Adverse Drug Reactions: The benefits of data mining

Careful analysis of a database populated by physicians and patients sheds new light on the side effects of drugs.
  1. Audrey Bone
  2. Keith Houck  Is a corresponding author
  1. US Environmental Protection Agency, United States

The goal of pharmaceutical drug development is to produce compounds that can treat medical conditions effectively without causing side effects (which are known as adverse drug reactions in the pharmaceutical industry). It has been estimated that serious versions of adverse drug reactions occur in over two million patients per year in the US, with 100,000 of them resulting in deaths (Giacomini et al., 2007). Potential new drugs are subject to in vivo testing with laboratory animals and in vitro studies in cell lines before they are ever used in human clinical trials. However, humans differ from laboratory animals in many ways and there are limitations to the applicability of in vitro studies. Therefore, adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are often not identified until a drug is tested in a clinical trial, which can result in costly failures.

Moreover, even if a drug is approved for use after clinical trials, some critical ADRs only become apparent after a large number of patients have been treated over a long time. This is because it can be difficult to account for a number of important factors in clinical trials, such as patient age, co-exposures to other drugs, genetic differences, environmental and dietary variances, and long-term use (Woodcock, 2016). The diet drug fenfluramine-phentermine (fenphen), for example, had to be withdrawn in 1997 following patient deaths that resulted from a drug metabolite binding to an off-target receptor (5HT2B) that caused a heart valve disease (Rothman et al., 2000). Hence, there is a real need for methods that can predict ADRs much earlier in the drug development process.

Current methods to predict ADRs are limited. Many animal models do not adequately predict human responses (Kullak-Ublick et al., 2017; FDA, 2017), and while in vitro studies can examine the molecular pathways underlying an adverse reaction, we need to know something about the mechanisms driving the ADR in the first place. The receptor implicated in fenphen toxicity is an example of a molecular target that compounds can be tested against with in vitro assays, as is an ion-channel protein called hERG that has been linked to heart arrhythmias (Roy et al., 1996). However, the majority of ADRs do not have known underlying mechanisms.

Now, in eLife, Mateusz Maciejewski of Pfizer, Brian Shoichet of UCSF, Laszlo Urban of Novartis and colleagues report a third approach that involves analyzing a large, crowd-sourced database of ADRs maintained by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the United States (Maciejewski et al., 2017). The FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) is a publicly accessible and voluntary database that allows physicians, pharmacists and patients (and also lawyers involved in drug litigation) to report adverse events associated with prescription or over-the-counter medicines, along with nutritional products, cosmetics and food/beverages (Sakaeda et al., 2013). The database now contains over nine million records reaching back to 1969 and continues to grow rapidly (Figure 1). However, while FAERS contains a wealth of real world information, these data must be handled with care.

Making the most of the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS).

Patients, physicians, pharmacists and other health-care professionals input information about adverse drug reactions into the FAERS database. Maciejewski et al. have shown that it is possible to use data mining and statistical analysis to extract new insights about adverse drug reactions from the database: the first step is to deal with the noise and other problems associated with such crowd-sourced databases. The amount of reports in FAERS has grown rapidly over the past decade (top right; data from FDA).

As an example, FAERS uses names rather than chemical structures to identify drugs, with each chemical structure having an average of 16 different names (or 378 in the case of fluoxetine, also known as Prozac), so Maciejewski et al. were required to first aggregate all the information associated with each chemical structure. They also had to remove redundant data (e.g., where the same event was entered multiple times) and other data that were misleading (e.g., when the adverse event was actually a pre-existing medical condition).

Using various data visualization techniques, Maciejewski et al. were then able to begin to dig deeper into the data and identify a number of potentially confounding factors that may impact overly simplistic interpretations. Data for individual drugs plotted chronologically showed distinct spikes in reports that could be tied to specific events. For example, initial reports of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events associated with rofecoxib (the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug with the brand name Vioxx) resulted primarily from physician reports. The number of reports later increased dramatically, first due to patients and later due to lawyers, following the publication of a clinical study linking Vioxx to cardiovascular events and, two years later, when warnings were added to the Vioxx label.

An analysis of the diabetes drugs rosiglitazone and pioglitazone (which have similar structures) illustrated how the database can be used to differentiate between a class effect (in which an effect is seen across an entire class of drugs) and a drug-specific effect. Rosiglitazone showed a strong signal of cardiovascular events, such as congestive cardiac failure, that persisted over time. Pioglitazone, on the other hand, showed only a small, inconsistent spike in cardiovascular events that coincided with the increased public scrutiny of rosiglitazone. Over time, a strong bladder cancer signal appeared for pioglitazone that was not seen with rosiglitazone. This result is supported by recent epidemiological studies which suggest that differences in receptor selectivity are responsible for the differences between the drugs (Tuccori et al., 2016).

Maciejewski et al. also illustrated the need to take pharmacokinetics into account when analyzing the FAERS database by examining hypertension associated with a cancer treatment involving the inhibition of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor. Nineteen different inhibitors were analyzed and only those with exposure margins (the ratio of the potency against the target to the patient’s serum concentration) under 10 were linked to hypertension. Maciejewski et al. concluded that this could be used as a drug development guideline for this class of compounds and that the use of exposure margins in the FAERS analysis may help define drugs that cause adverse events.

Crowd-sourced databases are often noisy and subject to interference from many factors because the data are entered by non-experts. However, such databases can be an invaluable resource when analyzed appropriately. Maciejewski et al. have shown how to handle the noise in the FAERS database and the limitations of the database structure, and how to deal with social factors such as news reports, drug recalls, and ongoing litigation. Moreover, using relatively simple statistical methods, they demonstrated how to extract useful information about adverse events (including information about relationships and mechanisms) from the data. Their work will also provide a foundation for the use of sophisticated methods (such as empirical Bayesian statistics and hierarchical methods) in future studies. The recommendations they make for improving the database, such as including pharmacokinetics information, would make it even more valuable.


The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views or policies of the US Environmental Protection Agency.


    1. Woodcock J
    (2016) "Precision" drug development?
    Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics 99:152–154.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Audrey Bone

    Audrey Bone is in the National Center for Computational Toxicology, Office of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, United States

    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
  2. Keith Houck

    Keith Houck is in the National Center for Computational Toxicology, Office of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, United States

    For correspondence
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared

Publication history

  1. Version of Record published: August 16, 2017 (version 1)


This is an open-access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.


  • 2,483
    Page views
  • 208
  • 1

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, PubMed Central, Scopus.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Audrey Bone
  2. Keith Houck
Adverse Drug Reactions: The benefits of data mining
eLife 6:e30280.

Further reading

    1. Epidemiology and Global Health
    2. Medicine
    Parker Tope, Eliya Farah ... Eduardo L Franco
    Research Article

    Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted cancer care, raising concerns regarding the impact of wait time, or 'lag time', on clinical outcomes. We aimed to contextualize pandemic-related lag times by mapping pre-pandemic evidence from systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses on the association between lag time to cancer diagnosis and treatment with mortality- and morbidity-related outcomes.

    Methods: We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews for reviews published prior to the pandemic (1 January 2010-31 December 2019). We extracted data on methodological characteristics, lag time interval start and endpoints, qualitative findings from systematic reviews, and pooled risk estimates of mortality- (i.e., overall survival) and morbidity- (i.e., local regional control) related outcomes from meta-analyses. We categorized lag times according to milestones across the cancer care continuum and summarized outcomes by cancer site and lag time interval.

    Results: We identified 9,032 records through database searches, of which 29 were eligible. We classified 33 unique types of lag time intervals across 10 cancer sites, of which breast, colorectal, head and neck, and ovarian cancers were investigated most. Two systematic reviews investigating lag time to diagnosis reported different findings regarding survival outcomes among pediatric patients with Ewing's sarcomas or central nervous system tumours. Comparable risk estimates of mortality were found for lag time intervals from surgery to adjuvant chemotherapy for breast, colorectal, and ovarian cancers. Risk estimates of pathologic complete response indicated an optimal time window of 7-8 weeks for neoadjuvant chemotherapy completion prior to surgery for rectal cancers. In comparing methods across meta-analyses on the same cancer sites, lag times, and outcomes, we identified critical variations in lag time research design.

    Conclusions: Our review highlighted measured associations between lag time and cancer-related outcomes and identified the need for a standardized methodological approach in areas such as lag time definitions and accounting for the waiting-time paradox. Prioritization of lag time research is integral for revised cancer care guidelines under pandemic contingency and assessing the pandemic's long-term effect on patients with cancer.

    Funding: The present work was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR-COVID-19 Rapid Research Funding opportunity, VR5-172666 grant to Eduardo L. Franco). Parker Tope, Eliya Farah, and Rami Ali each received an MSc. stipend from the Gerald Bronfman Department of Oncology, McGill University.

    1. Medicine
    Richard C Lauer, Marc Barry ... Wadih Arap
    Research Article Updated


    We have previously shown that the long non-coding (lnc)RNA prostate cancer associated 3 (PCA3; formerly prostate cancer antigen 3) functions as a trans-dominant negative oncogene by targeting the previously unrecognized prostate cancer suppressor gene PRUNE2 (a homolog of the Drosophila prune gene), thereby forming a functional unit within a unique allelic locus in human cells. Here, we investigated the PCA3/PRUNE2 regulatory axis from early (tumorigenic) to late (biochemical recurrence) genetic events during human prostate cancer progression.


    The reciprocal PCA3 and PRUNE2 gene expression relationship in paired prostate cancer and adjacent normal prostate was analyzed in two independent retrospective cohorts of clinically annotated cases post-radical prostatectomy: a single-institutional discovery cohort (n=107) and a multi-institutional validation cohort (n=497). We compared the tumor gene expression of PCA3 and PRUNE2 to their corresponding expression in the normal prostate. We also serially examined clinical/pathological variables including time to disease recurrence.


    We consistently observed increased expression of PCA3 and decreased expression of PRUNE2 in prostate cancer compared with the adjacent normal prostate across all tumor grades and stages. However, there was no association between the relative gene expression levels of PCA3 or PRUNE2 and time to disease recurrence, independent of tumor grades and stages.


    We concluded that upregulation of the lncRNA PCA3 and targeted downregulation of the protein-coding PRUNE2 gene in prostate cancer could be early (rather than late) molecular events in the progression of human prostate tumorigenesis but are not associated with biochemical recurrence. Further studies of PCA3/PRUNE2 dysregulation are warranted.


    We received support from the Human Tissue Repository and Tissue Analysis Shared Resource from the Department of Pathology of the University of New Mexico School of Medicine and a pilot award from the University of New Mexico Comprehensive Cancer Center. RP and WA were supported by awards from the Levy-Longenbaugh Donor-Advised Fund and the Prostate Cancer Foundation. EDN reports research fellowship support from the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq), Brazil, and the Associação Beneficente Alzira Denise Hertzog Silva (ABADHS), Brazil. This work has been funded in part by the NCI Cancer Center Support Grants (CCSG; P30) to the University of New Mexico Comprehensive Cancer Center (CA118100) and the Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey (CA072720).