Mechanism-based simulation of comparator selection in pharmacovigilance signal detection

Sophia B. Modi; Sunil Kumar Gopalakrishnan Nair

doi:10.18203/2319-2003.ijbcp20264231

Authors

Sophia B. Modi Department of Pharmacology, GMC, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9921-6631
Sunil Kumar Gopalakrishnan Nair Department of Pharmacology, GMC, Idukki, Kerala, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2319-2003.ijbcp20264231

Keywords:

Pharmacovigilance, Disproportionality, Masking, Comparators, Confounding, Signal detection, Simulation

Abstract

Background: Reference set choice can influence automated disproportionality analysis of spontaneous reporting data. Active comparators may reduce confounding by indication but can increase susceptibility to masking and reporting differences. This study examined comparator effects under different clinical and reporting conditions.

Methods: A controlled simulation separately modelled event generation, reporting, and analysis. Full-data, active-comparator, and class-exclusion reference sets were compared across nine prespecified scenarios involving confounding by indication, masking, differential reporting, and their combinations. Each scenario included 5,000 Monte Carlo replicates. The primary outcome was the pairwise difference in mean log-ROR. Sensitivity analyses examined comparator similarity, while exploratory analyses assessed masking intensity and consistency using PRR and BCPNN. A published FAERS analysis provided an illustrative external comparison.

Results: Under masking, mean RORs were 1.481, 0.759, and 1.933 for full-data, active, and class-exclusion comparators, respectively. The active versus full difference in mean log ROR was −0.670. Under combined confounding and masking, corresponding RORs were 1.543, 0.771, and 2.331, with a difference of −0.696. With confounding alone (true OR=1.0), the active comparator reduced mean ROR from 1.126 to 1.008. Findings were consistent across comparator similarity levels and with PRR and BCPNN.

Conclusions: Comparator effects depended on the underlying conditions. Active comparators reduced distortion from confounding by indication but could lower disproportionality estimates when masking occurred. Comparator selection should therefore consider the clinical and reporting factors that shape spontaneous reporting data rather than assume active comparators are always preferable.

Author Biography

Sunil Kumar Gopalakrishnan Nair, Department of Pharmacology, GMC, Idukki, Kerala, India

Associate Professor

References

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

Rothman KJ, Lanes S, Sacks ST. The reporting odds ratio and its advantages over the proportional reporting ratio. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2004;13:519-23.

van Puijenbroek EP, Bate A, Leufkens HGM, Lindquist M, Orre R, Egberts ACG. A comparison of measures of disproportionality for signal detection in spontaneous reporting systems for adverse drug reactions. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2002;11:3-10.

Cutroneo PM, Sartori D, Tuccori M, Crisafulli S, Battini V, Carnovale C, et al. Conducting and interpreting disproportionality analyses derived from spontaneous reporting systems. Front Drug Saf Regul. 2024;3:1323057.

Moore N, Hall G, Sturkenboom M, Mann R, Lagnaoui R, Bégaud B. Biases affecting the proportional reporting ratio (PRR) in spontaneous reports pharmacovigilance databases: the example of sertindole. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2003;12(4):271-81.

Gravel CA, Douros A. Considerations on the use of different comparators in pharmacovigilance: a methodological review. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2023;89:2671-6.

Gravel CA, Bai W, Douros A. Comparators in pharmacovigilance: a quasi-quantification bias analysis. Drug Saf. 2024;47:809-19.

Alkabbani W, Gamble JM. Active-comparator restricted disproportionality analysis for pharmacovigilance signal detection studies of chronic disease medications: an example using sodium/glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2023;89:431-9.

Maignen F, Hauben M, Hung E, Van Holle L, Dogné JM. A conceptual approach to the masking effect of measures of disproportionality. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2014;23:208-17.

Maignen F, Hauben M, Dogné JM. A mathematical framework to quantify the masking effect associated with the confidence intervals of measures of disproportionality. Ther Adv Drug Saf. 2017;8:231-44.

Bai W, Douros A, Gravel CA. Masking in active comparator designs in pharmacovigilance: a retrospective bias analysis on the spontaneous reporting of thiazolidinediones and cardiovascular events. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2025;34(1).

Hoffman KB, Demakas AR, Dimbil M, Tatonetti NP, Erdman CB. Stimulated reporting: the impact of US Food and Drug Administration-issued alerts on the adverse event reporting system (FAERS). Drug Saf. 2014;37:971-80.

de Boissieu P, Kanagaratnam L, Abou Taam M, Roux MP, Dramé M, Trenque T. Notoriety bias in a database of spontaneous reports: the example of osteonecrosis of the jaw under bisphosphonate therapy in the French national pharmacovigilance database. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2014;23:989-92.

Reddy N, Subeesh V, Beulah E, Nair G, Maheswari E. Existence of notoriety bias in FDA Adverse Event Reporting System database and its impact on signal strength. Hosp Pharm. 2021;56:152-8.

Scosyrev E, Behr S, Jain D, Ponnuru A, Michel C. Disproportionality analysis and causal inference in drug safety. Pharm Med. 2025;39:97-107.

Fusaroli M, Mitchell J, Rudolph A, Rocca E, Fusaroli R. Causal inference tools for pharmacovigilance: using causal graphs to identify and address biases in disproportionality analysis. Drug Saf. 2026;49(4):449-69.

Khouri C, Revol B, Lepelley M, et al. A meta-epidemiological study found lack of transparency and poor reporting of disproportionality analyses for signal detection in pharmacovigilance databases. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;139:191-8.

Fusaroli M, Salvo F, Begaud B, AlShammari TM, Bate A, Battini V, et al. The REporting of A Disproportionality Analysis for DrUg Safety Signal Detection Using Individual Case Safety Reports in PharmacoVigilance (READUS-PV): explanation and elaboration. Drug Saf. 2024;47(6):585-99.