Next Article in Journal
Multifunctional Hyperelastic Structured Surface for Tunable and Switchable Transparency
Next Article in Special Issue
Filtered BERT: Similarity Filter-Based Augmentation with Bidirectional Transfer Learning for Protected Health Information Prediction in Clinical Documents
Previous Article in Journal
Advances in Purpurin 18 Research: On Cancer Therapy
Previous Article in Special Issue
LabConcept—A New Mobile Healthcare Platform for Standardizing Patient Results in Telemedicine
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

The 2011–2020 Trends of Data-Driven Approaches in Medical Informatics for Active Pharmacovigilance

1
Health Care Data Science Center, Konyang University Hospital, Daejeon 35365, Korea
2
Department of Biomedical Engineering, College of Medical Engineering, Konyang University, Daejeon 35365, Korea
3
Department of Biomedical Informatics, College of Medicine, Konyang University, Daejeon 35365, Korea
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11(5), 2249; https://doi.org/10.3390/app11052249
Submission received: 25 January 2021 / Revised: 25 February 2021 / Accepted: 26 February 2021 / Published: 4 March 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue New Trends in Medical Informatics)

Abstract

:
Pharmacovigilance, the scientific discipline pertaining to drug safety, has been studied extensively and is progressing continuously. In this field, medical informatics techniques and interpretation play important roles, and appropriate approaches are required. In this study, we investigated and analyzed the trends of pharmacovigilance systems, especially the data collection, detection, assessment, and monitoring processes. We used PubMed to collect papers on pharmacovigilance published over the past 10 years, and analyzed a total of 40 significant papers to determine the characteristics of the databases and data analysis methods used to identify drug safety indicators. Through systematic reviews, we identified the difficulty of standardizing data and terminology and establishing an adverse drug reactions (ADR) evaluation system in pharmacovigilance, and their corresponding implications. We found that appropriate methods and guidelines for active pharmacovigilance using medical big data are still required and should continue to be developed.

1. Introduction

Pharmacovigilance is the pharmacological science pertaining to the collection, detection, assessment, monitoring, and prevention of adverse events related to drug safety issues [1]. Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are mostly caused by the pharmacological action of drugs and factors such as drug–drug and drug–food interactions, drug errors, allergies, and metabolism [2,3]. ADR is a leading cause of death in the United States; moreover, ADR causes a larger number of deaths than lung disease, diabetes, HIV/AIDS, and pneumonia [4,5]. Therefore, it is important to identify all possible drug reactions with the aid of pharmacovigilance [3].
Even if the efficacy and safety of a drug are verified through clinical trials, it may still be necessary to conduct post-marketing surveillance because clinical trials clearly possess limitations [6]. In actuality, prescription and dosage errors could arise, and issues could exist in medication compliance as well. Additionally, whereas patients suffering chronic diseases require lifelong drug intake, most clinical trials have only a fixed period. ADRs could occur if a drug is administered for long periods. In other words, post-marketing surveillance is becoming increasingly important, requiring pharmacovigilance to be performed [6].
Pharmacovigilance utilizes various big data sources, including spontaneous reporting systems (SRS), medical literature, electronic health records (EHR), and social media [7,8,9]. Pharmacovigilance comprises two different systems, namely, passive surveillance and active surveillance systems [10,11]. Passive surveillance relies on SRS from medical personnel and patients; this case possesses a severe limitation of underreporting, i.e., less than 1% of ADRs are reported [12]. In active surveillance, various databases based on EHRs, which contain detailed patient information, could be constructed [13]. Additionally, active surveillance can be used to identify new drug safety signals or verify the indicators identified through passive surveillance [11]. Immediate monitoring of ADR, improvement of efficacy, and exploration using various natural language processing (NLP) technologies are indispensable from the perspective of medical informatics [14,15]. Therefore, a systematic medical informatics approach is required to apply appropriate techniques to pharmacovigilance systems.
Pharmacovigilance, which is a dynamic discipline, has evolved significantly since the 1972 World Health Organization (WHO) technical report [16]. Since then, various studies related directly to patient safety have been conducted and many related review papers have been published.
This work reviews the entire range of pharmacovigilance studies conducted over the last 10 years and investigates the overall trends. The main results and limitations of these studies are summarized by categorizing them into sections ranging from collection to monitoring. Finally, we emphasize the role and necessity of medical informatics in active pharmacovigilance and pharmacovigilance platforms.

2. Published Trends

We used the PubMed database of publications in life sciences and biomedical research from the United States National Library of Medicine (NLM) to examine the overall trends in pharmacovigilance research [17]. We extracted papers published from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2020 using keywords that describe and include all fields of “Pharmacovigilance”, “Adverse drug reaction”, and “Pharmacovigilance systems (Collection, Detection, Assessment, Monitoring)”, as shown in Table 1. A total of 3322 related papers, composed of journal articles, meta-analyses, reviews, systematic reviews, and observational studies, have been published over the past 10 years. We excluded papers based on their title and abstract, and manually reviewed the criteria for improper subject design, as shown in Figure 1. Finally, 10 papers each were selected for collection, detection, assessment, and monitoring.

3. Pharmacovigilance Systems

We summarized and discussed the trends observed for each pharmacovigilance system that collects, detects, assesses, and monitors the adverse events related to drug safety issues [1]. For an overall understanding of the systems, we expressed the detection methods used in representative databases, standard terms in assessment, and activities performed in monitoring. Then, we included the keywords and representative terms for each system, as shown in Figure 2.

3.1. Data Collection

Collection is the key component of an active surveillance system that accesses and extracts data from pharmacovigilance-related databases. It is important to use the appropriate data for this study. We identified significant drug safety indicators using the databases. Drug safety indicators can be found from various databases, such as EHRs, claims data, registries, spontaneous reports, and the literature [18]. Based on studies that used various databases, we classified the databases into nine categories: EHRs, SRSs, structured product labeling (SPL), drug information databases, claims databases, genetics and biochemical databases, bibliographic databases, and social media data. The classification criteria determined whether the search involved clinical institution data, spontaneous reports, or heterogeneous data from the literature, and determined how the overall composition of the drugs was analyzed. We selected and reviewed 10 papers [19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28] that investigated a diverse range of databases, and summarized the data, objectives, and methods used in each study (Table 2).
Bihan et al. [29] published the most recent review article on different pharmacovigilance databases, including VigiBase of the WHO [30], EudraVigilance of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) [31], the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) of the United States Food and Drug Administration [32], and the French pharmacovigilance database (FPDB) [33]. Additionally, databases are available for nationally managed systems, clinical institution data, drug information, and from the literature; for example, Sentinel [34], Exploring and Understanding Adverse Drug Reactions (EU-ADR) [35], EHR [36], DrugBank [37], and MEDLINE [38].

3.2. ADR Detection for Pharmacovigilance

In detection, advanced methods are available to find drug safety indicators using the databases identified through collection. These indicators can be used to detect drug-related problems, typically ADRs, adverse drug events (ADEs), or drug–drug interactions [39]. To find indicators from EHR data, the measurement results or prescription history (including patient information) can be used along with drug information or related label information for other registries. The methods to be used differ depending on the database and can be selected by comparing their performance appropriately. Thus, we categorized the detection methods into five types to organize tables with relationships between the databases and methods. Each method involves statistical analyses (descriptive analysis, cohort study, computational analysis, disproportionality analysis), text mining, NLP, machine learning, and deep learning. Initially, if statistical analysis was dominant, then NLP and machine learning techniques were applied as developments in computer technology.
As shown in Table 3 [40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49], some studies have examined drug-related correlations by using computational methods [42,47] and survival analysis [40,46] with statistical approaches. These studies analyzed the drug exposure groups and non-exposure groups through comparison. As the first step of detection algorithms or methods, most studies are preprocessed through data mining or NLPs [44,47,49]. With the active development of artificial intelligence methods in big data analysis, various machine learning [44,45,47] or deep learning techniques [48] have been applied to pharmacovigilance, and more studies have integrated and analyzed two or more databases rather than only a single database [40,42,43,45,47,48,49]. Potential drug safety indicators could be detected using various methodologies and approaches.

3.3. Assessment for ADR

Assessment through clinical or scientific interpretation is a requirement to evaluate drug safety indicators. To prepare an evaluation system and expand the reference standard, a systematic strategy is required. Reference sets used commonly in pharmacovigilance include side effect resource (SIDER) [50], The Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) [51], and EU-ADR [35]. These references set the standards for known drug-related information that provide positive and negative controls based on drug safety indicators and ADR. Different terminology systems exist in pharmacovigilance (e.g., MedDRA and WHO Adverse Reactions Terminology (WHO-ART)); thus, unification and mapping between the terms must be performed to develop reference standards.
Table 4 summarizes the related papers and their properties [52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61]. Some studies approached the signals in specific diseases in more detail, such as pancreatitis [52] and liver injury [53,54,58], and used EHR [36] or observational data that contain more patient information than other databases. Additionally, studies that proposed the reference standards to identify drug-induced ADRs did literature analysis used bibliographic databases [53,54,56,57]. We found that experts worked manually to determine the signals and produce results [53]. In particular, Oosterhuis et al. [60] developed a causality documentation (CausDOC) tool that combines algorithms and expert judgment to provide nine relevant structured questions to assess the causality of ADRs.

3.4. ADR Monitoring for Patient Safety

Monitoring involves the continuous follow-up and safety management of a patient’s condition, and can be said to be the ultimate purpose of pharmacovigilance. Table 4 lists the studies on monitoring [62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71] in chronological order. We could investigate early studies conducted on a large-scale project basis [62,66]. From 2009 to 2013, Pal et al. [66] carried out the Monitoring Medicines (MM) Project that consisted of 11 consortium partners. Mobile applications have also been developed (e.g., MedWatcher) to improve the spontaneous reporting of patients and the management of reports with patient information [68].
With the activation of social network systems (SNS), SNS data (e.g., Twitter and Facebook) have been analyzed as additional study data [69,70]. Table 5 shows that recent studies use SRSs and social media data as the main analysis data sources and use EHR data or ADE databases as supplemental data [68,69,70,71]. In addition to these recent trends, patient-generated data can be collected through health care services or wearable devices, which requires more diverse monitoring methods and protocols.

4. Discussion

Over the past 10 years, the numbers of pharmacovigilance studies have been increasing steadily. These studies have resulted in appropriate drug use regulations and guidance being issued. We found, through a literature review, that the main concerns in pharmacovigilance are the difficulty of standardizing data and terminology and establishing an ADR evaluation system. The databases and related websites provide mapping files or materials for terminology. However, even with expert guidance, pre-processing the data for practical analysis is time-intensive; many cases exist where a clinician or a pharmacist has to process the data manually. Therefore, reference standards could serve as ground truth for evaluating the ADR signals [53,65,70].
Many studies have developed new detection algorithms and detected drug safety indicators, but the results rarely lead to actual drug safety management. In addition, the studies using patient data are limited to single institution data, emphasizing the necessity of multicenter studies [72,73,74]. Thus, a platform that can comprehensively manage and systematically access all pharmacovigilance systems is required. Such a platform can contribute to practical drug safety management by organizing the system of collection, detection, assessment, and monitoring into a new standard protocol.
For collection, the conversion and structuring of data into a common data model (CDM) format should be supported. Clinical CDM, medical images, and medical device CDM can be used in pharmacovigilance. As shown in Figure 3, data marts for each study design are also required. Based on the pharmacovigilance platform, anonymized data and analysis results from signal detection can be shared with registered researchers or institutions. Through multicenter research and meta-analysis of the results, the validity of the signals can be verified. By developing a monitoring app linked to the platform, patient conditions can be monitored and prescribed drugs can be managed to ensure patient safety.
In this study, we examined the roles and importance of medical informatics in pharmacovigilance. We summarized the characteristics and results of various studies on pharmacovigilance, and identified the trends of methodology Overall, a detailed approach is required to prepare a system that can integrate and analyze big data containing plenteous information. In active pharmacovigilance, the application of the data-driven approach is expanding gradually; nevertheless, further research is required on the perspective of medical informatics.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: J.-Y.K., S.L.; data curation: H.S. (Hyunah Shin), J.-Y.K.; formal analysis: H.S. (Hyunah Shin), J.C., C.L., H.J., H.S. (Hyejin Song). Writing—original draft: H.S. (Hyunah Shin), J.C.; writing—review and editing: H.S. (Hyunah Shin), J.C., J.-Y.K., S.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Ministry of Science ICT and Future Planning (MSIP) (2018R1D1A1B07049155) and the Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI), funded by the Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea (grant number: HI17C2412).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

  1. Toklu, H.Z.; Mensah, E. Why do we need pharmacists in pharmacovigilance systems? Online J. Public Health Inf. 2016, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Zhou, Z.; Hultgren, K.E. Complementing the us food and drug administration adverse event reporting system with adverse drug reaction reporting from social media: Comparative analysis. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2020, 6, e19266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Ingle, S.S.; Bansod, A.K.; Bashir, M.S.M. Adverse drug reaction profile in Amravati region of India: A pharmacovigilance study. J. Pharm. Bioallied Sci. 2020, 12, 155–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Institute of Medicine Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System; Kohn, L.T., Corrigan, J.M., Donaldson, M.S., Eds.; National Academies Press (US): Washington, DC, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  5. Preventable Adverse Drug Reactions: A Focus on Drug Interactions. Available online: https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-interactions-labeling/preventable-adverse-drug-reactions-focus-drug-interactions (accessed on 24 December 2020).
  6. Harpaz, R.; DuMochel, W.; Shah, N. Big Data and Adverse Drug Reaction Detection. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 2015, 99, 268–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Zhang, P.; Wu, H.-Y.; Chiang, C.-W.; Wang, L.; Binkheder, S.; Wang, X.; Zeng, D.; Quinney, S.K.; Donglin, Z. Translational biomedical informatics and pharmacometrics approaches in the drug interactions research. CPT Pharmacomet. Syst. Pharmacol. 2018, 7, 90–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Vilar, S.; Friedman, C.; Hripcsak, G. Detection of drug–drug interactions through data mining studies using clinical sources, scientific literature and social media. Briefings Bioinform. 2018, 19, 863–877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  9. Coloma, P.M.; Trifirò, G.; Patadia, V.; Sturkenboom, M. Postmarketing safety surveillance. Drug Saf. 2013, 36, 183–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Mehta, U.; Kalk, E.; Boulle, A.; Nkambule, P.; Gouws, J.; Rees, H.; Cohen, K. Pharmacovigilance: A public health priority for South Africa. S. Afr. Health Rev. 2017, 2017, 125–133. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  11. Weaver, J.; Willy, M.; Avigan, M. Informatic tools and approaches in postmarketing pharmacovigilance used by FDA. AAPS J. 2008, 10, 35–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Vohra, S.; Cvijovic, K.; Charrois, T.L.; Arnason, J.T.; Necyk, C.; Ware, M.; Rosychuk, R.J.; Boon, H.; Foster, B.C.; Jaeger, W.; et al. Study of natural health product adverse reactions (Sonar): Active surveillance of adverse events following concurrent natural health product and prescription drug use in community pharmacies. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e45196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Zhuo, L.; Farrell, P.J.; McNair, D.; Krewski, D.; McNair, D. Statistical methods for active pharmacovigilance, with applications to diabetes drugs. J. Biopharm. Stat. 2014, 24, 856–873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Naidu, M.V.S.; Sushma, D.S.; Jaiswal, V.; Asha, S.; Pal, T. The role of advanced technologies supplemented with traditional methods in pharmacovigilance sciences. Recent Patents Biotechnol. 2020, 14, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Nikfarjam, A.; Ransohoff, J.D.; Callahan, A.; Jones, E.; Loew, B.; Kwong, B.Y.; Sarin, K.Y.; Shah, N.H. Early detection of adverse drug reactions in social health networks: A natural language processing pipeline for signal detection. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2019, 5, e11264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. World Health Organization. The Importance of Pharmacovigilance: Safety Monitoring of Medicinal Products; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  17. Chen, X.; Xie, H.; Cheng, G.; Poon, L.K.M.; Leng, M.; Wang, F.L. Trends and features of the applications of natural language processing techniques for clinical trials text analysis. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 2157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Beninger, P. Pharmacovigilance: An overview. Clin. Ther. 2018, 40, 1991–2004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  19. Olsson, S.; Pal, S.N.; Dodoo, A. Pharmacovigilance in resource-limited countries. Expert Rev. Clin. Pharmacol. 2015, 8, 449–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Tan, Y.; Hu, Y.; Liu, X.; Yin, Z.; Chen, X.-W.; Liu, M. Improving drug safety: From adverse drug reaction knowledge discovery to clinical implementation. Methods 2016, 110, 14–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Faillie, J.-L.; Montastruc, F.; Montastruc, J.-L.; Pariente, A. Pharmacoepidemiology and its input to pharmacovigilance. Therapies 2016, 71, 211–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Souvignet, J.; Declerck, G.; Asfari, H.; Jaulent, M.-C.; Bousquet, C. OntoADR a semantic resource describing adverse drug reactions to support searching, coding, and information retrieval. J. Biomed. Inform. 2016, 63, 100–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Malec, S.A.; Wei, P.; Xu, H.; Bernstam, E.V.; Myneni, S.; Cohen, T. Literature-based discovery of confounding in observational clinical data. AMIA Annu. Symp. Proc. 2017, 2016, 1920–1929. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  24. Trifirò, G.; Sultana, J.; Bate, A. From big data to smart data for pharmacovigilance: The role of healthcare databases and other emerging sources. Drug Saf. 2017, 41, 143–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. The Knowledge Base workgroup of the Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics (OHDSI) Collaborative; Boyce, R.D. Large-scale adverse effects related to treatment evidence standardization (LAERTES): An open scalable system for linking pharmacovigilance evidence sources with clinical data. J. Biomed. Semant. 2017, 8, 11:1–11:15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Fornasier, G.; Francescon, S.; Leone, R.; Baldo, P. An historical overview over Pharmacovigilance. Int. J. Clin. Pharm. 2018, 40, 744–747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  27. Choi, Y.H.; Han, C.Y.; Kim, K.S.; Kim, S.G. Future directions of pharmacovigilance studies using electronic medical recording and human genetic databases. Toxicol. Res. 2019, 35, 319–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. AlOmar, M.; Palaian, S.; Al-Tabakha, M.M. Pharmacovigilance in perspective: Drug withdrawals, data mining and policy implications. F1000Research 2019, 8, 2109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  29. Bihan, K.; Lebrun-Vignes, B.; Funck-Brentano, C.; Salem, J.-E. Uses of pharmacovigilance databases: An overview. Therapies 2020, 75, 591–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Lindquist, M. VigiBase, the WHO global ICSR database system: Basic facts. Ther. Innov. Regul. Sci. 2008, 42, 409–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Blake, K.V.; Zaccaria, C.; Domergue, F.; La Mache, E.; Saint-Raymond, A.; Hidalgo-Simon, A. Comparison between paediatric and adult suspected adverse drug reactions reported to the European medicines agency: Implications for pharmacovigilance. Pediatr. Drugs 2014, 16, 309–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Xu, R.; Wang, Q. Large-scale combining signals from both biomedical literature and the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) to improve post-marketing drug safety signal detection. BMC Bioinform. 2014, 15, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Montastruc, G.; Favreliere, S.; Sommet, A.; Pathak, A.; Lapeyre-Mestre, M.; Perault-Pochat, M.-C.; Montastruc, J.-L. French Association of Regional PharmacoVigilance Centres Drugs and dilated cardiomyopathies: A case/noncase study in the French PharmacoVigilance Database. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2010, 69, 287–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Platt, R.; Wilson, M.; Chan, K.A.; Benner, J.S.; Marchibroda, J.; McClellan, M. The new sentinel network—improving the evidence of medical-product safety. N. Engl. J. Med. 2009, 361, 645–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  35. Trifiro, G.; Fourrier-Reglat, A.; Sturkenboom, M.C.J.M.; D’iacuteaz, A.C.; Van Der Lei, J. The EU-ADR project: Preliminary results and perspective. SHTI 2009, 148, 43–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Dandala, B.; Joopudi, V.; Tsou, C.-H.; Liang, J.J.; Suryanarayanan, P. Extraction of information related to drug safety surveillance from electronic health record notes: Joint modeling of entities and relations using knowledge-aware neural attentive models. JMIR Med. Inform. 2020, 8, e18417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Davazdahemami, B.; Delen, D. A chronological pharmacovigilance network analytics approach for predicting adverse drug events. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2018, 25, 1311–1321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Winnenburg, R.; Sorbello, A.; Ripple, A.; Harpaz, R.; Tonning, J.; Szarfman, A.; Francis, H.; Bodenreider, O. Leveraging MEDLINE indexing for pharmacovigilance – Inherent limitations and mitigation strategies. J. Biomed. Inform. 2015, 57, 425–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  39. Yang, C.C.; Yang, H. Mining heterogeneous networks with topological features constructed from patient-contributed content for pharmacovigilance. Artif. Intell. Med. 2018, 90, 42–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. McCarren, M.; Qiu, H.; Ziyadeh, N.; Jiang, R.; Wang, Y.; McAfee, A.T. Follow-up study of a pharmacovigilance signal. J. Clin. Psychopharmacol. 2012, 32, 743–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Sun, A.P.; Kirby, B.; Black, C.; Helms, P.J.; Bennie, M.; McLay, J.S. Unplanned medication discontinuation as a potential pharmacovigilance signal: A nested young person cohort study. BMC Pharmacol. Toxicol. 2014, 15, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Dupuch, M.; Grabar, N. Semantic distance-based creation of clusters of pharmacovigilance terms and their evaluation. J. Biomed. Inform. 2015, 54, 174–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Pacurariu, A.C.; Straus, S.M.; Arlett, P.; Van Der Lei, J.; Sturkenboom, M.C.; Coloma, P.M.; Trifirò, G.; Schuemie, M.J.; Gini, R.; Herings, R.; et al. Useful interplay between spontaneous ADR reports and electronic healthcare records in signal detection. Drug Saf. 2015, 38, 1201–1210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Usui, M.; Aramaki, E.; Iwao, T.; Wakamiya, S.; Sakamoto, T.; Mochizuki, M.; Mayer, M.A.; Aripin, K.N.B.N. Extraction and standardization of patient complaints from electronic medication histories for pharmacovigilance: Natural language processing analysis in japanese. JMIR Med. Inform. 2018, 6, e11021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Thompson, P.; Daikou, S.; Ueno, K.; Batista-Navarro, R.; Tsujii, J.; Ananiadou, S. Annotation and detection of drug effects in text for pharmacovigilance. J. Chemin 2018, 10, 37–37:33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Kiguba, R.; Ndagije, H.B.; Nambasa, V.; Bird, S.M. Adverse drug reaction onsets in Uganda’s Vigibase®: Delayed international visibility, data quality and illustrative signal detection analyses. Pharm. Med. 2018, 32, 413–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  47. Ventola, C.L. Big data and pharmacovigilance: Data mining for adverse drug events and interactions. P T 2018, 43, 340–351. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  48. Wang, C.-S.; Lin, P.-J.; Cheng, C.-L.; Tai, S.-H.; Yang, Y.-H.K.; Chiang, J.-H. Detecting potential adverse drug reactions using a deep neural network model. J. Med. Internet Res. 2019, 21, e11016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Richesson, R.; Hume, S.; Tsuji, S.; Huang, M.; Liu, H.; Shah, N.; Jiang, G.; Tingay, K.; Lin, C.-H.; Kijsanayotin, B.; et al. Detecting and filtering immune-related adverse events signal based on text mining and observational health data sciences and informatics common data model: Framework development study. JMIR Med. Inform. 2020, 8, e17353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Wang, L.; Rastegar-Mojarad, M.; Liu, H.; Ji, Z.; Liu, S.; Liu, K.; Moon, S.; Shen, F.; Wang, Y.; Yao, L.; et al. Detecting pharmacovigilance signals combining electronic medical records with spontaneous reports: A case study of conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis. Front. Pharmacol. 2018, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Rho, M.J.; Kim, S.R.; Park, S.H.; Jang, K.S.; Park, B.J.; Hong, J.Y.; Choi, I.Y. Common data model for decision support system of adverse drug reaction to extract knowledge from multi-center database. Inf. Technol. Manag. 2015, 17, 57–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Vilar, S.; Harpaz, R.; Santana, L.; Uriarte, E.; Friedman, C. Enhancing adverse drug event detection in electronic health records using molecular structure similarity: Application to pancreatitis. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e41471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Coloma, P.M.; Avillach, P.; Sturkenboom, M.; Trifirò, G.; Salvo, F.; Schuemie, M.J.; Ferrajolo, C.; Pariente, A.; Fourrier-Réglat, A.; Molokhia, M.; et al. A reference standard for evaluation of methods for drug safety signal detection using electronic healthcare record databases. Drug Saf. 2013, 36, 13–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Crepin, S.; Godet, B.; Carrier, P.; Villeneuve, C.; Merle, L.; Laroche, M.-L. Probable drug-induced liver injury associated with aliskiren: Case report and review of adverse event reports from pharmacovigilance databases. Am. J. Health Pharm. 2014, 71, 643–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Benkirane, R.; Soulaymani-Bencheikh, R.; Khattabi, A.; Benabdallah, G.; Alj, L.; Sefiani, H.; Hedna, K.; Ouammi, L.; Olsson, S.; Pal, S.N. Assessment of a new instrument for detecting preventable adverse drug reactions. Drug Saf. 2014, 38, 383–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Winnenburg, R.; Shah, N.H. Generalized enrichment analysis improves the detection of adverse drug events from the biomedical literature. BMC Bioinform. 2016, 17, 250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  57. Batel-Marques, F.; Penedones, A.; Mendes, D.; Alves, C. A systematic review of observational studies evaluating costs of adverse drug reactions. Clin. Outcomes Res. 2016, 8, 413–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  58. Scalfaro, E.; Streefkerk, H.J.; Merz, M.; Meier, C.; Lewis, D. Preliminary results of a novel algorithmic method aiming to support initial causality assessment of routine pharmacovigilance case reports for medication-induced liver injury: The PV-RUCAM. Drug Saf. 2017, 40, 715–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Caster, O.; Dietrich, J.; Kürzinger, M.-L.; Lerch, M.; Maskell, S.; Norén, G.N.; Tcherny-Lessenot, S.; Vroman, B.; Wisniewski, A.; Van Stekelenborg, J. Assessment of the utility of social media for broad-ranging statistical signal detection in pharmacovigilance: Results from the WEB-RADR project. Drug Saf. 2018, 41, 1355–1369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Oosterhuis, I.; Zweers, P.; Rümke, H.; Muller-Hansma, A.; Van Puijenbroek, E.P. A tailor-made approach for causality assessment for ADR reports on drugs and vaccines. Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. 2019, 28, 544–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Lee, S.; Han, J.; Park, R.W.; Kim, G.J.; Rim, J.H.; Cho, J.; Lee, K.H.; Lee, J.; Kim, S.; Kim, J.H. Development of a controlled vocabulary-based adverse drug reaction signal dictionary for multicenter electronic health record-based pharmacovigilance. Drug Saf. 2019, 42, 657–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Blake, K.V.; Prilla, S.; Accadebled, S.; Guimier, M.; Biscaro, M.; Persson, I.; Arlett, P.; Blackburn, S.; Fitt, H. European Medicines Agency review of post-authorisation studies with implications for the European Network of Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance. Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. 2011, 20, 1021–1029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Ruggiero, S.; Rafaniello, C.; Rossi, F.; Capuano, A.; Bravaccio, C.; Grimaldi, G.; Granato, R.; Pascotto, A.; Sportiello, L.; Parretta, E.; et al. Safety of attention-deficit/Hyperactivity disorder medications in children: An intensive pharmacosurveillance monitoring study. J. Child Adolesc. Psychopharmacol. 2012, 22, 415–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Härmark, L.; Alberts, S.; Van Puijenbroek, E.; Denig, P.; Van Grootheest, K. Representativeness of diabetes patients participating in a web-based adverse drug reaction monitoring system. Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. 2012, 22, 250–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Liu, M.; Hinz, E.R.M.; Matheny, M.E.; Denny, J.C.; Schildcrout, J.S.; A. Miller, R.; Xu, H. Comparative analysis of pharmacovigilance methods in the detection of adverse drug reactions using electronic medical records. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2013, 20, 420–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Pal, S.N.; Olsson, S.; Brown, E.G. The monitoring medicines project: A multinational pharmacovigilance and public health project. Drug Saf. 2015, 38, 319–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Layton, D.; Shakir, S.A.W. Specialist cohort event monitoring studies: A new study method for risk management in pharmacovigilance. Drug Saf. 2015, 38, 153–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  68. Bahk, C.Y.; Goshgarian, M.; Donahue, K.; Freifeld, C.C.; Menone, C.M.; Pierce, C.E.; Rodriguez, H.; Brownstein, J.S.; Furberg, R.; Dasgupta, N. Increasing patient engagement in pharmacovigilance through online community outreach and mobile reporting applications: An analysis of adverse event reporting for the essure device in the US. Pharm. Med. 2015, 29, 331–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Sarker, A.; Ginn, R.; Nikfarjam, A.; O’Connor, K.; Smith, K.; Jayaraman, S.; Upadhaya, T.; Gonzalez, G. Utilizing social media data for pharmacovigilance: A review. J. Biomed. Inform. 2015, 54, 202–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  70. Pierce, C.E.; Bouri, K.; Dasgupta, N.; Pamer, C.; Proestel, S.; Rodriguez, H.W.; Van Le, H.; Freifeld, C.C.; Brownstein, J.S.; Walderhaug, M.; et al. Evaluation of facebook and Twitter monitoring to detect safety signals for medical products: An analysis of recent FDA safety alerts. Drug Saf. 2017, 40, 317–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Irving, E.; Bor, R.V.D.; Welsing, P.; Walsh, V.; Alfonso-Cristancho, R.; Harvey, C.; Garman, N.; Grobbee, D.E. Series: Pragmatic trials and real world evidence: Paper 7. Safety, quality and monitoring. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2017, 91, 6–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Simbrich, A.; for the REGIMS Investigators; Thibaut, J.; Khil, L.; Maximov, S.; Wiendl, H.; Berger, K. Chances and challenges of registry-based pharmacovigilance in multiple sclerosis: Lessons learnt from the implementation of the multicenter regims registry. Drug Saf. 2021, 44, 7–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Ali, S.; Moinuddin, K.; Al-Aqqad, A.Q.; Salem, S.O.; Al-Dossari, M.A.; Ananzeh, A.M.; Bin Baqar, J. Knowledge and attitude of health-care professionals toward adverse drug reactions reporting at King Saud Medical City. J. Pharm. Bioallied Sci. 2018, 10, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Arulappen, A.L.; Danial, M.; Sulaiman, S.A.S. Evaluation of reported adverse drug reactions in antibiotic usage: A retrospective study from a tertiary care hospital, Malaysia. Front. Pharmacol. 2018, 9, 809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Flowchart depicting the paper selection process. * 1st manual review: animal experiment, not drug-induced, clinical effect; ** 2nd manual review: diversity and authenticity of databases, methods.
Figure 1. Flowchart depicting the paper selection process. * 1st manual review: animal experiment, not drug-induced, clinical effect; ** 2nd manual review: diversity and authenticity of databases, methods.
Applsci 11 02249 g001
Figure 2. Collection, detection, assessment, and monitoring processes in pharmacovigilance systems.
Figure 2. Collection, detection, assessment, and monitoring processes in pharmacovigilance systems.
Applsci 11 02249 g002
Figure 3. Feature diagram of the platform for active pharmacovigilance.
Figure 3. Feature diagram of the platform for active pharmacovigilance.
Applsci 11 02249 g003
Table 1. Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms used in reviewing the published literature related to pharmacovigilance (if no “MeSH” term exists, search for “All Fields”).
Table 1. Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms used in reviewing the published literature related to pharmacovigilance (if no “MeSH” term exists, search for “All Fields”).
“Pharmacovigilance” [MeSH] OR “Pharmacovigilance” [All Fields] OR “PV” [All Fields]
AND
“Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions” [MeSH] OR “ADR” [All Fields] OR “ADRs” [All Fields] OR “ADE” [All Fields] OR “ADEs” [All Fields] OR “AE” [All Fields] OR “AEs” [All Fields] OR
“Drug-induced” [All Fields]
AND
“Collection” [All Fields] OR “Detection” [All Fields] OR
“Assessment” [All Fields] OR “Monitoring” [All Fields]
PV: Pharmacovigilance, ADR: Adverse drug reaction, ADE: Adverse drug event, AE: Adverse event.
Table 2. Selected papers and their sources of data for determining drug safety signals.
Table 2. Selected papers and their sources of data for determining drug safety signals.
Author(s)DataObjectiveMethod(s)
Olsson et al. [19]1. SRSsLegislation and regulatory framework, as well as financial support to build pharmacovigilance systems are needed-
Tan et al. [20]1. SRSs
2. Drug information databases
3. ADE databases
4. Genetics and biochemical databases
5. Bibliographic databases
Presenting the current status of the clinical decision support system (CDSS)1. Text mining
2. NLP
3. Machine learning
4. Deep learning
5. Statistical analysis
Faillie et al. [21]1. SRSs
2. Drug information databases
3. Genetics and biochemical databases
Discuss the contribution of pharmacoepidemiology to pharmacovigilance1. Statistical analysis
Souvignet et al. [22]1. Drug information databasesBuild a semantic resource based on formal description logic to aid the generation of on-demand custom groupings by appropriately selecting terms: OntoADR1. Statistical analysis
Malec et al. [23]1. EHRs
2. Drug information databases
3. Bibliographic databases
Presenting methods to discover confounding variables based on scalable literature1. NLP
2. Statistical analysis
Trifirò et al. [24]1. SRSs
2. Drug information databases
3. ADE databases
Discussion on the use of big data after drug safety evaluation1. NLP
2. Machine learning
The Knowledge Base workgroup of the Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics (OHDSI) collaborative. [25]1. EHRs
2. SRSs
3. SPLs
4. Genetics and biochemical databases
5. Bibliographic databases
Introduce the structure and functionality of the Largescale Adverse Effects Related to Treatment Evidence Standardization (LAERTES)1. NLP
2. Machine learning
3. Statistical analysis
Fornasier et al. [26]1. SRSs
2. ADE databases
Understand the important role of pharmacovigilance as a historical phase-
Choi et al. [27]1. EHRs
2. Genetics and biochemical databases
Future personalized therapy considering ADEs1. Statistical analysis
Alomar et al. [28]1. SRSsThe importance of policy framework in relation to pharmacovigilance is discussed in detail1. Machine learning
2. Statistical analysis
SRSs: spontaneous reporting systems, NLP: natural language processing, ADE: adverse drug event, EHRs: electronic health records, SPLs: structured product labels.
Table 3. List of papers for ADR detection methods and algorithms.
Table 3. List of papers for ADR detection methods and algorithms.
AuthorDataObjectiveMethods
McCarren et al. [40]1. EHRs
2. Claims databases
Detailed study on antipsychotics prescribed to evaluate the effects of risperidone1. Statistical analysis
Sun et al. [41]1. EHRsAssess the utility of unplanned medication discontinuation as a signal for possible ADEs in children and young people1. Statistical analysis
Dupuch and Grabar [42]1. SRSs
2. Drug information databases
Propose an automatic method to assist in the creation of Standardized MedDRA Queries (SMQs) using the clustering of terms1. Statistical analysis
Pacurariu et al. [43]1. SRSs
2. ADE databases
3. Bibliographic databases
Investigate the potential of EHRs to be used alongside SRSs, to improve signal detection1. Statistical analysis
Usui et al. [44]1. EHRsDevelop a method to extract and standardize patient complaints from electronic medication history data (EMHD)1. NLP
2. Machine learning
Thompson et al. [45]1. Bibliographic databasesDescribe the development process of Pharmacovigilance Entity Drug Annotation (PHAEDRA) with annotation1. Text mining
2. Machine learning
Kiguba et al. [46]1. SRSsCharacterize the reported ADE onsets registered with VigiBase and describe an analytical approach for patients receiving antiretroviral therapy1. Statistical analysis
Ventola [47]1. EHRs
2. SRSs
3. ADE databases
4. Bibliographic databases
5. Social media
Discuss data mining for big data and pharmacovigilance1. Text mining
2. NLP
3. Machine learning
4. Statistical analysis
Wang et al. [48]1. ADE databases
2. Bibliographic databases
Identify a method to detect potential ADEs of drugs automatically using a deep neural network (DNN)1. Deep learning
2. Statistical analysis
Yu et al. [49]1. ADE databases
2. Bibliographic databases
Develop a new irAE signal detection and filtering framework concerning six FDA-approved immune checkpoint inhibitor drugs1. Text mining
2. Statistical analysis
EHRs: electronic health records, SRSs: spontaneous reporting systems, ADE: adverse drug event, NLP: natural language processing, FDA: The United States Food and Drug Administration.
Table 4. List of papers for assessing ADR signals and developing reference sets.
Table 4. List of papers for assessing ADR signals and developing reference sets.
AuthorDataObjectiveMethods
Vilar et al. [52]1. EHRsDevelop molecular fingerprint-based models (MFBMs) to strengthen ADE signals generated from EHR data1. NLP
2. Statistical analysis
Coloma et al. [53]1. EHRs
2. SRSs
3. ADE databases
4. Bibliographic databases
Develop and evaluate methods in the EU-ADR project1. Statistical analysis
Crepin et al. [54]1. SRSs
2. Bibliographic databases
3. ADE databases
Review similar reports in pharmacovigilance databases1. Statistical analysis
Benkirane et al. [55]1. SRSsPresent P method (PM) and evaluate its inter-rater reliability1. Statistical analysis
Winnenburg and Shah [56]1. Bibliographic databasesEvaluate how to improve detection of side effects in MeSH1. NLP
2. Statistical analysis
Batel-Marques et al. [57]1. Bibliographic databasesAssess ADEs and their associated costs1. Statistical analysis
Scalfaro et al. [58]1. EHRs
2. SRSs
Evaluate the performance of Pharmacovigilance—Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method (PV-RUCAM)1. Statistical analysis
Caster et al. [59]1. SRSs
2. Social media
Assess the performance of statistical signal detection algorithms established in social media data1. Statistical analysis
Oosterhuis et al. [60]1. Drug information databases
2. ADE databases
Test the validity and reliability of the causality documentation (CausDoc) tool1. Statistical analysis
Lee et al. [61]1. EHRs
2. ADE databases
Development for pharmacovigilance to detect and evaluate ADE signals based on multicenter EHR1. Statistical analysis
EHRs: electronic health records, ADE: adverse drug event, NLP: natural language processing, SRSs: spontaneous reporting systems, EU-ADR: Exploring and Understanding Adverse Drug Reactions, MeSH: Medical Subject Headings.
Table 5. List of papers for monitoring ADR and managing patient safety.
Table 5. List of papers for monitoring ADR and managing patient safety.
AuthorDataObjectiveMethods
Blake et al. [62]1. Drug information databases
2. ADE databases
Provide a broad estimate of the need for pharmacoepidemiologic resources in the European Union (EU)1. Statistical analysis
Ruggiero et al. [63]1. SRSsSystematic collection of more thorough data on the safety of atomoxetine and methylphenidate in pediatric settings1. Statistical analysis
Härmark et al. [64]1. Genetics and biochemical databasesCompare the LIM diabetes population with an external diabetes reference population on characteristics that may influence the patient’s susceptibility for ADEs1. Statistical analysis
Liu et al. [65]1. EHRsExamine the use of retrospective medication orders and inpatient laboratory results documented in the EHR1. Statistical analysis
Pal et al. [66]1. SRSsSupport and strengthen consumer reporting of ADEs and develop methods to complement spontaneous reporting1. Statistical analysis
Layton and Shakir. [67]1. EHRsMonitor, research, and add missing information before drug marketing1. Statistical analysis
Bahk et al. [68]1. SRSs
2. ADE databases
Evaluate the quality of data collected through a MedWatcher1. Statistical analysis
Sarker et al. [69]1. Bibliographic databasesPerform a methodical review to characterize the different approaches to ADEs detection/extraction from social media 1. Text mining
2. NLP
3. Machine learning
4. Statistical analysis
Pierce et al. [70]1. SRSs
2. Social media
Examine whether specific product–adverse event pairs were reported via social media before being reported to FAERS1. Machine learning
2. Statistical analysis
Irving et al. [71]1. EHRs
2. SRSs
Describe the impact of design choices on the practical implementation of pragmatic trials1. Statistical analysis
ADE: adverse drug event, SRSs: spontaneous reporting systems, LIM: lareb intensive monitoring, EHRs: electronic health records, NLP: natural language processing, FAERS: The United States Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Shin, H.; Cha, J.; Lee, C.; Song, H.; Jeong, H.; Kim, J.-Y.; Lee, S. The 2011–2020 Trends of Data-Driven Approaches in Medical Informatics for Active Pharmacovigilance. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 2249. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11052249

AMA Style

Shin H, Cha J, Lee C, Song H, Jeong H, Kim J-Y, Lee S. The 2011–2020 Trends of Data-Driven Approaches in Medical Informatics for Active Pharmacovigilance. Applied Sciences. 2021; 11(5):2249. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11052249

Chicago/Turabian Style

Shin, Hyunah, Jaehun Cha, Chungchun Lee, Hyejin Song, Hyuntae Jeong, Jong-Yeup Kim, and Suehyun Lee. 2021. "The 2011–2020 Trends of Data-Driven Approaches in Medical Informatics for Active Pharmacovigilance" Applied Sciences 11, no. 5: 2249. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11052249

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop