Analysis of Adverse Reactions in Elderly Patients Based on Quantitative Methods of Signal Detection

A well-known problem in pharmacotherapy is an increased risk of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in older as compared to younger patients. The Russian pharmacovigilance database includes a significant number of spontaneous reports of suspected ADRs in patients aged 65 and older. An increase in ADRs reporting makes it difficult to identify potential safety signals based on qualitative approaches only, which necessitates the use of statistical methods for signal detection based on disproportionality.

The aim of the study was to assess the applicability of quantitative methods for signal detection and analysis of ADR risks in the elderly using the Russian spontaneous report database.

Materials and methods: the study covered the reports on patients 65 years of age and older, which were submitted to the spontaneous report database from January 2008 until June 2018. The procedure recommended by the European Medicines Agency was used to identify potential statistical safety signals which were determined based on the following criteria: Reporting Odds Ratio, ROR—lower bound of the 95% confidence interval >1, number of cases ≥2; Proportional Reporting Ratio, PRR ≥ 2, Chi-square value χ2 ≥ 4, number of cases ≥3, lower bound of the 95% confidence interval >1, number of cases ≥3.

Results: 2231 potential statistical signals were identified. Of these, the vast majority of combinations of suspected drugs and ADRs were associated with known drug risks, and were not new safety signals for these drugs. The largest proportion of statistical signals was attributed to the following pharmacological groups: antiplatelet agents, cephalosporins, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, fluoroquinolones, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, metabolic agents, and indirect anticoagulants.

Conclusion: the results obtained indicate the applicability and effectiveness of statistical methods based on disproportionality of reporting for the analysis of the Russian spontaneous report database in order to identify potential drug safety issues.

1. Pham CB, Dickman RL. Minimizing adverse drug events in older patients. Am Fam Physician. 2007;76(12):1837–44. PMID: 18217523

2. Ushkalova EA, Tkacheva ON, Runikhina NK, Chukhareva NA, Bevz AYu. Features of pharmacotherapy in the elderly patients. Introduction to the problem. Ratsional’naya farmakoterapiya v kardiologii = Rational Pharmacotherapy in Cardiology. 2016;12(1):94–100 (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.20996/1819-6446-2016-12-1-94-100

3. Lepakhin VK, Romanov BK, Toropova IA. The analysis of reports on adverse drug reactions. Vedomosti Nauchnogo tsentra ekspertizy sredstv meditsinskogo primeneniya = The Bulletin of the Scientific Centre for Expert Evaluation of Medicinal Products. 2012;(1):22–5 (In Russ.)

4. Zhuravleva EO, Velts NYu, Kutekhova GV, Darmostukova MA, Alyautdin RN. Signal as a tool of the pharmacovigilance. Bezopasnost’ i risk farmakoterapii = Safety and Risk of Pharmacotherapy. 2018;6(2):61–7 (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.30895/2312-7821-2018-6-2-61-67

5. Evans SJ, Waller PC, Davis S. Use of proportional reporting ratios (PRRs) for signal generation from spontaneous adverse drug reaction reports. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2001;10(6):483–6. https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.677

6. Bate A, Lindquist M, Edwards IR, Olsson S, Orre R, Lansner A, et al. A Bayesian neural network method for adverse drug reaction signal generation. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1998;54(4):315–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002280050466

7. Duggirala HJ, Tonning JM, Smith E, Bright RA, Baker JD, Ball R, et al. Use of data mining at the Food and Drug Administration. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016;23(2):428–34. https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocv063

8. Lindquist M, Stahl M, Bate A, Edwards IR, Meyboom RHB. A retrospective evaluation of a data mining approach to aid finding new adverse drug reaction signals in the WHO international database. Drug Saf. 2000;23(6):533–42. https://doi.org/10.2165/00002018-200023060-00004

9. Olsen MA, Stwalley D, Demont C, Dubberke ER. Increasing age has limited impact on risk of Clostridium difficile infection in an elderly population. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2018;5(7):ofy160. https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofy160

10. Roberts E, Delgado Nunes V, Buckner S, Latchem S, Constanti M, Miller P, et al. Paracetamol: not as safe as we thought? A systematic literature review of observational studies. Ann Rheum Dis. 2016;75(3):552–9. https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2014-206914

11. Wise J. True risks of paracetamol may be underestimated, say researchers. BMJ. 2015;350:h1186. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h1186

12. García Rodríguez LA, Hernández-Díaz S. Relative risk of upper gastrointestinal complications among users of acetaminophen and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Epidemiology. 2001;12(5):570–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001648-200109000-00018

13. Rahme E, Barkun A, Nedjar H, Gaugris S, Watson D. Hospitalizations for upper and lower GI events associated with traditional NSAIDs and acetaminophen among the elderly in Quebec, Canada. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;103(4):872–82.

14. Waddington F, Naunton M, Thomas J. Paracetamol and analgesic nephropathy: are you kidneying me? Int Med Case Rep J. 2014;8:1–5. https://doi.org/10.2147/IMCRJ.S71471

15. Evans M, Fored CM, Bellocco R, Fitzmaurice G, Fryzek JP, McLaughlin JK, et al. Acetaminophen, aspirin and progression of advanced chronic kidney disease. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2009;24(6):1908–18. https://doi.org/10.1093/ndt/gfn745

16. Sudano I, Flammer AJ, Périat D, Enseleit F, Hermann M, Wolfrum M, et al. Acetaminophen increases blood pressure in patients with coronary artery disease. Circulation. 2010;122(18):1789–96. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.956490

17. Chung YT, Chou CY, Tsai WC, Chen WK, Lin CL, Chung WS. Acetaminophen poisoning may increase coronary artery disease risk: a nationwide cohort study. Cardiovasc Toxicol. 2018;18(4):386–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12012-017-9442-y

18. García Rodríguez LA, Hernández-Díaz S. Nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs as a trigger of clinical heart failure. Epidemiology. 2003;14(2):240–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ede.0000034633.74133.c3

19. Matthews K, Nazroo J, Whillans J. The consequences of self-reported vision change in later-life: evidence from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing. Public Health. 2017;142:7–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2016.09.034

20. Loriaut P, Loriaut P, Boyer P, Massin P, Cochereau I. Visual impairment and hip fractures: a case-control study in elderly patients. Ophthalmic Res. 2014;52(4):212–6. https://doi.org/10.1159/000362881

21. Moncada LVV, Mire LG. Preventing falls in older persons. Am Fam Physician. 2017;96(4):240–7. PMID: 28925664

22. Chen SP, Bhattacharya J, Pershing S. Association of vision loss with cognition in older adults. JAMA Ophthal­mol. 2017;135(9):963–70. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2017.2838

23. Fujiwara M, Kawasaki Y, Yamada H. A pharmacovigilance approach for post-marketing in Japan using the Japanese Adverse Drug Event Report (JADER) Database and Association Analysis. PLoS One, 2016;11(4):e0154425. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154425

24. Narushima D, Kawasaki Y, Takamatsu S, Yamada H. Adverse events associated with incretin-based drugs in Japanese spontaneous reports: a mixed effects logistic regression model. Peer J. 2016;4:e1753. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1753