Algorithm Reveals Drug Side Effects, Interactions

Scientists have found a way to sift through reports of medication problems to identify accurate side effects.

Clinical trials are designed to show that a drug is safe and effective. However, even the largest trials cannot identify troublesome or even lethal side effects experienced by only a small percentage of those individuals taking the drug. Moreover, they are not designed to examine how drugs interact with one another in the human body--a consideration that becomes increasingly important as people age and their medicine cabinets begin to overflow.

Now researchers from Stanford University School of Medicine (Stanford, CA, USA) have devised a computer algorithm that enabled them to quickly sort through millions of reports to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) by patients and their physicians and identify “true” drug side effects. The method also worked to identify previously unsuspected interactions between pairs of pharmaceutical agents, most particularly antidepressants called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) interact with a common blood pressure medication to significantly increase the risk of a potentially deadly heart condition.

The research, which includes a list detailing several dozen of the most pronounced drug interactions, was published March 14, 2012, in the journal Science Translational Medicine. Russ Altman, MD, PhD, a professor of bioengineering, of genetics and of medicine at Stanford, is the senior author of the research, and graduate student Nicholas Tatonetti is the first author.

“The average 70-year-old is taking seven different prescription medications,” said Dr. Altman. “The FDA has a database for patients and physicians to report possible adverse drug events, but it’s very difficult to uncover true side effects because people vary in their medical histories, conditions and drug regimens, as well as in age, gender, and environment. Some researchers have gone so far as to say, ‘No one will ever get useful information out of all of this data.’”

Although the FDA has its adverse event reporting system (AERS) for physicians, patients, and drug manufacturers to use after the agency has approved an agent, many of the more than four million reports in the database are little more than anecdotal--there is no way to tell whether the fever, rash, seizure, dizziness, or other unwelcome reaction was a true side effect of the drug, a result of a combination of medications or even a simple coincidence of circumstance (perhaps the patient had a cold or other undiagnosed medical condition at the time of the event).

Dr. Tatonetti developed a way to run a kind of case control study within the data, correlating groups of people who were as alike as possible, with the exception of one drug variable--for instance, a hypertension medication. If considerably more of the people on the drug reported an adverse event, such as headaches or vomiting, than did those who were not taking the drug, it is likely that the medication was indeed the cause. A similar technique can be used to assess the effects of pairs of drugs.

“It sounds obvious, but it’s a nifty statistical way to eliminate bias,” said Dr. Altman. “And we found that the more things you can match between the groups, like other drugs the people have in common, the more likely you are to also unintentionally match for variables you may not have even thought about but that may affect the result.”

If patients are on an antidepressant, you know they are more likely to be female, explained Mr. Tatonetti. If they are also taking a statin, you know they may have a high-fat diet, he added. If they have been prescribed medication for an enlarged prostate, you know they are male. “By matching up as many of these variables as possible, we’re also controlling for gender, age, diet, and many other things that may not be directly included in the FDA database,” he said. “This increases the predictive power of the technique.”

The investigators employed the technique on the database from the FDA’s adverse event reporting system to discover earlier unidentified side effects and drug interactions. They then tested their predictions by analyzing the electronic health records (EHRs) of patients at Stanford Hospital & Clinics. They validated that 47 new drug interactions identified in the AERS study held true when analyzing the records of “real” patients. Specifically, patients receiving both an SSRI and a type of blood pressure medication called thiazides were more likely (9.3%) to exhibit prolonged QT intervals on an electrocardiogram than patients taking either medication alone (4.8% vs 6.5%, respectively). Prolonged QT intervals are associated with increased incidences of spontaneous arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death.

The researchers have created two publicly available databases of their work, named OFFSIDES and TWOSIDES, respectively. Up to now, the OFFSIDES database includes an average of 329 new adverse events for each of the 1,332 drugs included in the system. (The average number of adverse events listed on a drug’s package insert is 69.) The TWOSIDES database identifies 1,301 adverse events, resulting from an analysis of 59,220 pairs of drugs that cannot be clearly assigned to either drug alone.

“This is a testament to the value of huge data sets,” said Dr. Altman. “They allow us to throw out a lot of cases. When you start with millions of pieces of information, you can be pretty rigorous about weeding out those that don’t match. And if you can arrive at even just a few hundred well-matched cases that can give a good statistical comparison.”

In addition to helping physicians to better customize prescriptions for their patients, the database can also further drug discovery efforts by identifying medications with similar side effects. Earlier research has shown that drugs with similar side effects may affect the same biologic pathway, and may be useful for more than one clinical indication. For example, diazepam (Valium) and zolpidem (Ambien) share similar side effects and act on seven of the same protein targets, even though they’re usually prescribed for different conditions.

“We’re interested in understanding the biological effects of drugs in the body,” said Mr. Tatonetti. “Can we connect these population-level outcomes to particular biological pathways? If so, we can learn a lot more about how drugs are acting in the body, and this in turn can help with drug discovery and in predicting possible future adverse events.”

“This kind of pharmacoepidemiology is becoming increasingly important to understand how drugs work in the body,” concluded Dr. Altman. “It can help a physician better and more safely tailor drug prescriptions to patients. It can also drive drug development and discovery by identifying shared biological pathways and targets among drugs with similar side effects.”

Related Links:
Stanford University School of Medicine