Adverse drug reactions are a common cause of morbidity in health care. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) evaluates individual case safety reports of adverse events (AEs) after submission to the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System as part of its surveillance activities. Over the past decade, the FDA has explored the application of artificial intelligence (AI) to evaluate these reports to improve the efficiency and scientific rigor of the process. However, a gap remains between AI algorithm development and deployment. This viewpoint aims to describe the lessons learned from our experience and research needed to address both general issues in case-based reasoning using AI and specific needs for individual case safety report assessment. Beginning with the recognition that the trustworthiness of the AI algorithm is the main determinant of its acceptance by human experts, we apply the Diffusion of Innovations theory to help explain why certain algorithms for evaluating AEs at the FDA were accepted by safety reviewers and others were not. This analysis reveals that the process by which clinicians decide from case reports whether a drug is likely to cause an AE is not well defined beyond general principles. This makes the development of high performing, transparent, and explainable AI algorithms challenging, leading to a lack of trust by the safety reviewers. Even accounting for the introduction of large language models, the pharmacovigilance community needs an improved understanding of causal inference and of the cognitive framework for determining the causal relationship between a drug and an AE. We describe specific future research directions that underpin facilitating implementation and trust in AI for drug safety applications, including improved methods for measuring and controlling of algorithmic uncertainty, computational reproducibility, and clear articulation of a cognitive framework for causal inference in case-based reasoning.

BACKGROUND: Ketamine and esketamine have been proven to be effective in treating adults with treatment resistant depression (TRD). Preliminary evidence indicates that, when combined with behavioral and psychological interventions, both agents may offer benefits for individuals with substance use disorder (SUD) and alcohol use disorder (AUD). Notwithstanding, concerns have been raised as to whether either or both agents are associated with abuse and/or gateway activity.
METHODS: Herein, we evaluate disproportionate reporting expressed as reporting odds ratios (ROR) for esketamine and ketamine. The outcomes of interest include alcohol problem, alcoholism, alcohol abuse, substance dependence, SUD, substance abuse, drug dependence, drug use disorder and drug abuse as codified by the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) within the FAERS. The IC025 values were significant for ketamine in cases of alcohol abuse (0.28), substance dependence (1.88), substance use disorder (0.996), substance abuse (0.61), drug dependence (0.56), drug use disorder (1.17) and drug abuse (1.22). Additionally, oxycontin showed significant IC025 values for substance dependence (0.067), substance use disorder (0.094), substance abuse (0.035), and drug dependence (0.27).
RESULTS: We observed significant increases in the reporting odds ratios (RORs) for ketamine with respect to various outcomes: alcohol abuse (ROR 2.84, 95 % CI 1.53-5.28; p = 0.0010), substance dependence (ROR 18.72, 95 % CI 8.49-41.30; p ≤ 0.0001), SUD (ROR 11.40, 95 % CI 4.24-30.65; p ≤ 0.0001), substance abuse (ROR 2.29, 95 % CI 1.73-3.04; p ≤ 0.0001), drug dependence (ROR 1.99, 95 % CI 1.64-2.42; p ≤ 0.0001), drug use disorder (ROR 4.50, 2.94-6.88; p ≤ 0.0001) and drug abuse (ROR 3.72, 3.36-4.12; p ≤ 0.0001). For esketamine, we observed that the ROR was significantly reduced for substance abuse (ROR 0.37, 95 % CI 0.22-0.63; p = 0.0003), drug dependence (ROR 0.13, 95 % CI 0.076-0.23; p ≤ 0.0001) and drug abuse (ROR 0.048, 95 % CI 0.030-0.078; p ≤ 0.0001). To our knowledge, this is the first report of spontaneous adverse events related to these outcomes of interest in the FAERS.
CONCLUSIONS: Mixed RORs were observed across aspects of SUD and AUD for both ketamine and esketamine. Due to limitations in the FAERS, establishing causal links between new onset alcohol and substance misuse with either agent remains inconclusive. Possible beneficial effects on measures of SUD and AUD were observed. It is currently unclear, but possible, whether both agents have differential ameliorative effects across dimensions of SUD and AUD, which is a focus of ongoing research.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacovigilance systems such as the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS), are established models for adverse event surveillance that may have been missed during clinical trials. We aimed to analyze twenty-five anti-seizure medications (ASMs) in FAERS to assess for increased reporting of suicidal and self-injurious behavior.
METHODS: Twenty-five ASMs were analyzed: brivaracetam, cannabidiol, carbamazepine, clobazam, clonazepam, diazepam, eslicarbazepine, felbamate, gabapentin, lacosamide, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, oxcarbazepine, perampanel, phenobarbital, phenytoin, pregabalin, primidone, rufinamide, stiripentol, tiagabine, topiramate, valproate, vigabatrin, zonisamide. Reports of \"suicidal and self-injurious behavior\" were collected from January 1, 2004, to December 31, 2020, using OpenVigil 2.1 tool with indication as \"Epilepsy\". Relative reporting ratio, proportional reporting ratio, and reporting odds ratio were calculated utilizing all other drug reports for epilepsy patients as a control.
RESULTS: Significant relative operating ratio, ROR (greater than 1, p<0.05) were observed for diazepam (2.909), pregabalin (2.739), brivaracetam (2.462), gabapentin (2.185), clonazepam (1.649), zonisamide (1.462), lacosamide (1.333), and levetiracetam (1.286).
CONCLUSIONS: Of the 25 ASMs that were analyzed in this study, 4 (16%) were identified to have been linked with a likely true adverse event. These drugs included diazepam, brivaracetam, gabapenetin, and pregabalin. Although several limitations are present with the FAERS database, it is imperative to closely monitor patient comorbidities for increased risk of suicidality with the use of several ASMs.

UNASSIGNED: This article presents a strategy that a Drug Delivery Device Developer (DDDD) has adopted to support Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) submissions of drug-device combination products. As per the related FDA guidance, a threshold analysis should be compiled. If \'other differences\' between the Reference Listed Drug (RLD) and the generic drug devices are identified, a Comparative Use Human Factors (CUHF) study may be requested.
UNASSIGNED: The DDDD performed task analysis and physical comparison to assess the pen injector design differences. Then, a formative CUHF study with 25 participants simulating injections using both RLD and the generic pen injectors was conducted.
UNASSIGNED: After each participant completed four simulated injections, similar type and rates of use error between the RLD (0.70) and generic (0.68) pen injectors were observed.
UNASSIGNED: DDDDs can support pharmaceutical companies in the ANDA submission strategy of their drug-device combination product by initiating comparative task analysis and physical comparison of the device as inputs for the threshold analysis. If \'other differences\' are identified, a formative CUHF study can be performed. As shown in our case study, this approach can be leveraged to support the sample size calculation and non-inferiority margin determination for a CUHF study with the final combination product.

The classification of medical devices by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) involves rigorous scrutiny from specialized panels that designate devices as Class I, II, or III depending on their levels of relative risk to patient health. Posterior rigid pedicle screw systems were first classified by the FDA in 1984 and have since revolutionized the treatment of many spine pathologies. Despite this early classification by the FDA, posterior cervical pedicle and lateral mass screws were not reclassified from unclassified to Class III and then to Class II until 2019, nearly 35 years after their initial classification. This reclassification process involved a decades-long interplay between the FDA, formal panels, manufacturers, academic leaders, practicing physicians, and patients. It was delayed by lawsuits and a paucity of data demonstrating the ability to improve outcomes for cervical spinal pathologies. The off-label use of thoracolumbar pedicle screw rigid fixation systems by early adopters assisted manufacturers and professional organizations in providing the necessary data for the reclassification process. This case study highlights the collaboration between physicians and professional organizations in facilitating FDA reclassification and underscores changes to the current classification process that could avoid the prolonged dichotomy between common medical practice and FDA guidelines.

Translational approaches can benefit post-marketing drug safety surveillance through the growing availability of systems pharmacology data. Here, we propose a novel Bayesian framework for identifying drug-drug interaction (DDI) signals and differentiating between individual drug and drug combination signals. This framework is coupled with a systems pharmacology approach for automated biological plausibility assessment. Integrating statistical and biological evidence, our method achieves a 16.5% improvement (AUC: from 0.620 to 0.722) with drug-target-adverse event associations, 16.0% (AUC: from 0.580 to 0.673) with drug enzyme, and 15.0% (AUC: from 0.568 to 0.653) with drug transporter information. Applying this approach to detect potential DDI signals of QT prolongation and rhabdomyolysis within the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS), we emphasize the significance of systems pharmacology in enhancing statistical signal detection in pharmacovigilance. Our study showcases the promise of data-driven biological plausibility assessment in the context of challenging post-marketing DDI surveillance.

OBJECTIVE: The immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have been increasingly associated with severe cutaneous adverse reactions (SCARs). These reactions, including Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS), toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) and acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP) are uncommon but potentially lethal. Despite the severity of these reactions and growing association with the ICIs, their specific risk and mortality rates have been largely unexplored.
METHODS: A case/non-case analysis was performed using data from the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) to examine the reporting odds ratios (RORs) for ICI-associated SCARs cases under two conditions: (1) ICIs compared with all drugs in FAERS and (2) ICIs compared with a reference group of pooled anticancer drugs to control for underlying malignancy.
RESULTS: A statistically significant ROR for SJS (ROR: 5.44), TEN (ROR: 5.81) and DRESS (ROR: 1.38) were identified under Condition 1. Under Condition 2, this significance was maintained for SJS (ROR: 7.31), TEN (ROR: 7.40) and DRESS (ROR: 3.90), and mild significance was identified for AGEP (ROR: 1.89). Mortality rates for the ICIs were increased compared with the anticancer medications (28.5% vs. 24.5% for SJS, 55.3% vs. 46% for TEN, 3.0% vs. 2.1% for AGEP and 7.1% vs. 6.1% for DRESS).
CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest an association between SCARs and the ICIs independent of cancer status.

This Viewpoint outlines the potential effects of the Supreme Court case regarding mifepristone restrictions: a decision for the FDA would allow current dispensing, while ruling against the FDA would severely curtail access to reproductive health options.

UNASSIGNED: Recently, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) received reports of suicidal thoughts and self-injury associated with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) liraglutide and semaglutide.
UNASSIGNED: Herein, we sought to evaluate suicidality associated with all GLP-1 RAs relative to other glucose-lowering agents currently approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Reports of suicidal ideation, \"depression/suicidal\", suicidal behavior, suicidal attempts, and completed suicide associated with GLP-1 RA exposure reported to the FDA between 2005 and October 2023 were obtained from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS). We present data using the reporting odds ratio (ROR). The ROR was considered significant when the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) was greater than 1.0.
UNASSIGNED: Disproportionate reporting of suicidal ideation and \"depression/suicidal\" was observed with semaglutide and liraglutide. Disproportionate reporting of suicidal behavior, suicide attempts, and completed suicide was not observed for any of the FDA-approved GLP-1 RAs.
UNASSIGNED: Using the Bradford Hill criteria, however, and taking into consideration confounders, no causal link between GLP-1 RAs and suicidality exists.

To better understand the nature of Non-Core procedures and derive new insight into protocol simplification and optimization, Tufts CSDD collaborated with the FDA and sponsor companies to assess alignment on the rationale for collecting, and relevance of, Non-Core protocol data. Twelve sponsor companies classified and rated 700 distinct procedures from 19 pivotal trials supporting new drug and biologics approvals. FDA reviewers classified and rated 80 distinct procedures for three of the 19 pivotal trials. The results of this assessment indicate areas of alignment and misalignment. Sponsors and FDA reviewers agreed on the classification for more than half of endpoints. However, FDA reviewers classified a much higher percentage of procedures as Non-Core (26% vs. 18%) with the largest proportion (50%) of these procedures perceived as Core by sponsor companies. Sponsors indicated that one-out-of-six Non-Core procedures were administered due to perceived regulatory requirement and expectation. The results of this study characterize the challenge in aligning the different-and potentially conflicting-imperatives of sponsors and regulators and speak to the importance of more effective FDA-sponsor communication to help simplify protocol designs.