| アブストラクト | BACKGROUND: A phenomenon of 'masking' or 'cloaking' in pharmacovigilance data mining has been described, which can potentially cause signals of disproportionate reporting (SDRs) to be missed, particularly in pharmaceutical company databases. Masking has been predicted theoretically, observed anecdotally or studied to a limited extent in both pharmaceutical company and health authority databases, but no previous publication systematically assesses its occurrence in a large health authority database. OBJECTIVE: To explore the nature, extent and possible consequences of masking in the US FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (AERS) database by applying various experimental unmasking protocols to a set of drugs and events representing realistic pharmacovigilance analysis conditions. METHODS: This study employed AERS data from 2001 through 2005. For a set of 63 Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA(R)) Preferred Terms (PTs), disproportionality analysis was carried out with respect to all drugs included in the AERS database, using a previously described urn-model-based algorithm. We specifically sought masking in which drug removal induced an increase in the statistical representation of a drug-event combination (DEC) that resulted in the emergence of a new SDR. We performed a series of unmasking experiments selecting drugs for removal using rational statistical decision rules based on the requirement of a reporting ratio (RR) >1, top-ranked statistical unexpectedness (SU) and relatedness as reflected in the WHO Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical level 4 (ATC4) grouping. In order to assess the possible extent of residual masking we performed two supplemental purely empirical analyses on a limited subset of data. This entailed testing every drug and drug group to determine which was most influential in uncovering masked SDRs. We assessed the strength of external evidence for a causal association for a small number of masked SDRs involving a subset of 29 drugs for which level of evidence adjudication was available from a previous study. RESULTS: The original disproportionality analysis identified 8719 SDRs for the 63 PTs. The SU-based unmasking protocols generated variable numbers of masked SDRs ranging from 38 to 156, representing a 0.43-1.8% increase over the number of baseline SDRs. A significant number of baseline SDRs were also lost in the course of our experiments. The trend in the number of gained SDRs per report removed was inversely related to the number of lost SDRs per protocol. Both the number and nature of the reports removed influenced the number of gained SDRs observed. The purely empirical protocols unmasked up to ten times as many SDRs. None of the masked SDRs had strong external evidence supporting a causal association. Most involved associations for which there was no external supporting evidence or were in the original product label. For two masked SDRs, there was external evidence of a possible causal association. CONCLUSIONS: We documented masking in the FDA AERS database. Attempts at unmasking SDRs using practically implementable protocols produced only small changes in the output of SDRs in our analysis. This is undoubtedly related to the large size and diversity of the database, but the complex interdependencies between drugs and events in authentic spontaneous reporting system (SRS) databases, and the impact of measures of statistical variability that are typically used in real-world disproportionality analysis, may be additional factors that constrain the discovery of masked SDRs and which may also operate in pharmaceutical company databases. Empirical determination of the most influential drugs may uncover significantly more SDRs than protocols based on predetermined statistical selection rules but are impractical except possibly for evaluating specific events. Routine global exercises to elicit masking, especially in large health authority databases are not justified based on results available to date. Exercises to elicit unmasking should be driven by prior knowledge or obvious data imbalances. |
|---|
