Mapping the safety profile of biologicals: a disproportionality analysis using the WHO adverse drug reaction database, VigiBase.
BACKGROUND
Biologicals have specific characteristics, as compared with the small molecule drugs, and carry specific risks. Safety problems, for example infliximab and the risk for tuberculosis, have been identified via spontaneous reports of suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs). However, in general there is limited data on the nature of spontaneously reported suspected ADRs for biologicals.


OBJECTIVE
To map the safety profile of biologicals as compared with all other drugs. In addition, mechanistic classes of biologicals will be compared.


METHODS
Data was obtained from the ADR database (VigiBase) maintained by the WHO Collaborating Centre for International Drug Monitoring. A disproportionality analysis was performed in which case reports for biologicals and all other drugs (the reference group), reported between January 1995 and December 2008, were selected. Vaccines were not included in the analysis. Suspected ADRs were classified according to Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) version 12.0 at the System Organ Class (SOC) level. Biologicals were classified into mechanistic classes: antibodies, cytokines, enzymes, growth factors, hormones (reference group), interferons, receptors and others/various. The safety profile of the biologicals versus all other drugs in the database and of the various mechanistic classes of biologicals was compared using the proportional reporting ratio (PRR).


RESULTS
191,004 case reports containing 546,474 suspected ADRs were reported for 62 different biologicals, and 2,556,209 case reports containing 8,761,522 suspected ADRs were reported for all other drugs (the reference group). It was found that two-thirds of all suspected ADRs reported for biologicals were reported for five active substances: etanercept (20.3%), interferon-beta-1a (15.6%), infliximab (11.6%), teriparatide (10.7%) and adalimumab (9.0%). Comparison of the safety profile of biologicals and the reference group showed that suspected ADRs for biologicals were more frequently reported in the SOCs 'Infections and infestations' (PRR 4.5), 'Surgical and medical procedures' (PRR 2.4) and 'Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified' (PRR 2.1), and less frequently reported in the SOCs 'Psychiatric disorders' (PRR 0.4), 'Vascular disorders' (PRR 0.4) and 'Pregnancy, puerperium and perinatal conditions' (PRR 0.4). Regarding the differences in safety profile between various mechanistic classes of biologicals, compared with hormones (reference group), 'Infections and infestations' were more frequently reported for receptors and antibodies. 'Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified' were more frequently reported for antibodies, cytokines, interferons and receptors, and less frequently for enzymes as compared with the reference group.


CONCLUSIONS
In VigiBase, five biologicals comprise two-thirds of the suspected ADRs reported for biologicals, which might distort the relation found between a specific biological and a specific adverse event in case of quantitative signal detection. Therefore the choice of reference group to be used in case of quantitative signal detection should be considered very carefully. This study confirmed that biologicals have a different safety profile compared with all other drugs in the database and, within the group of biologicals, differences exist between mechanistic classes. Infections are, for example, frequently reported for receptors and antibodies, which often have an immune compromising effect. Such predictable safety issues should be specifically studied by preregistration clinical trials and/or targeted pharmacovigilance. In addition, since not all adverse reactions can be predicted or detected during development, spontaneous reporting remains an important tool for the early detection of signals.
Giezen
Thijs J
TJ
Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Mantel-Teeuwisse
Aukje K
AK
Meyboom
Ronald H B
RH
Straus
Sabine M J M
SM
Leufkens
Hubert G M
HG
Egberts
Toine C G
TC
D000328:Adult; D016907:Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D001688:Biological Products / Q000009:adverse effects*; D016208:Databases, Factual; D064420:Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007155:Immunologic Factors / Q000009:adverse effects; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D014944:World Health Organization
D001688:Biological Products; D007155:Immunologic Factors
Nat Biotechnol. 2004 Nov;22(11):1357-9
15529154
J Autoimmun. 2008 Feb-Mar;30(1-2):90-8
18191544
Mol Biotechnol. 2004 May;27(1):59-74
15122047
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2007 Mar 10;151(10):588-93
17402649
Nat Biotechnol. 2007 Apr;25(4):380-2
17420735
N Engl J Med. 2001 Oct 11;345(15):1098-104
11596589
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2009 Jun;18(6):427-36
19358225
Int J Pharm. 2003 Nov 6;266(1-2):3-16
14559389
Drug Saf. 2009;32(12):1175-87
19916584
JAMA. 2002 May 1;287(17):2215-20
11980521
JAMA. 2008 Oct 22;300(16):1887-96
18940975
Rheum Dis Clin North Am. 2009 Feb;35(1):183-99
19481004
Nat Biotechnol. 2009 Aug;27(8):710-21
19668175
Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2008 Jan;7(1):21-39
18097458
Drug Saf. 2006;29(5):385-96
16689555
Arthritis Rheum. 2005 Nov;52(11):3403-12
16255017
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2001 Oct-Nov;10(6):483-6
11828828
Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1995 Jul;58(1):108-17
7628177
JAMA. 2009 Feb 18;301(7):737-44
19224750
BMJ. 2004 Jul 3;329(7456):44-7
15231627
Drug Saf. 1999 Dec;21(6):429-47
10612268
Drug Saf. 2009;32(10):811-7
19722725
Drug Saf. 2008;31(5):445-7
18422389
Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2004 Jul;16(4):393-8
15201602
BMC Neurol. 2009 Jun 12;9 Suppl 1:S3
19534732
Allergy. 2006 Aug;61(8):912-20
16867042
Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2004 May;16(3):199-205
15103245
Arch Dermatol. 2009 Sep;145(9):1037-9
19770445