Search

Postmarket safety surveillance is an integral part of mass vaccination programs. Typically relying on sequential analysis of real-world health data as they accrue, safety surveillance is challenged by sequential multiple testing and by biases induced by residual confounding in observational data. The current standard approach based on the maximized sequential probability ratio test (MaxSPRT) fails to satisfactorily address these practical challenges and it remains a rigid framework that requires prespecification of the surveillance schedule. We develop an alternative Bayesian surveillance procedure that addresses both aforementioned challenges using a more flexible framework. To mitigate bias, we jointly analyze a large set of negative control outcomes that are adverse events with no known association with the vaccines in order to inform an empirical bias distribution, which we then incorporate into estimating the effect of vaccine exposure on the adverse event of interest through a Bayesian hierarchical model. To address multiple testing and improve on flexibility, at each analysis timepoint, we update a posterior probability in favor of the alternative hypothesis that vaccination induces higher risks of adverse events, and then use it for sequential detection of safety signals. Through an empirical evaluation using six US observational healthcare databases covering more than 360 million patients, we benchmark the proposed procedure against MaxSPRT on testing errors and estimation accuracy, under two epidemiological designs, the historical comparator and the self-controlled case series. We demonstrate that our procedure substantially reduces Type 1 error rates, maintains high statistical power and fast signal detection, and provides considerably more accurate estimation than MaxSPRT. Given the extensiveness of the empirical study which yields more than 7 million sets of results, we present all results in a public R ShinyApp. As an effort to promote open science, we provide full implementation of our method in the open-source R package EvidenceSynthesis., (© 2023 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The case-control design is widely used in retrospective database studies, often leading to spectacular findings. However, results of these studies often cannot be replicated, and the advantage of this design over others is questionable. To demonstrate the shortcomings of applications of this design, we replicate two published case-control studies. The first investigates isotretinoin and ulcerative colitis using a simple case-control design. The second focuses on dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and acute pancreatitis, using a nested case-control design. We include large sets of negative control exposures (where the true odds ratio is believed to be 1) in both studies. Both replication studies produce effect size estimates consistent with the original studies, but also generate estimates for the negative control exposures showing substantial residual bias. In contrast, applying a self-controlled design to answer the same questions using the same data reveals far less bias. Although the case-control design in general is not at fault, its application in retrospective database studies, where all exposure and covariate data for the entire cohort are available, is unnecessary, as other alternatives such as cohort and self-controlled designs are available. Moreover, by focusing on cases and controls it opens the door to inappropriate comparisons between exposure groups, leading to confounding for which the design has few options to adjust for. We argue that this design should no longer be used in these types of data. At the very least, negative control exposures should be used to prove that the concerns raised here do not apply., (© 2019 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Often the literature makes assertions of medical product effects on the basis of ' p < 0.05'. The underlying premise is that at this threshold, there is only a 5% probability that the observed effect would be seen by chance when in reality there is no effect. In observational studies, much more than in randomized trials, bias and confounding may undermine this premise. To test this premise, we selected three exemplar drug safety studies from literature, representing a case-control, a cohort, and a self-controlled case series design. We attempted to replicate these studies as best we could for the drugs studied in the original articles. Next, we applied the same three designs to sets of negative controls: drugs that are not believed to cause the outcome of interest. We observed how often p < 0.05 when the null hypothesis is true, and we fitted distributions to the effect estimates. Using these distributions, we compute calibrated p-values that reflect the probability of observing the effect estimate under the null hypothesis, taking both random and systematic error into account. An automated analysis of scientific literature was performed to evaluate the potential impact of such a calibration. Our experiment provides evidence that the majority of observational studies would declare statistical significance when no effect is present. Empirical calibration was found to reduce spurious results to the desired 5% level. Applying these adjustments to literature suggests that at least 54% of findings with p < 0.05 are not actually statistically significant and should be reevaluated., (© 2013 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Expanded availability of observational healthcare data (both administrative claims and electronic health records) has prompted the development of statistical methods for identifying adverse events associated with medical products, but the operating characteristics of these methods when applied to the real-world data are unknown., Methods: We studied the performance of eight analytic methods for estimating of the strength of association-relative risk (RR) and associated standard error of 53 drug-adverse event outcome pairs, both positive and negative controls. The methods were applied to a network of ten observational healthcare databases, comprising over 130 million lives. Performance measures included sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of methods at RR thresholds achieving statistical significance of p < 0.05 or p < 0.001 and with absolute threshold RR > 1.5, as well as threshold-free measures such as area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC)., Results: Although no specific method demonstrated superior performance, the aggregate results provide a benchmark and baseline expectation for risk identification method performance. At traditional levels of statistical significance (RR > 1, p < 0.05), all methods have a false positive rate >18%, with positive predictive value <38%. The best predictive model, high-dimensional propensity score, achieved an AUC  =  0.77. At 50% sensitivity, false positive rate ranged from 16% to 30%. At 10% false positive rate, sensitivity of the methods ranged from 9% to 33%., Conclusions: Systematic processes for risk identification can provide useful information to supplement an overall safety assessment, but assessment of methods performance suggests a substantial chance of identifying false positive associations., (Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)