In pharmacovigilance, disproportionality analyses based on individual case safety reports are widely used to detect safety signals. Unfortunately, publishing disproportionality analyses lacks specific guidelines, often leading to incomplete and ambiguous reporting, and carries the risk of incorrect conclusions when data are not placed in the correct context. The REporting of A Disproportionality analysis for drUg Safety signal detection using individual case safety reports in PharmacoVigilance (READUS-PV) statement was developed to address this issue by promoting transparent and comprehensive reporting of disproportionality studies. While the statement paper explains in greater detail the procedure followed to develop these guidelines, with this explanation paper we present the 14 items retained for READUS-PV guidelines, together with an in-depth explanation of their rationale and bullet points to illustrate their practical implementation. Our primary objective is to foster the adoption of the READUS-PV guidelines among authors, editors, peer reviewers, and readers of disproportionality analyses. Enhancing transparency, completeness, and accuracy of reporting, as well as proper interpretation of their results, READUS-PV guidelines will ultimately facilitate evidence-based decision making in pharmacovigilance.

Background and aim Disproportionality analyses using reports of suspected adverse drug reactions are the most commonly used quantitative methods for detecting safety signals in pharmacovigilance. However, their methods and results are generally poorly reported in published articles and existing guidelines do not capture the specific features of disproportionality analyses. We here describe the development of a guideline (REporting of A Disproportionality analysis for drUg Safety signal detection using individual case safety reports in PharmacoVigilance [READUS-PV]) for reporting the results of disproportionality analyses in articles and abstracts. Methods We established a group of 34 international experts from universities, the pharmaceutical industry, and regulatory agencies, with expertise in pharmacovigilance, disproportionality analyses, and assessment of safety signals. We followed a three-step process to develop the checklist: (1) an open-text survey to generate a first list of items; (2) an online Delphi method to select and rephrase the most important items; (3) a final online consensus meeting. Results Among the panel members, 33 experts responded to round 1 and 30 to round 2 of the Delphi and 25 participated to the consensus meeting. Overall, 60 recommendations for the main body of the manuscript and 13 recommendations for the abstracts were retained by participants after the Delphi method. After merging of some items together and the online consensus meeting, the READUS-PV guidelines comprise a checklist of 32 recommendations, in 14 items, for the reporting of disproportionality analyses in the main body text and four items, comprising 12 recommendations, for abstracts. Conclusions The READUS-PV guidelines will support authors, editors, peer-reviewers, and users of disproportionality analyses using individual case safety report databases. Adopting these guidelines will lead to more transparent, comprehensive, and accurate reporting and interpretation of disproportionality analyses, facilitating the integration with other sources of evidence.

Data Mining Techniques in Pharmacovigilance: Analysis of the Publicly Accessible FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (AERS) | InTechOpen, Published on: 2012-08-29. Authors: Elisabetta Poluzzi, Emanuel Raschi, Carlo Piccinni, et

The advent of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) caused a paradigm shift both in drug development and clinical practice; however, by virtue of their mechanism of action, the excessively activated immune system results in a multitude of off-target toxicities, the so-called immune-related adverse events (irAEs), requiring new skills for timely diagnosis and a multidisciplinary approach to successfully manage the patients. In the recent past, a plethora of large-scale pharmacovigilance analyses have characterized various irAEs in terms of spectrum and clinical features in the real world. This review aims to summarize and critically appraise the current landscape of pharmacovigilance studies, thus deriving take-home messages for oncologists. A brief primer to study design, conduction, and data interpretation is also offered. As of February 2020, 30 real-world postmarketing studies have characterized multiple irAEs through international spontaneous reporting systems, namely WHO Vigibase and the US FDA Adverse Event Reporting System. The majority of studies investigated a single irAE and provided new epidemiological evidence about class-specific patterns of irAEs (i.e. anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 [CTLA-4] versus anti-programmed cell death 1 [PD-1] receptor, and its ligand [PD-L1]), kinetics of appearance, co-occurrences (overlap) among irAEs, and fatality rate. Oncologists should be aware of both strengths and limitations of these pharmacovigilance analyses, especially in terms of data interpretation. Optimal management (including rechallenge), predictivity of irAEs (as potential biomarkers of effectiveness), and comparative safety of ICIs (also in terms of combination regimens) represent key research priorities for next-generation real-world studies.

Background: Apart from the underlying cardiovascular (CV) risk associated with migraine, both triptans and ergotamines can induce vasoconstriction and potentially increase the risk of serious ischemic events. Because of the low frequency of such events in eligible patients, randomized controlled trials are not exhaustive to assess the drug-related CV risk. Observational studies are, therefore, an essential source of information to clarify this matter of concern. Aim: The aim of this study was to systematically review the available published observational studies investigating the risk of serious CV events in triptan or ergotamine users, as compared to unexposed migraineur controls. Methods: We systematically searched MEDLINE and EMBASE electronic databases for cohort or case-control studies up to December 1, 2013. Studies retrieved from CDSR, DARE and HTA databases of the Cochrane Library were used for snowballing. Studies investigating the risk of any CV outcome in patients with a migraine diagnosis and exposed to triptans or ergotamines were considered for inclusion. Selection of studies, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were conducted independently by two reviewers. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were computed using a random-effects model for studies and outcomes judged eligible for quantitative data synthesis. Results: From a total of 3370 citations retrieved, after duplicate removal and screening, only four studies met the inclusion criteria (three nested case-control analyses and one retrospective cohort study). These studies investigated the risk of different CV outcomes associated with either the recency or the intensity of exposure to the studied drugs. As for the intensity of use, the pooled OR of serious ischemic events was 2.28 (95% CI 1.18–4.41; I²= 0%) for ergotamine use (two studies), whereas for triptans (three studies) it was 0.86 (95% CI 0.52–1.43; I²= 24.5%). Recent use of ergotamines was not significantly associated with any CV outcome (only one available study). Two studies investigated the risk of stroke related to recent triptan use: the first study reported an OR of 0.90 (0.64–1.26), and the second one suggested an increased risk of 2.51 (1.10–5.71). In this case, because of the high degree of heterogeneity, results were not pooled. Conclusions: To date, few comparative observational studies have investigated the CV safety of migraine-specific drugs in clinical practice. Evidence gathered here suggests that intense consumption of ergotamines may be associated with an increased risk of serious ischemic complications. As for triptans, available studies do not suggest strong CV safety issues, although no firm conclusions can be drawn. In particular, evidence on stroke risk is conflicting. However, if an increase of the absolute stroke risk in recently exposed patients does actually exist, it must be small. Overall, residual uncontrolled confounding factors reduce the confidence in the risk estimates collected from the included studies. Further investigations are needed to better define the risk for rare but serious CV events related to triptan and ergotamine use for treatment of migraine.