A Proof-of-Concept Evaluation of Adverse Drug Reaction Surveillance in Electronic Health Records
description
Transcript of A Proof-of-Concept Evaluation of Adverse Drug Reaction Surveillance in Electronic Health Records
![Page 1: A Proof-of-Concept Evaluation of Adverse Drug Reaction Surveillance in Electronic Health Records](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062310/5681619e550346895dd155b8/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
A Proof-of-Concept Evaluation of Adverse Drug Reaction Surveillance in Electronic Health
Records
Zarif Jabbar-Lopez, MBBS, MPHFY2, East of England Deanery
Visiting Research Fellow, Uppsala Monitoring Centre
![Page 2: A Proof-of-Concept Evaluation of Adverse Drug Reaction Surveillance in Electronic Health Records](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062310/5681619e550346895dd155b8/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
DisclosureNo conflicts of interest
The research leading to these results was conducted as part of the PROTECT consortium (Pharmacoepidemiological Research on Outcomes of Therapeutics by a European ConsorTium, www.imi-protect.eu) which is a public-private partnership coordinated by the European Medicines Agency.
The PROTECT project has received support from the Innovative Medicine Initiative Joint Undertaking (www.imi.europa.eu) under Grant Agreement n° 115004, resources of which are composed of financial contribution from the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) and EFPIA companies' in kind contribution. The views expressed are those of the authors only
![Page 3: A Proof-of-Concept Evaluation of Adverse Drug Reaction Surveillance in Electronic Health Records](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062310/5681619e550346895dd155b8/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
Background
• Why surveillance?– Want to detect new and unexpected adverse
events• Why Electronic Health Records (EHRs)?– Routinely collected – No additional reporting burden by clinician– Know numbers exposed– Large – power to detect infrequent events
![Page 4: A Proof-of-Concept Evaluation of Adverse Drug Reaction Surveillance in Electronic Health Records](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062310/5681619e550346895dd155b8/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Methods: Database
• The Health Improvement Network (THIN) Database- UK Primary care EHR database- Medical events and prescriptions - Data collected in routine practice- Over 7 million patients - >500 practices- 1987 to 2011
4
![Page 5: A Proof-of-Concept Evaluation of Adverse Drug Reaction Surveillance in Electronic Health Records](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062310/5681619e550346895dd155b8/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Methods: 10 derm drugs
Corticosteroids• Hydrocortisone• Betamethasone• Clobetasone
Antifungals• Clotrimazole• Fluconazole• Terbinafine
Tetracyclines• Doxycycline• Oxytetracycline• Minocycline
Calcipotriol
5
![Page 6: A Proof-of-Concept Evaluation of Adverse Drug Reaction Surveillance in Electronic Health Records](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062310/5681619e550346895dd155b8/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
Methods: Screening
• Information Component (IC) Temporal Pattern Discovery Method (Norén et al., 2010)
• Based on self-controlled cohort design • Identifies medical events registered more
frequently in 1 month after new drug prescription compared to control periods two years earlier, one month prior and on the day of prescription
• External control group to adjust for time-trend bias
Data Min Knowl Disc (2010) 20:361–387
![Page 7: A Proof-of-Concept Evaluation of Adverse Drug Reaction Surveillance in Electronic Health Records](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062310/5681619e550346895dd155b8/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
Methods: ICTPD screening output• Output is ICΔ – change in information component
• ICΔ related to O/E event ratio before and after exposure but also incorporates statistical ‘shrinkage’
• Used lower confidence boundary of ICΔ (ICΔ025) > 0 as cutoff for highlighting drug-event pairs
• Changes in IC over time (relative to prescription) can be visualised as a chronograph:
Data Min Knowl Disc (2010) 20:361–387
![Page 8: A Proof-of-Concept Evaluation of Adverse Drug Reaction Surveillance in Electronic Health Records](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062310/5681619e550346895dd155b8/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
Results: Overview
• New prescriptions ranged from 85,000 (minocycline) to 1.2 million (hydrocortisone)
• In total 342 temporal associations highlighted on initial screening of the 10 drugs
• 23 (7%) known ADRs (vs. UK summary of product characteristics)
• 319 (93%) required further evaluation to see whether true or false positives
![Page 9: A Proof-of-Concept Evaluation of Adverse Drug Reaction Surveillance in Electronic Health Records](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062310/5681619e550346895dd155b8/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
Further evaluation of the 319 highlighted pairs that were not known ADRs
• 168 (53%) were due to administrative/ ‘irrelevant’ clinical codes
• 151 (47%) required detailed review of chronographs, case series and individual case level data– Of these, none were thought likely to be true
signals
![Page 10: A Proof-of-Concept Evaluation of Adverse Drug Reaction Surveillance in Electronic Health Records](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062310/5681619e550346895dd155b8/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10
Admin/’irrelevant’ clinical events
• Examples include:– ‘Referral to’ – Ambiguous clinical codes e.g. ‘[SO]Anterior
chamber of eye’– Congenital disorders – Cancers
![Page 11: A Proof-of-Concept Evaluation of Adverse Drug Reaction Surveillance in Electronic Health Records](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062310/5681619e550346895dd155b8/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
Detailed review of remaining 151 highlighted drug-event pairs
• Protopathic bias: 69 (45%)• Confounding by indication: 40 (26%)• Other reasons (29%):– Chance– Synonymous terms e.g. ‘Type 2 diabetes mellitus’,
‘diabetes mellitus’, ‘diabetes mellitus with no mention of complication’, ‘non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus’
![Page 12: A Proof-of-Concept Evaluation of Adverse Drug Reaction Surveillance in Electronic Health Records](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062310/5681619e550346895dd155b8/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
Example: Protopathic bias
![Page 13: A Proof-of-Concept Evaluation of Adverse Drug Reaction Surveillance in Electronic Health Records](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062310/5681619e550346895dd155b8/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
Example: Confounding by indication
![Page 14: A Proof-of-Concept Evaluation of Adverse Drug Reaction Surveillance in Electronic Health Records](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062310/5681619e550346895dd155b8/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
14
Mixed bias/true adverse effect?
![Page 15: A Proof-of-Concept Evaluation of Adverse Drug Reaction Surveillance in Electronic Health Records](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062310/5681619e550346895dd155b8/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15
Overall performance, by drug
Drug Sensitivity SpecificityHydrocortisone 0.01 0.98Clotrimazole 0.00 0.39Betamethasone 0.04 0.99Doxycycline 0.04 0.97Clobetasone 0.00 0.99Oxytetracycline 0.04 0.98Fluconazole 0.01 0.97Terbinafine 0.02 0.98Calcipotriol 0.00 0.99Minocycline 0.03 0.99
![Page 16: A Proof-of-Concept Evaluation of Adverse Drug Reaction Surveillance in Electronic Health Records](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062310/5681619e550346895dd155b8/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
Reasons for low sensitivity?
• Method– Method too ‘severe’? High specificity at the cost of
sensitivity– Perhaps we could tolerate a higher false positive rate
• Drugs– Relatively safe drugs with generally minor adverse event
profiles• Data– Lack of reporting (by patient) or recording (by clinician)– Prescriptions, not use
![Page 17: A Proof-of-Concept Evaluation of Adverse Drug Reaction Surveillance in Electronic Health Records](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062310/5681619e550346895dd155b8/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
17
Next steps
• Vary threshold for highlighting drug-event pairs to increase sensitivity (at a cost of specificity)
• Ensure better groupings of Read terms to reduce highlighting synonymous events
• Different formulations have different expected AE profiles – restriction to certain formulations/routes of administration might be useful
• Different drugs
![Page 18: A Proof-of-Concept Evaluation of Adverse Drug Reaction Surveillance in Electronic Health Records](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062310/5681619e550346895dd155b8/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
18
Conclusions
• 10 drugs for skin disease were screened for adverse events in a real-world primary care EHR database
• Overall low sensitivity and high specificity in this pilot study using ICTPD
• Automated filtering of administrative codes could significantly reduce workload
• Protopathic bias and confounding are issues• Further work needed to refine the method and see
if the results generalise beyond the 10 derm drugs considered here
![Page 19: A Proof-of-Concept Evaluation of Adverse Drug Reaction Surveillance in Electronic Health Records](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062310/5681619e550346895dd155b8/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
19
Acknowledgements
• Niklas Norén, Tomas Bergvall, Kristina Star
• PROTECT
PROTECT queries:[email protected]
General queries:[email protected]