A retrospective analysis of VIOXX in Australia: using clinical trial data and linked administrative health data to predict patient groups at risk of an adverse drug event

Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health (Impact Factor: 1.98). 08/2010; 34(4):431-2. DOI: 10.1111/j.1753-6405.2009.00579.x
Source: PubMed
Download full-text


Available from: Margaret Whitstock,
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Primary care is computerized with routine data recorded at the point or care. Secondary use of these data includes: genetic study, epidemiology and clinical trials. However, there are relatively few international studies. To identify the concepts that might predict readiness to collaborate in international research using routinely collected primary care data Literature review and data gathering exercise, from international Primary Care Informatics working group workshops, and email modified Delphi exercise. To establish whether primary care data are fit for use in a collaborative study information is needed at the micro-, meso-, and macro-level. At the micro- or data level we need to use documented standards for interoperability, computerized records, to facilitate linkage of data. At the meso-level we need to understand the nature of the electronic patient record (EPR) and specific study requirements. At the macro-level: health system, social and cultural context constrain what data are available. The framework defines the information needed at the point of expression of interest, and joining a study. The initial assessment of readiness should be by self-assessment followed by an in depth appraisal more immediately prior to the start of the study. Finally, a sensitivity analysis should be conducted to test the robustness of the data model. The literature focuses on technical issues: interoperability, EPR and modeling; the workshops on socio-cultural and organizational. This framework will form the basis for developing a survey instrument of the initial assessment of readiness for collaboration in international research.
    Studies in health technology and informatics 01/2011; 165:135-40. DOI:10.3233/978-1-60750-735-2-135
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The retrospective comparison of test and reference treatment arms in a randomized prospective clinical trial is potentially useful in economic modeling seeking to assess the cost effectiveness of alternative therapies. To enhance the credibility of such retrospective comparisons, we propose the application of the following adjustments to significance levels obtained from standard statistical methodology: (1) a significance test for the lower bound of the 95 % confidence interval for the observed difference, (2) a conservative Bonferroni method of adjustment for multiple comparisons, (3) an adjusted p-value calculated using Scheffe's single-step method, and (4) Bayesian 95 % credibility intervals with a prior centered at zero. These adjustments were applied to data from a randomized double-blind concurrent trial (SPD489-325) that established the efficacy and safety of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Prospectively planned analyses demonstrated that the reduction in the symptoms of ADHD was significantly greater than placebo in patients treated with either LDX or the reference treatment, osmotic-release oral system methylphenidate (OROS-MPH). Retrospective analyses showed that the improvement in the symptoms of ADHD was greater in patients treated with LDX than OROS-MPH. We now show that this observation remained significant after the application of the four statistical penalties. By adjusting the significance level, it is possible to compare quantitatively such retrospective results with prospectively defined comparisons. However, the qualitative level of such retrospective evidence should remain secondary to that obtained from prospectively specified comparisons in a randomized clinical trial.
    Clinical Drug Investigation 12/2014; 35(2). DOI:10.1007/s40261-014-0263-5 · 1.56 Impact Factor