Causal or casual? The role of causality assessment in pharmacovigilance

Drug Safety

Volumn 17, Issue 6, 1997, Pages 374-389

  Meyboom, Ronald H B ^a   Hekster, Yechiel A ^b   Egberts, Antoine C G ^a,c   Gribnau, Frank W J ^b   Edwards, I Ralph ^d  

^a Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre   (Netherlands)

^b RADBOUD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^c UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^d UPPSALA MONITORING CENTRE   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; DATA ANALYSIS; DRUG SAFETY; DRUG SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM; DRUG TOXICITY; INFORMATION PROCESSING; PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; REPRODUCIBILITY; REVIEW; STANDARDIZATION;

EID: 0031472193     PISSN: 01145916     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2165/00002018-199717060-00004     Document Type: Review

References (61)

1. Stephens MDB. The detection of new adverse drug reactions. 2nd ed. Basingstoke: The MacMillan Press, 1988
2. Meyboom RHB, Egberts ACG, Edwards IR, et al. Principles of signal detection in pharmacovigilance. Drug Saf 1997; 16: 355-65
3. Bégaud B, Evreux JC, Jouglard J, et al. Unexpected or toxicdrug reaction assessment (imputation). Actualization of the method used in France. Thérapie 1985; 40: 111-8
4. Venulet J. Aspects of standardization as applied to the assessment of drug-event associations. Drug Inf J 1984; 18: 199-210
5. Meyboom RHB, Royer RR. Causality assessment in the European Community. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 1992; 1: 87-97
6. Drug safety monitoring: guidelines for setting up and running of a pharmacovigilance centre. Geneva, World Health Organization. In press
7. Meyboom RHB, Gribnau FWJ, Hekster YA, et al. Characteristics of topics in pharmacovigilance in the Netherlands. Clin Drug Invest 1996; 4: 207-19
8. Mann RD. Drug safety alerts - a review of 'Current Problems'. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 1992; 1: 269-79
9. International reporting of adverse drug reactions. Final report of CIOMS Working Group 1, Geneva, 1990
10. WHO Collaborating Centre for International Drug Monitoring (Uppsala). Report Type Q No 23. New to the system - documentation grading. 1996, Oct-Dec
11. International monitoring of adverse reactions to drugs. Adverse reactions terminology. Uppsala: WHO Collaborating Centre for International Drug Monitoring, 1995
12. Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) Classification Index. Oslo: WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology, 1994
13. Biriel C, Edwards IR. Reasons for reporting adverse drug reactions - some thoughts based on an international review. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 1997; 6: 21-6
14. Irey N. Tissue reactions to drugs. Am J Pathol 1976; 82: 617-47
15. Karch F, Lasagna L. Toward the operational identification of adverse drug reactions. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1977; 21: 247-54
16. Kramer MS, Leventhal JM, Hutchinson TA, et al. An algorithm for the operational assessment of adverse drug reactions. I. Background, description, and instructions for use. JAMA 1979; 242: 623-31
17. Naranjo C, Busto U, Sellers EM, et al. A method for estimating the probability of adverse drug reactions. Clin Pharm Ther 1981; 30: 239-45
18. Venulet J, Ciucci AG, Berneker GC. Standardized assessment of drug-adverse reaction associations - rationale and experience. Int J Clin Pharmacol 1980; 18: 381-8
19. Emanueli A, Sacchetti G. An algorithm for the classification of untoward events in large scale clinical trials. Agents Actions 1980; 7: 318-22
20. Jones JK. Adverse drug reactions in the community health setting: approaches to recognizing, counseling and reporting. Fam Community Health 1982; 5: 58-67
21. Venulet J, Berneker GC, Ciucci AG, editors. Assessing causes of adverse drug reactions. London: Academic Press, 1982
22. Hutchinson TA, Leventhal JM, Kramer MS, et al. An algorithm for the operational assessment of adverse drug reactions. II. Demonstration of reproducibility and validity. JAMA 1979; 242: 633-8
23. Leventhal JM, Hutchinson TA, Kramer MS, et al. An algorithm for the operational assessment of adverse drug reactions. III. Results of tests among clinicians. JAMA 1979; 242: 1991-4
24. Hutchinson TA, Lane DA. Assessing methods for causality assessment of suspected adverse drug reactions. J Clin Epidemiol 1989; 42: 5-16
25. Venulet J, Ciueci AG, Berneker GC. Updating of a method for causality assessment of adverse drug reactions. Int J Clin Pharmacol 1986; 24: 559-68
26. Hallas J, Harvald B, Gram LF, et al. Drug related hospital admissions: the role of definitions and intensity of data collection, and the possibility of prevention. J Int Med 1990; 228: 83-90
27. Lane DA, Kramer MS, Hutchinson TA, et al. The causality assessment of adverse drug reactions using a Bayesian approach. Pharm Med 1987; 2: 265-83
28. Jones JK. Approaches to evaluating causation of suspected drug reactions. In: Strom BL, Velo G, editors. Drug epidemiology and post-marketing surveillance. New York; Plenum Press, 1992: 103-13
29. Kramer MS. Clinical epidemiology and biostatistics. Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1988
30. Lanctôt KL, Naranjo CA. Computer-assisted evaluation of adverse events using a Bayesian approach. J Clin Pharmacol 1994; 34: 142-7
31. Lubsen J. Essentials of Bayesian diagnostic reasoning. Neth J Med 1995; 47: 252-9
32. Girard M. Testing the methods of assessment for adverse drug reactions. Adv Drug React Ac Pois Rev 1984; 4: 237-44
33. Pere JC, Bégaud B, Haramburu F, et al. Computerized comparison of six adverse drug reaction assessment procedures. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1986; 40: 451-61
34. Bénichou C, editor. Adverse drug reactions. A practical guide to diagnosis and management. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 1994
35. Stratton KR, Howe CJ, Johnston RB, editors. Adverse events associated with childhood vaccines. Evidence bearing on causality. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1994
36. Olsson S, editor. National pharmacovigilance systems. Country profiles and overview. Uppsala: The Uppsala Monitoring Centre, 1997
37. Meyboom RHB. The Netherlands. In: Inman WHW, Gill EP, editors. Monitoring for drug safety. Lancaster: MTP Press, 1986: 107-17
38. Johnson JM. Reasonable possibility: causality and postmarketing surveillance. Drug Inf J 1992; 26: 553-8
39. Edwards IR, Biriell C. Harmonisation in pharmacovigilance. Drug Saf 1994; 10: 93-102
40. Castle W. Adverse drug reactions: scope and limitations of causality assessment and the use of algorithms. Int J Risk Safety Med 1991; 2: 185-92
41. Hutchinson TA, Flegel KM, Ho Pingkong H, et al. Reasons for disagreement in the standardized assessment of suspected adverse drug reactions. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1983; 34: 421-6
42. Bégaud B, Boisseau A, Albin H, et al. Comparaison de quatre méthodes d'imputabilité des effects indésirable médicamenteux. Thérapie 1981; 36: 65-70
43. Lagier G, Vincens M, Lefebvre B, et al. Imputation médicament par médicament en pharmacovigilance. Essai de comparaison de différentes méthodes. Thérapie 1983; 38: 295-302
44. Leroy O, Bégaud B, Dangoumau J, et al. Etude comparative de quatre méthodes d'imputabilité. Thérapie 1981; 36: 223-7
45. Busto U, Naranjo CA, Sellers EM. Comparison of two recently published algorithms for assessing the probability of adverse drug reactions. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1982; 13: 223-7
46. Louik C, Lacouture PG, Mitchell AA, et al. A study of adverse reaction algorithms in a drug surveillance program. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1985; 183-7
47. Blanc S, Leuenberger P, Berger JP, et al. Judgements of trained observers on adverse drug reactions. Clin Pharm Ther 1979; 25: 493-8
48. Frick PA, Cohen LG, Rovers JP. Algorithms used in adverse drug event reports: a comparative study. Ann Pharmacother 1997; 31: 164-7
49. Lanctôt KL, Naranjo CA. Comparison of the Bayesian approach and a simple algorithm for assessment of adverse drug events. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1995; 58: 692-8
50. Auriche M, Loupi E. Does proof of causality ever exist in pharmacovigilance? Drug Saf 1993; 9: 230-5
51. Guidelines for good clinical practice (GCP) for trials on pharmaceutical products. WHO Technical Report Series, No. 850. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1995
52. Hoskins RE, Mannino S. Causality assessment of adverse drug reactions using decision support and informatics tools. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 1992; 1: 235-50
53. Edwards IR, Lindquist M, Wiholm BE, et al. Quality criteria for early signals of possible adverse drug reactions. Lancet 1990; 336: 156-8
54. Harmonizing the use of adverse reaction terms. Definitions of terms and minimum requirements for their use: respiratory disorders and skin disorders [special communication]. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 1997; 6: 115-27
55. Meyboom RHB. Good practice in the postmarketing surveillance of medicines. Pharmacy World Sci. Pharm World Sci 1997; 19: 186-90
56. Stricker BHC, Blok APR, Claas FHJ, et al. Hepatic injury associated with the use of nitrofurans: a clinicopathological study of 52 reported cases. Hepatology 1988; 8: 559-606
57. Stricker, BHC, Blok APR, Bronkhorst FB, et al. Ketoconazole-associated hepatic injury. J Hepatol 1986; 3: 399-406
58. Lake-Bakaar G, Scheuer PJ, Sherlock S. Hepatic reactions associated with ketoconazole in the United Kingdom. BMJ 1987; 294: 419-22
59. Salama A, Mueller-Eckhardt C. The role of metabolite-specific antibodies in nomifensine-dependent immune hemolytic anemia. N Engl J Med 1985; 313: 469-74
60. Edwards IR. International drug monitoring. In: Aronson JK, Van Boxtel CJ. Side effects of drugs annual. Vol 19. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers, 1995: 450-5
61. Jones JK. Causality assessment of suspected adverse drug reactions, a transatlantic view. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 1992; 1: 251-60