Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32681439›Full record

ArticleDrug safety2020

A Feasibility Study of Drug-Drug Interaction Signal Detection in Regular Pharmacovigilance.

Sara Hult, Daniele Sartori, Tomas Bergvall, Sara Hedfors Vidlin, Birgitta Grundmark, Johan Ellenius, G Niklas Norén

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Drug safety, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sara HultUppsala Monitoring Centre, Uppsala, Sweden. sara.hult@who-umc.org.ORCID 0000-0002-9543-7365
Daniele SartoriUppsala Monitoring Centre, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-3634-0317
Tomas BergvallUppsala Monitoring Centre, Uppsala, Sweden.
Sara Hedfors VidlinUppsala Monitoring Centre, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-1619-3751
Birgitta GrundmarkUppsala Monitoring Centre, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-2799-9374
Johan ElleniusUppsala Monitoring Centre, Uppsala, Sweden.
G Niklas NorénUppsala Monitoring Centre, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-4595-230X
Uppsala Monitoring Centre · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAdverse drug reactions related to drug-drug interactions cause harm to patients. There is a body of research on signal detection for drug interactions in collections of individual case reports, but limited use in regular pharmacovigilance.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of signal detection of drug-drug interactions in collections of individual case reports of suspected adverse drug reactions.

methodsThis study was conducted in VigiBase, the WHO global database of individual case safety reports. The data lock point was 31 August 2016, which provided 13.6 million reports for analysis after deduplication. Statistical signal detection was performed using a previously developed predictive model for possible drug interactions. The model accounts for an interaction disproportionality measure, expressed suspicion of an interaction by the reporter, potential for interaction through cytochrome P450 activity of drugs, and reported information indicative of unexpected therapeutic response or altered therapeutic effect. Triage filters focused the preliminary signal assessment on combinations relating to serious adverse events with case series of no more than 30 reports from at least two countries, with at least one report during the previous 2 years. Additional filters sought to eliminate already known drug interactions through text mining of standard literature sources. Preliminary signal assessment was performed by a multidisciplinary group of pharmacovigilance professionals from Uppsala Monitoring Centre and collaborating organizations, whereas in-depth signal assessment was performed by experienced pharmacovigilance assessors.

resultsWe performed preliminary signal assessment for 407 unique drug pairs. Of these, 157 drug pairs were considered already known to interact, whereas 232 were closed after preliminary assessment for other reasons. Ten drug pairs were subjected to in-depth signal assessment and an additional eight were decided to be kept under review awaiting additional reports. The triage filters had a major impact in focusing our preliminary signal assessment on just 14% of the statistical signals generated by the predictive model for drug interactions. In-depth assessment led to three signals communicated with the broader pharmacovigilance community, six closed signals and one to be kept under review.

conclusionThis study shows that signals of adverse drug interactions can be detected through broad statistical screening of individual case reports. It further shows that signal assessment related to possible drug interactions requires more detailed information on the temporal relationship between different drugs and the adverse event. Future research may consider whether interaction signal detection should be performed not for individual adverse event terms but for pairs of drugs across a spectrum of adverse events.

Indexed as

Drug InteractionsPharmacovigilanceAdverse Drug Reaction Reporting SystemsDatabases, FactualDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsFeasibility StudiesHumansSignal Processing, Computer-AssistedTriageWorld Health Organization

Identifiers

PMID32681439
PMCPMC7395907
OpenAlexW3043701248

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.