Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Signal Detection

Historical Background

  • Conference Paper
  • Published:
Drug Safety Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A primary aim in pharmacovigilance is the timely detection of either new adverse drug reactions (ADRs) or a relevant change of the frequency of ADRs that are already known to be associated with the drugs involved, i.e. signal detection. Adequate signal detection solely based on the human intellect (case-by-case analysis or qualitative signal detection) has proven its value. However, it is becoming increasingly time consuming given the growing volume of data, as well as less effective, especially in more complex associations, such as drug-drug interactions, syndromes and when various covariates are involved. In quantitative signal detection, measures that express the extent in which combinations of drug(s) and clinical event(s) are disproportionately present in the database of reported suspected ADRs are used to reveal associations of interest. Although the rationale and the methodology of the various quantitative approaches differ, they all share the characteristic in that they express to what extent the number of observed cases differs from the number of expected cases.

Recent years have shown that the use of quantitative measures in addition to qualitative analysis is a step forward in signal detection in pharmacovigilance.

This paper uses historical, classic examples and studies to illustrate the principles, pros and cons of especially quantitative methods in signal detection and adds a flavour of future perspective.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Edwards IR, Lindquist M, Wiholm B-E, et al. Quality criteria for early signals of possible adverse drug reactions. Lancet 1990; 336(8708): 156–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Venning GR. Identification of adverse reactions to new drugs. I: what have been the important adverse reactions since thalidomide? Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1983; 286(6360): 199–202

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Venning GR. Identification of adverse reactions to new drugs. II: how were 18 important adverse reactions discovered and with what delays? Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1983; 286(6361): 289–92

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Venning GR. Identification of adverse reactions to new drugs. II (continued): how were 18 important adverse reactions discovered and with what delays? Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1983; 286(6362): 365–8

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Venning GR. Identification of adverse reactions to new drugs. III: alerting processes and early warning systems. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1983; 286(6363): 458–60

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Venning GR. Validity of anecdotal reports of suspected adverse drug reactions: the problem of false alarms. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1982; 284(6311): 249–52

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Venning GR. Identification of adverse reactions to new drugs. IV: verification of suspected adverse reactions. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1983; 286(6364): 544–7

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Finney DJ. The design and logic of a monitor of drug use. J Chronic Dis 1965; 18: 77–98

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Mcbride WG. Thalidomide and congenital abnormalities. Lancet 1961; 278(7216): 1358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Napke E. Canada. In: Inman WHW, editor. Monitoring for drug safety. Lancaster: MTP Press, 1986: 65–6

    Google Scholar 

  11. van Puijenbroek EP, Bate A, Leufkens HG, et al. A comparison of measures of disproportionality for signal detection in spontaneous reporting systems for adverse drug reactions. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2002; 11(1): 3–10

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. De Bruin ML, Pettersson M, Meyboom RHB, et al. Anti-HERG activity and the risk of drug-induced arrhythmias and sudden death. Eur Heart J 2005; 26(6): 590–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Egberts TCG, Smulders M, De Koning FHP, et al. Can adverse drug reactions be detected earlier? A comparison of reports by patients and professionals. Br Med J 1996; 313(7056): 530–1

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Russmann S, Kaye J, Jick S, et al. Risk of cholestatic liver disease associated with flucloxacillin and flucloxacillin prescribing habits in the UK: Cohort study using data from the UK General Practice Research Database. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2005; 60(1): 76–82

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this paper. The author has no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, PO Box 80082, 3508, TB Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Toine C. G. Egberts

  2. Department of Clinical Pharmacy, University Medical Centre, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Toine C. G. Egberts

Authors
  1. Toine C. G. Egberts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Toine C. G. Egberts.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Egberts, T.C.G. Signal Detection. Drug-Safety 30, 607–609 (2007). https://doi.org/10.2165/00002018-200730070-00006

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00002018-200730070-00006

Keywords

Search

Navigation