected electronic healthcare data: a scoping review.Therapeutic advances in drug safety · 2026Article
- Using a meta-narrative literature review and focus groups with key stakeholders to identify perceived challenges and solutions for generating robust evidence on the effectiveness of treatments for rare diseases.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2018Review
- Generic Substitution of Orphan Drugs for the Treatment of Rare Diseases: Exploring the Potential Challenges.Drugs · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPostmarket surveillance of the comparative safety and efficacy of orphan therapeutics is challenging, particularly when multiple therapeutics are licensed for the same orphan indication. To make best use of product-specific registry data collected to fulfill regulatory requirements, we propose the creation of a distributed electronic health data network among registries. Such a network could support sequential statistical analyses designed to detect early warnings of excess risks. We use a simulated example to explore the circumstances under which a distributed network may prove advantageous.
methodsWe perform sample size calculations for sequential and non-sequential statistical studies aimed at comparing the incidence of hepatotoxicity following initiation of two newly licensed therapies for homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia. We calculate the sample size savings ratio, or the proportion of sample size saved if one conducted a sequential study as compared to a non-sequential study. Then, using models to describe the adoption and utilization of these therapies, we simulate when these sample sizes are attainable in calendar years. We then calculate the analytic calendar time savings ratio, analogous to the sample size savings ratio. We repeat these analyses for numerous scenarios. KEY
resultsSequential analyses detect effect sizes earlier or at the same time as non-sequential analyses. The most substantial potential savings occur when the market share is more imbalanced (i.e., 90% for therapy A) and the effect size is closest to the null hypothesis. However, due to low exposure prevalence, these savings are difficult to realize within the 30-year time frame of this simulation for scenarios in which the outcome of interest occurs at or more frequently than one event/100 person-years.
conclusionsWe illustrate a process to assess whether sequential statistical analyses of registry data performed via distributed networks may prove a worthwhile infrastructure investment for pharmacovigilance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.