Within pharmacovigilance, knowledge of time-to-onset (time from start of drug administration to onset of reaction) is important in causality assessment of drugs and suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and may indicate pharmacological mechanisms involved. It has been suggested that time-to-onset from individual case reports can be used for detection of safety signals. However, some ADRs only occur during treatment, while those that do occur later are less likely to be reported. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of treatment duration on the reported time-to-onset. Case reports from the WHO Global ICSR database, VigiBase, up until February 5th 2010 were the basis of this study. To examine the effect of duration of treatment on reported time-to-onset, angioedema and hepatitis were selected to represent short and long latency ADRs, respectively. The reported time-to-onset for each of these ADRs was contrasted for a set of drugs expected to be used short- or long-term, respectively. The study included 2,980 unique reports for angioedema and 1,159 for hepatitis. Median reported time-to-onset for angioedema in short-term treatments ranged 0-1 days (median 0.5), for angioedema in long-term treatments 0-26 days (median 8), for hepatitis in short-term treatments 4-12 days (median 7.5) and for hepatitis in long term treatments 19-73 days (median 28). Short-term treatments presented significantly shorter reported time-to-onset than long-term treatments. Of note is that reported time-to-onset for angioedema for long-term treatments (median value of medians being 8 days) was very similar to that of hepatitis for short-term treatments (median value of medians equal 7.5 days). The expected duration of treatment needs to be considered in the interpretation of reported time-to-onset and should be accounted for in signal detection method development and case evaluation.
References
[1]
Maignen F, Hauben M, Tsintis P (2010) Modelling the time to onset of adverse reactions with parametric survival distributions: a potential approach to signal detection and evaluation. Drug Saf 33: 417-434. doi:10.2165/11532850-000000000-00000. PubMed: 20397741.
[2]
Van Holle L, Zeinoun Z, Bauchau V, Verstraeten T (2012) Using time-to-onset for detecting safety signals in spontaneous reports of adverse events following immunization: a proof of concept study. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 21: 603-610. doi:10.1002/pds.3226. PubMed: 22383219.
[3]
Klepper MJ, Edwards B (2011) Individual case safety reports--how to determine the onset date of an adverse reaction: a survey. Drug Saf 34: 299-305. doi:10.2165/11588490-000000000-00000. PubMed: 21417502.
[4]
Lindquist M 2008) Vigibase, the WHO Global ICSR Database System: Basic Facts. Drug Information Journal 42: 409-419.
[5]
Med DRA - the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities. The MSSO - Maintenance and Support Services Organization. Available: . http://meddramsso.com/ . Accessed: 13 May 2013.
[6]
Grigoriadou S, Longhurst HJ (2009) Clinical Immunology Review Series: An approach to the patient with angio-oedema. Clin Exp Immunol 155: 367-377. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2249.2008.03845.x. PubMed: 19220828.
Roth RA, Ganey PE (2010) Intrinsic versus idiosyncratic drug-induced hepatotoxicity--two villains or one? J Pharmacol Exp Ther 332: 692-697. doi:10.1124/jpet.109.162651. PubMed: 20019161.
[9]
Abboud G, Kaplowitz N (2007) Drug-induced liver injury. Drug Saf 30: 277-294. doi:10.2165/00002018-200730040-00001. PubMed: 17408305.
[10]
Gunawan B, Kaplowitz N (2004) Clinical perspectives on xenobiotic-induced hepatotoxicity. Drug Metab Rev 36: 301-312. doi:10.1081/DMR-120034148. PubMed: 15237856.
[11]
Lammert C, Einarsson S, Saha C, Niklasson A, Bjornsson E et al. (2008) Relationship between daily dose of oral medications and idiosyncratic drug-induced liver injury: search for signals. Hepatology 47: 2003-2009. doi:10.1002/hep.22272. PubMed: 18454504.
[12]
Uetrecht J (2007) Idiosyncratic drug reactions: current understanding. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 47: 513-539. doi:10.1146/annurev.pharmtox.47.120505.10515?0. PubMed: 16879083.
[13]
Chalasani N, Fontana RJ, Bonkovsky HL, Watkins PB, Davern T et al. (2008) Causes, clinical features, and outcomes from a prospective study of drug-induced liver injury in the United States. Gastroenterology 135: 1924-1934, 1934 e1921-1924. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2008.09.011. . PubMed : 18955056.
[14]
Chun LJ, Tong MJ, Busuttil RW, Hiatt JR (2009) Acetaminophen hepatotoxicity and acute liver failure. J Clin Gastroenterol 43: 342-349. doi:10.1097/MCG.0b013e31818a3854. PubMed: 19169150.
[15]
Fescharek R, Kubler J, Elasser U, Frank M, Guthlein P (2004) Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA): Data retrieval and presentation. Int J Pharm Med 18: 259-269. doi:10.2165/00124363-200418050-00001.
[16]
DRUGDEX? System [Internet database] Updated periodically. Greenwood Village, Colo: Thomson Reuters (Healthcare) Inc.
[17]
Norén GN, Orre R, Bate A, Edwards IR (2007) Duplicate detection in adverse drug reaction surveillance. Data Min Knowl Discov 14: 305-328. doi:10.1007/s10618-006-0052-8.
[18]
R CT (2013) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing . Available: . http://www.R-project.org . Accessed: 3 January 2013.
[19]
Wilcoxon F (1945) Individual Comparisons by Ranking Methods. Biometr Bull 1: 80-83. doi:10.2307/3001968.
[20]
Mann HB, Whitney DR (1947) On a test of whether one of two random variales is stochastically larger than the other. Ann Math Statist 18: 50-60. doi:10.1214/aoms/1177730491.