Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Mapping the Safety Profile of Biologicals

A Disproportionality Analysis Using the WHO Adverse Drug Reaction Database, VigiBase

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
Drug Safety Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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: 19 1004 case reports containing 546474 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-β-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.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Table I
Table II

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Crommelin DJ, Storm G, Verrijk R, et al. Shifting paradigms: biopharmaceuticals versus low molecular weight drugs. Int J Pharm 2003 Nov; 266(1–2): 3–16

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Schellekens H. How similar do ‘biosimilars’ need to be? Nat Biotechnol 2004 Nov; 22(11): 1357–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Brennan FR, Shaw L, Wing MG, et al. Preclinical safety testing of biotechnology-derived pharmaceuticals: understanding the issues and addressing the challenges. Mol Biotechnol 2004 May; 27(1): 59–74

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Giezen TJ, Mantel-Teeuwisse AK, Leufkens HG. Pharmacovigilance of biopharmaceuticals: challenges remain. Drug Saf 2009 Oct; 32(10): 811–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Giezen TJ, Mantel-Teeuwisse AK, Straus SMJM, et al. Evaluation of post-authorization safety studies in the first cohort of EU risk management plans at time of regulatory approval. Drug Saf 2009 Dec; 32(12): 1175–87

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Stricker BH, Psaty BM. Detection, verification, and quantification of adverse drug reactions. BMJ 2004 Jul; 329(7456): 44–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Giezen TJ, Mantel-Teeuwisse AK, Straus SM, et al. JAMA 2008 Oct; 300(16): 1887–96

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Lasser KE, Allen PD, Woolhandler SJ, et al. Timing of new black box warnings and withdrawals for prescription medications. JAMA 2002 May; 287(17): 2215–20

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bakke OM, Manocchia M, de Abajo F, et al. Drug safety discontinuations in the United Kingdom, the United States, and Spain from 1974 through 1993: a regulatory perspective. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1995 Jul; 58(1): 108–17

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Meyboom RHB, Gribnau FWJ, Hekster YA, et al. Characteristics of topics in pharmacovigilance in The Netherlands. Clin Drug Invest 1996; 12: 207–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. European Commission. Volume 9A of the rules governing medicinal products in the European Union: guideline on pharmacovigilance for medicinal products for human use [online]. Available from URL: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/pharmaceuticals/eudralex/vol-9/pdf/vol9a_09-2008.pdf [Accessed 2009 Dec 22]

  12. Hazell L, Shakir SA. Under-reporting of adverse drug reactions: a systematic review. Drug Saf 2006 May; 29(5): 385–96

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Meyboom RH, Egberts AC, Gribnau FW, et al. Pharmacovigilance in perspective. Drug Saf 1999 Dec; 21(6): 429–47

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Keane J, Gershon S, Wise RP, et al. Tuberculosis associated with infliximab, a tumor necrosis factor alpha-neutralizing agent. N Engl J Med 2001 Oct; 345(15): 1098–104

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Jacobs JW, Creemers MC, van Agtmael MA, et al. TNF-blocking drugs and infection: recommendations for daily practice. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 2007 Mar; 151(10): 588–93

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Martin-Mola E, Balsa A. Infectious complications of biologic agents. Rheum Dis Clin North Am 2009 Feb; 35(1): 183–99

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Nijsten T, Spuls PI, Naldi L, et al. The misperception that clinical trial data reflect long-term drug safety. Arch Dermatol 2009 Sep; 145(9): 1037–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Uppsala Monitoring Centre [online]. Available from URL: http://www.who-umc.org [Accessed 2010 May 4]

  19. Commission of European Communities. Commission Directive 2003/63/EC of 25 June 2003 amending Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use [online]. Available from URL: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2003:159:0046:0094:EN:PDF [Accessed 2010 May 4]

  20. National Cancer Institute [online]. Available from URL: http://www.cancer.gov [Accessed 2010 May 4]

  21. Pichler WJ. Adverse side-effects to biological agents. Allergy 2006 Aug; 61(8): 912–20

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Bate A, Evans SJ. Quantitative signal detection using spontaneous ADR reporting. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2009 Jun; 18(6): 427–36

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Evans SJW, Waller PC, Davis S. Use of proportional reporting ratios (PRR) for signal generation from spontaneous adverse drug reaction reports. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2001 Oct–Nov; 10(6): 483–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Huggett B, Hodgson J, Lahteenmaki R. Public biotech 2008: the numbers. Nat Biotechnol 2009 Aug; 27(8): 710–21

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Lawrence S. Billion dollar babies: biotech drugs as blockbusters. Nat Biotechnol 2007 Apr; 25(4): 380–2

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Listing J, Strangfeld A, Kary S, et al. Infections in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with biologic agents. Arthritis Rheum 2005 Nov; 52(11): 3403–12

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Strangfeld A, Listing J, Herzer P, et al. Risk of herpes zoster in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with anti-TNF-alpha agents. JAMA 2009 Feb; 301(7): 737–44

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Banks WA. Characteristics of compounds that cross the blood-brain barrier. BMC Neurol 2009 Feb; 9 Suppl. I: S3–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Meyboom RH, Star K, Bate J, et al. TNF-α inhibitors and leukaemia: international pharmacovigilance reports. Drug Saf 2008 May; 31(5): 445–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Hamilton CD. Infectious complications of treatment with biologic agents. Curr Opin Rheumatol 2004 Jul; 16(4): 393–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Imperato AK, Smiles S, Abramson SB. Long-term risks associated with biologic response modifiers used in rheumatic diseases. Curr Opin Rheumatol 2004 May; 16(3): 199–205 878

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Boren EJ, Cheema GS, Naguwa SM, et al. The emergence of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML) in rheumatic diseases. J Autoimmun 2008 Feb–Mar; 30(1–2): 90–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Leader B, Baca QJ, Golan DE. Protein therapeutics: a summary and pharmacological classification. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2008 Jan; 7(1): 21–39

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. European Medicines Agency. European public assessment report MabThera [online]. Available from URL: http://www.emea.europa.eu/humandocs/PDFs/EPAR/Mabthera/025998en6.pdf [Accessed 2009 Dec 22]

  35. Norén GB, Bate A. Johansson K. et al. Duplicate detection in the WHO adverse drug reaction database [online]. Available from URL: http://www.who-umc.org/graphics/9717.pdf [Accessed 2010 Apr 20]

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht University, P.O. Box 80082, 3508 TB, Utrecht, the Netherlands

    Thijs J. Giezen,  Aukje K. Mantel-Teeuwisse, Ronald H.B. Meyboom, Hubert G.M. Leufkens & Toine C.G. Egberts

  2. Medicines Evaluation Board, The Hague, the Netherlands

    Thijs J. Giezen,  Aukje K. Mantel-Teeuwisse, Sabine M.J.M. Straus & Hubert G.M. Leufkens

  3. WHO Collaborating Centre for International Drug Monitoring, Uppsala Monitoring Centre, Uppsala, Sweden

    Ronald H.B. Meyboom

  4. Department of Clinical Pharmacy, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands

    Toine C.G. Egberts

Authors
  1. Thijs J. Giezen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Aukje K. Mantel-Teeuwisse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ronald H.B. Meyboom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sabine M.J.M. Straus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hubert G.M. Leufkens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Toine C.G. Egberts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aukje K. Mantel-Teeuwisse.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Giezen, T.J., Mantel-Teeuwisse, A.K., Meyboom, R.H. et al. Mapping the Safety Profile of Biologicals. Drug-Safety 33, 865–878 (2010). https://doi.org/10.2165/11538330-000000000-00000

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/11538330-000000000-00000

Keywords

Search

Navigation