Evaluation of adverse drug event information in US manufacturer labels

Current Drug Safety

Volumn 6, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 30-35

  Harrington, Catherine A ^a   Garcia, Angela S ^a   Sircar Ramsewak, Feroza ^a  

^a NOVA SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Adverse drug event; Discontinuation data; Drug labels; Food and drug administration; Pharmaceutical manufacturer

Indexed keywords

AMLODIPINE; AMOXICILLIN; AMPHETAMINE; CLOPIDOGREL; DROSPIRENONE PLUS ETHINYLESTRADIOL; ESOMEPRAZOLE; ETHINYLESTRADIOL PLUS NORGESTIMATE; FUROSEMIDE; HYDROCHLOROTHIAZIDE PLUS TRIAMTERENE; HYDROCODONE BITARTRATE PLUS PARACETAMOL; INSULIN GLARGINE; LANSOPRAZOLE; LEVOTHYROXINE SODIUM; LISINOPRIL; MONTELUKAST; OLANZAPINE; OLMESARTAN; RABEPRAZOLE; TAMSULOSIN; TOLTERODINE;

ARTICLE; ASTHMA; CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE; DIABETES MELLITUS; DIZZINESS; DROWSINESS; DRUG INDUSTRY; DRUG INFORMATION; DRUG LABELING; GASTROINTESTINAL DISEASE; HUMAN; HYPERTENSION; HYPOTHYROIDISM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; UROGENITAL TRACT DISEASE;

ADVERSE DRUG REACTION REPORTING SYSTEMS; DRUG LABELING; DRUG TOXICITY; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS; RISK FACTORS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 79551639057     PISSN: 15748863     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2174/157488611794480025     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. International Conference on Harmonization. The extent of population exposure to assess clinical safety for drugs intended for long-term treatment of non-life-threatening conditions. Washington: ICH-E1A, Federal Register 60 FR 11270 US Government Printing Office, DC 1995.
2. See www.statpages.org. Calculation assumes alpha = 0.05, power=0.8, drug proportion = 10 in 10,000, placebo proportion =1 in 10,000 equally sized groups, continuity correction to approximate binomial distribution. See also Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions by Joseph L. Fleiss, 2nd ed., 1981, John Wiley & Sons, NY), chapter 3.
3. Reviewer Guidance. Conducting a clinical safety review of a new product application and preparing a report on the review. US Dept HHS, FDA, CDER. Good Rev Pract, Feb 2005.
4. Final rule: requirements on content and format of labeling for human prescription drug and biological products.
5. Guidance for industry, adverse events section of labeling for human prescription drug and biological products-content and format. US Dept HHS, FDA, CDER, CBER, Jan 2006.
6. Connelly DP, Rich Ed, Curley SP, Kelly JT. Knowledge resource preferences of family physicians. J Fam Pract 1990: 30: 353-9.
7. Guidance for industry, revising ANDA labeling following revision of the RLD labeling, US Dept HHS, FDA, CDER, May 2006.
8. Ioannidis JP, Lau J. Improving safety reporting for randomized trials. Drug Saf 2002; 25(2): 77-84.
9. Loke YK, Derry S. Reporting of adverse drug events in randomized controlled trials-a systematic survey. BMC Clin Pharmacol 2001; 1: 3.
10. World Health Organization adverse reaction terminology (WHO-ART) system is maintained by the Uppsala Monitoring Centre (UMC), the World Health Organization collaborating centre for international drug monitoring; coding symbols for thesaurus of adverse reaction terms (COSTART) was developed by FDA and is being replaced by MedDRA. The medical dictionary for regulatory activities (MedDRA) is the international medical terminology developed under the auspices of the International Conference on Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH), see www.meddramsso.com
11. Shah RR. Mechanistic basis of adverse drug reactions: the perils of inappropriate dose schedules. Expert Opin Drug Saf 2005; 4(1): 103-28.
12. Van der Hooft Cs, Sturkenboom MC, van Grootheest K, et al. Adverse drug reaction-related hospitalizations: a nationwide study in The Netherlands. Drug Saf 2006; 29(2): 161-9.
13. Zopf Y, Rabe C, Neubert A, et al. Women encounter ADRs more often than do men. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2008; 64(10): 999-1004.
14. Davies Ed, Green CF, Taylor S, et al. Adverse drug reactions in hospitalized inpatients: a prospective analysis of 3,695 patient-episodes. PLoS One 2009; 4(2): e4439.
15. McDowell SE, Coleman JJ, Ferner RE. Systematic review and meta-analysis of ethnic differences in risks of adverse reactions to drugs used in cardiovascular medicine. BMJ 2006; 332(7551): 1177-81.
16. Qrmerod S, McDowell SE, Coleman JJ, Ferner FE. Ethnic differences in the risks of adverse reactions to drugs used in the treatment of psychosis and depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Drug Saf 2008; 31(7): 597-607.
17. Bond CA, Raehl CL. Adverse drug reactions in United States hospitals. Pharmacotherapy 2006; 26(5): 601-8.
18. th ed. 1997.
19. Lamb E. Top 200 drugs of 2008. Pharmacy Times 2009; 5: 26-28 (Data from IMS Health).
20. See www.statpages.org. Calculation assumes alpha = 0.05, power=0.8, drug proportion = 5%, placebo proportion = 1%, equally sized groups, continuity correction to approximate binomial distribution. See also Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions by Joseph L. Fleiss, 2nd ed., 1981, John Wiley & Sons, NY), chapter 3.
21. nd ed., 1981, John Wiley & Sons, NY), chapter 3.
22. Bent S, Padula A, Avins AL. Brief communication: better ways to question patients about adverse medical events: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 2006: 144: 257-61.
23. Rief W, Nestoriuc Y, von Lilienfeld-Toal A, et al. Differences in adverse effect reporting in placebo groups in SSRI and tricyclic antidepressant trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Drug Saf 32(11): 1041-56.
24. Ioannidis JPA, Evans SJW, Gotzsche PC, et al. Better reporting of Harms in Randomized Trials: An extension of the CONSORT statement. Ann Intern Med 2004; 141: 781-78.