Detecting Rare Adverse Events in Postmarketing Studies: Sample Size Considerations

Abstract

Identifying causal relationships between drugs and rare but serious/irreversible adverse events is an increasingly important issue in postmarketing studies. The observational cohort study is among the most rigorous and appropriate class of designs when it is unfeasible to conduct prospective, randomized clinical trials. A new class of hybrid designs is described in this article; this class uses external data such as established databases or pre-NDA (New Drug Application) data. These designs are intended to achieve the ideal of detecting associations between the drug and rare adverse events and have a moderate sample size requirement to reach safety decisions more quickly. A new sample size formula based on the Poisson distribution is developed for a design in which the incidence of adverse events for subjects treated with the compound is compared to an external control cohort not receiving the compound under study. The results provide direct evidence for a reduction in sample size with the incorporation of external controls.

Keywords

Postmarketing study Adverse drug reaction Two-group prospective cohort study Sample size External control

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Meyboom

RHB

. Good practice in the post-marketing surveillance of medicines. Pharm World Sci. 1997;19:186–190.

Lazarou

Pomeranz

Corey

. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. JAMA 1998;279:1200–1205.

CDER 2003 report to the nation. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/cder/reports/RTN2003.pdf. July 2004.

Glazner

. Adverse drug reactions. In: Melmon

Morrelli

Hoffman

Nierenberg

, eds. Clinical Pharmacology: Basic Principles in Therapeutics, 3rd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 1992:977–1011.

US Food and Drug Administration Concept Paper: Risk Assessment of Observational Data: Good Pharmacovigilance Practices and Pharmacoepidemiologic Assessment. March 3, 2003. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/cder/meeting/riskManageIII.htm.

Fletcher

. Spontaneous adverse drug reaction reporting versus event monitoring: a comparison. J R Soc Med. 1991;84:341–344.

Finney

. Statistical aspects of monitoring for dangers in drug therapy. Methods In J Med. 1971;10:1–8.

Goldman

. Limitations and strengths of spontaneous reports data. Clin Ther. Suppl C. 1998;20: 40–44.

Green

. Pre-existing conditions, placebo reactions, and “side-effects.“ Ann Intern Med. 1964;60:255–265.

10.

Reidenberg

Lowenthal

. Adverse nondrug reactions. N Engl J Med. 1968;279:678–679.

11.

Scott

Rosenbaum

Waters

. Rhode Island physicians reporting of adverse drug reactions. R I Med J 1987;70:311–336.

12.

Sachs

Bortnichak

. An evaluation of spontaneous adverse drug reaction monitoring systems. Am J Med. 1986:81 (suppl 5B):49–55.

13.

Begaud

Moride

Tubert-Bitter

. False-positives in spontaneous reporting: should we worry about them? Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1994;38: 401–404.

14.

Joint Committee of ABPI, BMA, CSM and RCGR. Guidelines on postmarketing surveillance. BMJ. 1988;296:399–400.

15.

Waller

Wood

Langman

MJS

Breckenridge

Rawlins

. Review of company postmarketing surveillance studies. BMJ. 1992;304: 1470–1472.

16.

Guidelines for company-sponsored Safety Assessment of Marketed Medicines (SAMM guidelines). Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1994;38:95–97.

17.

Pocock

. The combination of randomized and historical controls in clinical trials. J Chronic Dis. 1976;29:175–188.

18.

Makuch

Simon

. Sample size consideration for non-randomized comparative studies. J Chronic Dis. 1980;33:175–181.

19.

Thall

Simon

. Incorporating historical control data in planning phase II clinical trials. Stat Med. 1990;9:215–228.

20.

O'Malley

Normand

S-LT

Kuntz

. Sample size calculation for a historically controlled clinical trial with adjustment for covariates. J Biopharm Stat. 2002;12:227–247.

21.

Tubert-Bitter

Begaud

Moride

Abenhaim

. Sample size calculations for single groups postmarketing cohort studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 1994;47:435–439.

22.

Gail

. Power computations for designing comparative Poisson trials. Biometrics. 1974;30: 231–237.

23.

Shiue

W-K

Bain

. Experiment size and power comparisons for two-sample Poisson tests. Appl Stat. 1982;31:130–134.

24.

Thode

. Power and sample size requirements for tests of differences between two Poisson rates. Statistician. 1997;46:227–230.