Adjusting for both sequential testing and systematic error in safety surveillance using observational data: Empirical calibration and MaxSPRT

TL;DR

This paper introduces a method combining empirical calibration with MaxSPRT to improve safety surveillance in observational healthcare data by controlling for systematic error and sequential testing, demonstrated through simulations and real data.

Contribution

It proposes a novel approach that integrates empirical calibration into MaxSPRT to account for systematic error in observational safety surveillance.

Findings

Empirical calibration restores nominal type 1 error in MaxSPRT.

Adjusting for systematic error has a larger impact than sequential testing adjustment.

The combined method performs well in simulations and real-world data.

Abstract

Post-approval safety surveillance of medical products using observational healthcare data can help identify safety issues beyond those found in pre-approval trials. When testing sequentially as data accrue, maximum sequential probability ratio testing (MaxSPRT) is a common approach to maintaining nominal type 1 error. However, the true type 1 error may still deviate from the specified one because of systematic error due to the observational nature of the analysis. This systematic error may persist even after controlling for known confounders. Here we propose to address this issue by combing MaxSPRT with empirical calibration. In empirical calibration, we assume uncertainty about the systematic error in our analysis, the source of uncertainty commonly overlooked in practice. We infer a probability distribution of systematic error by relying on a large set of negative controls: exposure-outcome where no causal effect is believed to exist. Integrating this distribution into our test statistics has previously been shown to restore type 1 error to nominal. Here we show how we can calibrate the critical value central to MaxSPRT. We evaluate this novel approach using simulations and real electronic health records, using H1N1 vaccinations during the 2009-2010 season as an example. Results show that combining empirical calibration with MaxSPRT restores nominal type 1 error. In our real-world example, adjusting for systematic error using empirical calibration has a larger impact than, and hence is just as essential as, adjusting for sequential testing using MaxSPRT. We recommend performing both, using the method described here.