+1 Recommend
0 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Data Mining of the Public Version of the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.


          The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS, formerly AERS) is a database that contains information on adverse event and medication error reports submitted to the FDA. Besides those from manufacturers, reports can be submitted from health care professionals and the public. The original system was started in 1969, but since the last major revision in 1997, reporting has markedly increased. Data mining algorithms have been developed for the quantitative detection of signals from such a large database, where a signal means a statistical association between a drug and an adverse event or a drug-associated adverse event, including the proportional reporting ratio (PRR), the reporting odds ratio (ROR), the information component (IC), and the empirical Bayes geometric mean (EBGM). A survey of our previous reports suggested that the ROR provided the highest number of signals, and the EBGM the lowest. Additionally, an analysis of warfarin-, aspirin- and clopidogrel-associated adverse events suggested that all EBGM-based signals were included in the PRR-based signals, and also in the IC- or ROR-based ones, and that the PRR- and IC-based signals were in the ROR-based ones. In this article, the latest information on this area is summarized for future pharmacoepidemiological studies and/or pharmacovigilance analyses.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 91

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Under-reporting of adverse drug reactions : a systematic review.

          The purpose of this review was to estimate the extent of under-reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to spontaneous reporting systems and to investigate whether there are differences between different types of ADRs. A systematic literature search was carried out to identify studies providing a numerical estimate of under-reporting. Studies were included regardless of the methodology used or the setting, e.g. hospital versus general practice. Estimates of under-reporting were either extracted directly from the published study or calculated from the study data. These were expressed as the percentage of ADRs detected from intensive data collection that were not reported to the relevant local, regional or national spontaneous reporting systems. The median under-reporting rate was calculated across all studies and within subcategories of studies using different methods or settings. In total, 37 studies using a wide variety of surveillance methods were identified from 12 countries. These generated 43 numerical estimates of under-reporting. The median under-reporting rate across the 37 studies was 94% (interquartile range 82-98%). There was no significant difference in the median under-reporting rates calculated for general practice and hospital-based studies. Five of the ten general practice studies provided evidence of a higher median under-reporting rate for all ADRs compared with more serious or severe ADRs (95% and 80%, respectively). In comparison, for five of the eight hospital-based studies the median under-reporting rate for more serious or severe ADRs remained high (95%). The median under-reporting rate was lower for 19 studies investigating specific serious/severe ADR-drug combinations but was still high at 85%. This systematic review provides evidence of significant and widespread under-reporting of ADRs to spontaneous reporting systems including serious or severe ADRs. Further work is required to assess the impact of under-reporting on public health decisions and the effects of initiatives to improve reporting such as internet reporting, pharmacist/nurse reporting and direct patient reporting as well as improved education and training of healthcare professionals.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Use of proportional reporting ratios (PRRs) for signal generation from spontaneous adverse drug reaction reports.

             S J Evans,  P Waller,  S Davis (2015)
            The process of generating 'signals' of possible unrecognized hazards from spontaneous adverse drug reaction reporting data has been likened to looking for a needle in a haystack. However, statistical approaches to the data have been under-utilised. Using the UK Yellow Card database, we have developed and evaluated a statistical aid to signal generation called a Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR). The proportion of all reactions to a drug which are for a particular medical condition of interest is compared to the same proportion for all drugs in the database, in a 2 x 2 table. We investigated a group of newly-marketed drugs using as minimum criteria for a signal, 3 or more cases, PRR at least 2, chi-squared of at least 4. The database was used to examine retrospectively 15 drugs newly-marketed in the UK, with the highest levels of ADR reporting. The method identified 481 signals meeting the minimum criteria during the period 1996-8. Further evaluation of these showed that 70% were known adverse reactions, 13% were events which were likely to be related to the underlying disease and 17% were signals requiring further evaluation. Proportional reporting ratios are a valuable aid to signal generation from spontaneous reporting data which are easy to calculate and interpret, and various refinements are possible.
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Determinants of under-reporting of adverse drug reactions: a systematic review.

              A voluntary reporting system of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) is fundamental to drug safety surveillance but under-reporting is its major limitation. This bibliographic review sought to assess the influence of personal and professional characteristics on ADR reporting and to identify knowledge and attitudes associated with ADR reporting. A systematic review was conducted using the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. We included papers that were published in English, French and Spanish, and covered a study population made up of health professionals. In each case, the following data were extracted: study population; workplace; study type; sample size; type of questionnaire; type of scale for measuring knowledge; response rate; personal and professional factors; and knowledge and attitudes (based on Inman's 'seven deadly sins') associated with reporting. Based on a search of computerized databases, we identified a total of 657 papers in MEDLINE and 973 in EMBASE. In all, the review covered 45 papers that fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Medical specialty was the professional characteristic most closely associated with under-reporting in 76% of studies involving physicians. Other factors associated with under-reporting were ignorance (only severe ADRs need to be reported) in 95%; diffidence (fear of appearing ridiculous for reporting merely suspected ADRs) in 72%; lethargy (an amalgam of procrastination, lack of interest or time to find a report card, and other excuses) in 77%; indifference (the one case that an individual doctor might see could not contribute to medical knowledge) and insecurity (it is nearly impossible to determine whether or not a drug is responsible for a particular adverse reaction) in 67%; and complacency (only safe drugs are allowed on the market) in 47% of studies. While personal and professional factors display a weak influence, the knowledge and attitudes of health professionals appear to be strongly related with reporting in a high proportion of studies. This result may have important implications in terms of public health, if knowledge and attitudes are viewed as potentially modifiable factors.

                Author and article information

                Int J Med Sci
                Int J Med Sci
                International Journal of Medical Sciences
                Ivyspring International Publisher (Sydney )
                25 April 2013
                : 10
                : 7
                : 796-803
                1. Center for Integrative Education in Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Graduate School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Kyoto University, Kyoto 606-8501, Japan;
                2. Kyoto Constella Technologies Co., Ltd., Kyoto 604-8156, Japan;
                3. Department of Systems Biosciences for Drug Discovery, Graduate School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Kyoto University, Kyoto 606-8501, Japan.
                Author notes
                ✉ Corresponding author: Toshiyuki Sakaeda, Ph.D., Center for Integrative Education in Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Graduate School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Kyoto University, Kyoto 606-8501, Japan, Tel: +81-75-753-9560, Fax: +81-75-753-9253, e-mail: sakaedat@ 123456pharm.kyoto-u.ac.jp ; Yasushi Okuno, Ph.D., Department of Systems Biosciences for Drug Discovery, Graduate School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Kyoto University, Kyoto 606-8501, Japan, Tel&Fax: +81-75-753-4559, e-mail: okuno@ 123456pharm.kyoto-u.ac.jp .

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interest exists.

                © Ivyspring International Publisher. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/). Reproduction is permitted for personal, noncommercial use, provided that the article is in whole, unmodified, and properly cited.


                Comment on this article