title: The development and evaluation of triage algorithms for early discovery of adverse drug interactions.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Around 20 % of all adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are due to drug interactions. Some of these will only be detected in the postmarketing setting. Effective screening in large collections of individual case safety reports (ICSRs) requires automated triages to identify signals of adverse drug interactions. Research so far has focused on statistical measures, but clinical information and pharmacological characteristics are essential in the clinical assessment and may be of great value in first-pass filtering of potential adverse drug interaction signals.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  The aim of this study was to develop triages for adverse drug interaction surveillance, and to evaluate these prospectively relative to clinical assessment.
  
  
  METHODS
  A broad set of variables were considered for inclusion in the triages, including cytochrome P450 (CYP) activity, explicit suspicions of drug interactions as noted by the reporter, dose and treatment overlap, and a measure of interaction disproportionality. Their unique contributions in predicting signals of adverse drug interactions were determined through logistic regression. This was based on the reporting in the WHO global ICSR database, VigiBase™, for a set of known adverse drug interactions and corresponding negative controls. Three triages were developed, each producing an estimated probability that a given drug-drug-ADR triplet constitutes an adverse drug interaction signal. The triages were evaluated against two separate benchmarks derived from expert clinical assessment: adverse drug interactions known in the literature and prospective adverse drug interaction signals. For reference, the triages were compared with disproportionality analysis alone using the same benchmarks.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The following were identified as valuable predictors of adverse drug interaction signals: plausible CYP metabolism; notes of suspected interaction by the reporter; and reports of unexpected therapeutic response, altered therapeutic effect with dose information and altered therapeutic effect when only two drugs had been used. The new triages identified reporting patterns corresponding to both prospective signals of adverse drug interactions and already established ones. They perform better than disproportionality analysis alone relative to both benchmarks.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  A range of predictors for adverse drug interaction signals have been identified. They substantially improve signal detection capacity compared with disproportionality analysis alone. The value of incorporating clinical and pharmacological information in first-pass screening is clear.
authors: Uppsala Monitoring Centre, WHO Collaborating Centre for International Drug Monitoring, Box 1051, 75140 Uppsala, Sweden.
authors: Johanna
authors: J
authors: Strandell
authors: Ola
authors: O
authors: Caster
authors: Johan
authors: J
authors: Hopstadius
authors: I Ralph
authors: IR
authors: Edwards
authors: G Niklas
authors: GN
authors: Norén
mesh_terms: D000465:Algorithms; D064420:Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000453:epidemiology*; D006801:Humans; D011446:Prospective Studies; D012372:ROC Curve; D014218:Triage / Q000379:methods* / Q000592:standards*
references: J Clin Pharm Ther. 2012 Feb;37(1):45-8
references: 21332566
references: J Stat Softw. 2010;33(1):1-22
references: 20808728
references: Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2011 Jun;67(6):633-41
references: 21253716
references: Drug Saf. 2000 Aug;23(2):95-9
references: 10945372
references: PLoS One. 2006 Dec 20;1:e97
references: 17183729
references: Drug Saf. 2010 Aug 1;33(8):667-75
references: 20635825
references: BMJ. 1998 Apr 25;316(7140):1295-8
references: 9554902
references: Drug Saf. 2011 Mar 1;34(3):253-66
references: 21332249
references: Eur Respir J. 2000 Jan;15(1):205-8
references: 10678647
references: Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2003 Apr 1;167(7):958-61
references: 12663337
references: Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2007 Oct;64(4):489-95
references: 17506784
references: Stat Med. 2008 Jul 20;27(16):3057-70
references: 18344185
references: Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2006 Dec;80(6):565-81
references: 17178259
references: BMJ. 2004 Jul 3;329(7456):15-9
references: 15231615
references: JAMA. 1998 Apr 15;279(15):1200-5
references: 9555760
references: Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2009 Sep;68(3):427-34
references: 19740401
references: Drug Saf. 1994 Feb;10(2):93-102
references: 8011183
references: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2002 Jan-Feb;11(1):65-72
references: 11998554
references: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2003 Sep;12(6):517-21
references: 14513665
references: Neurology. 2007 May 8;68(19):1588-95
references: 17287448