OBJECTIVES: To assess the feasibility of coding with MedDRA, the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities, not only serious adverse events required for notification but also all other events usually reported in HIV clinical trials. To develop an approach for MedDRA implementation within an institutional research unit that contributes to an efficient, concise and reproducible event coding. To evaluate the impact of the maintenance and the versioning of this new medical terminology. METHODS: MedDRA versions 3.0 and 5.0 were used for coding hundreds of events reported through two HIV clinical trials. The implementation of MedDRA consisted in the setup of a training program, guidelines to clinical investigators, coding rules and medical validation process. MedDRA version 6.1 was applied to the coding made with the MedDRA version 5.0 in order to identify the assignments affected by the new version and to determine the impact of versioning. RESULTS: Coding with MedDRA all types of events in HIV clinical trials was feasible even though coders experienced some difficulties due mainly to the lack of precision in the investigator verbatim and the high specificity and sensitivity of MedDRA. The addition of appropriate tools to support the use of MedDRA improved significantly the coding of all types of events in HIV clinical trials. The impact of MedDRA versioning was limited and did not result in significant issues. The global implementation process of MedDRA required important resources in terms of qualified personnel, organisation and maintenance. CONCLUSIONS: Guidelines for investigators, coding rules and medical validation appeared to be mandatory for a successful implementation of MedDRA. The use of MedDRA, with the addition of the mentioned support tools, should ensure coding consistency and facilitate the clinical and tolerance analyses and meta-analyses in clinical trials.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the feasibility of coding with MedDRA, the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities, not only serious adverse events required for notification but also all other events usually reported in HIV clinical trials. To develop an approach for MedDRA implementation within an institutional research unit that contributes to an efficient, concise and reproducible event coding. To evaluate the impact of the maintenance and the versioning of this new medical terminology. METHODS: MedDRA versions 3.0 and 5.0 were used for coding hundreds of events reported through two HIV clinical trials. The implementation of MedDRA consisted in the setup of a training program, guidelines to clinical investigators, coding rules and medical validation process. MedDRA version 6.1 was applied to the coding made with the MedDRA version 5.0 in order to identify the assignments affected by the new version and to determine the impact of versioning. RESULTS: Coding with MedDRA all types of events in HIV clinical trials was feasible even though coders experienced some difficulties due mainly to the lack of precision in the investigator verbatim and the high specificity and sensitivity of MedDRA. The addition of appropriate tools to support the use of MedDRA improved significantly the coding of all types of events in HIV clinical trials. The impact of MedDRA versioning was limited and did not result in significant issues. The global implementation process of MedDRA required important resources in terms of qualified personnel, organisation and maintenance. CONCLUSIONS: Guidelines for investigators, coding rules and medical validation appeared to be mandatory for a successful implementation of MedDRA. The use of MedDRA, with the addition of the mentioned support tools, should ensure coding consistency and facilitate the clinical and tolerance analyses and meta-analyses in clinical trials.