Adverse drug reaction risks obtained from meta-analyses and pharmacovigilance disproportionality analyses are correlated in most cases.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed at testing if a correlation between adverse drug reactions relative risks estimated from meta-analyses and disproportionality analyses calculated from pharmacovigilance spontaneous reporting systems databases exist, and if methodological choices modify this correlation.

STUDY DESIGN

We extracted adverse drug reactions (ADR) odds ratios (ORs) from meta-analyses used as reference and calculated corresponding Reporting Odds Ratios (RORs) from the WHO pharmacovigilance database according to five different designs. We also calculated the relative bias and agreement of ROR compared to ORs.

RESULTS

We selected five meta-analyses which displayed a panel of 13 ADRs. A significant correlation for 7 out of the 13 ADRs studied in the primary analysis was found. The methods for ROR calculation impacted the results but none systematically improved the correlations. Whereas correlation was found between OR and ROR, agreement was poor and relative bias was important.

CONCLUSION

Despite the large variation in disproportionality analyses results due to design specification, this study provides further evidence that relative risks obtained from meta-analyses and from disproportionality analyses correlate in most cases, in particular for objective ADR not associated with the underlying pathology.