Abstract:Case reports and case series are widely regarded as useful for raising hypotheses to be tested in subsequent controlled studies, but generally insufficient to constitute convincing evidence of a cause-effect relationship. Nevertheless, publication of case reports is common and seems to evoke little concern that it fosters unfounded beliefs about particular cause-effect relationships. This is presumably because of the widespread recognition of the limited interpretability of case reports. Those performing pharmacovigilance sometimes perform quantitative analyses of data from spontaneous reporting systems as a supplement to qualitatively examining individual case reports. For example, one can calculate, for a given drug, the relative frequency of a specific event versus all events reported for that drug, divided by the corresponding quantity for other drugs. If the frequencies are expressed as proportions, then this ratio is the proportional reporting ratio (PRR); if expressed as odds, then the ratio is the reporting odds ratio (ROR). Collectively, the PRR and ROR are known as disproportionality measures. The relative merits of the PRR versus the ROR are discussed elsewhere. Disproportionality measures were developed by those conducting pharmacovigilance to assist in identifying signals to be explored further, usually in controlled epidemiologic studies. It is widely recognised that, because of inconsistencies in adverse event reporting, disproportionality analyses are poor surrogates for controlled epidemiologic studies. Thus, disproportionality measures seem roughly on a par with qualitative examination of individual case reports, which is considered much less compelling than controlled epidemiologic studies. Nevertheless, regulatory action is sometimes prompted by spontaneous reports in the absence of data from controlled studies. In this issue, Rothman et al. point out that if (emphasis added) a spontaneous reporting database can be viewed as the source of case and control data for a case-control study, then the ROR is an unbiased estimate of the relative risk. While this is theoretically true, the assumptions under which disproportionality measures approximate relative risks are unverifiable, and likely to be false. For example, disproportionality measures assume that incompleteness in reporting will be constant for all event types for a particular drug. However, non-biologic factors such as time since introduction and regulatory attention can spur reporting of specific events for specific drugs, which violates this assumption. Further, the advice of Rothman et al. to ‘exclude from the control series those categories of adverse events in the database for which the occurrence or reporting of the adverse event is suspected to be related to the medication being evaluated’ is puzzling, since clinicians report adverse drug events precisely because they suspect that the event may be related to the drug. Therefore, to follow this advice, one would need to exclude all events in the control series, rendering the ROR incalculable. Thus, while one can analyse collections of uncontrolled anecdotes, and doing so may be useful for raising hypotheses, interpreting the results as if they arose from a controlled epidemiologic study is fallacious. This is not to disparage the use of disproportionality measures to identify signals in the context of pharmacovigilance, but merely their interpretation as epidemiologic effect measures. This issue also contains a report of a disproportionality analysis of Bell’s palsy in association with inactivated influenza vaccine. Given the weaknesses of disproportionality analyses of spontaneous reporting databases, should they be published in scholarly journals at all? Or might inclusion of features usually

S1 Network Meta-analysis to Evaluate the Comparative Efficacy of Advanced Therapies as First-Line Treatment for Maintenance Treatment of Adult Patients With Moderate to Severe Crohn's Disease

P623 Network meta-analysis to evaluate the comparative efficacy of advanced therapies as first line for maintenance treatment of adult patients with moderate-to-severe Crohn’s disease

NETWORK META-ANALYSIS TO EVALUATE THE COMPARATIVE EFFICACY OF BIOLOGICS FOR MAINTENANCE TREATMENT OF ADULT PATIENTS WITH CROHN’S DISEASE

Comparative Efficacy of Advanced Therapies for Achieving Endoscopic Outcomes in Crohn's Disease: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

P1043 Immunomodulator and advanced therapies for prevention of clinical relapse and loss of response during maintenance phase in Crohn’s disease: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Efficacy and Safety of Advanced Therapies for Moderately to Severely Active Ulcerative Colitis at Induction and Maintenance: An Indirect Treatment Comparison Using Bayesian Network Meta-analysis

P556 Immunomodulator and advanced therapies for Induction of clinical remission and response in Crohn’s disease: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

P849 Bayesian network meta-analysis of the efficacy of advanced therapies for patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis naïve to advanced therapy

[Neonatal shigellosis. A rare cause of rectal bleeding].

P756 Efficacy and safety of medical therapies for maintenance of surgically induced remission in Crohn’s disease: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Disproportionality analyses of spontaneous reports

S1492 Comparative Efficacy of Biologics for the Induction of Clinical Remission and Response in Biologic-Naïve Patients With Moderate-to-Severe Crohn's Disease: Outcomes From Frequentist and Bayesian Network Meta-Analyses

Efficacy and Safety of Advanced Therapies in Moderately-to-Severely Active Ulcerative Colitis: a Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

Will the Inducing and Maintaining Remission of Non-biological Agents and Biological Agents Differ for Crohn's Disease? The Evidence From the Network Meta-Analysis

Sa1796 Diet-Induced Secretion of Incretins is Regulated by Nutrients in the Stomach

Comparative maintenance performance of all biologic agents and small molecules in ulcerative colitis: a network meta-analysis

Subcutaneous Infliximab (CT-P13 SC) as Maintenance Therapy for Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Two Randomized Phase 3 Trials (LIBERTY)

P879 Comparative Efficacy of Biologics and Small Molecule Therapies for the Induction and Maintenance of Endoscopic and Histological Remission in Ulcerative Colitis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

Consistent efficacy outcomes between phase 2 and phase 3 trials in Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis in adults: a meta-analysis

Efficacy of Maintenance Therapies By Prognostic Subgroups in Post-Transplant Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Patients: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

DOP86 Subcutaneous infliximab (CT-P13 SC) as maintenance therapy for Crohn’s disease: A phase 3, randomised, placebo-controlled study (LIBERTY-CD)