Literature DB >> 23011177

Evaluating the completeness and accuracy of MedWatch data.

Kenneth A Getz1, Stella Stergiopoulos, Kenneth I Kaitin.   

Abstract

The Food and Drug Administration's MedWatch system--a voluntary surveillance program--received 600,000 adverse event reports on marketed drugs and devices in 2011. The Food and Drug Administration credits the MedWatch system with improving awareness, and expediting early detection, of drug and device risks and in illuminating the adoption of medical treatments. Reporting bias has been acknowledged as a limitation of the MedWatch system. No systematic assessment of the accuracy and completeness of adverse event reporting has been conducted, yet inaccurate adverse event reporting may lead drug safety professionals to draw incorrect conclusions, manufacturers may be wrongly forced to suspend and withdraw medications and interventions, health professionals may mistakenly alter their clinical practices, and patients may be denied safe and effective treatments. In 2011, the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development gathered and analyzed 10.2 million adverse event reports filed with the MedWatch system. Patient information was generally complete and accurate. Suspect product information, on the other hand, showed high levels of incomplete and inaccurate data. Start and end dates of suspect product use had 37% and 23% completion rates, respectively. Dosage level was completed only 31% of the time, and product lot numbers had only a 9% completion rate. More than 25% of the names of reported suspect products were inaccurate, and 31% of suspect product start dates were inaccurate. Higher levels of completion and accuracy were associated with reports filed closer to the date when the adverse event was observed. Implications of the results and suggested improvements are discussed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 23011177     DOI: 10.1097/MJT.0b013e318262316f

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Ther        ISSN: 1075-2765            Impact factor:   2.688


  12 in total

Review 1.  Evaluating AE Reporting of Two Off-Patent Biologics to Inform Future Biosimilar Naming and Reporting Practices.

Authors:  Stella Stergiopoulos; Kenneth Getz
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 5.606

2.  Biologic product identification and US pharmacovigilance in the biosimilars era.

Authors:  Thomas Felix; Torbjörn T Johansson; Jodi A Colliatie; Michael R Goldberg; Andrew R Fox
Journal:  Nat Biotechnol       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 54.908

3.  Participatory surveillance of diabetes device safety: a social media-based complement to traditional FDA reporting.

Authors:  Kenneth D Mandl; Marion McNabb; Norman Marks; Elissa R Weitzman; Skyler Kelemen; Emma M Eggleston; Maryanne Quinn
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2013-12-19       Impact factor: 4.497

4.  Adverse Drug Reaction Case Safety Practices in Large Biopharmaceutical Organizations from 2007 to 2017: An Industry Survey.

Authors:  Stella Stergiopoulos; Mortiz Fehrle; Patrick Caubel; Louise Tan; Louise Jebson
Journal:  Pharmaceut Med       Date:  2019-12

5.  Maximizing the Post-Approval Safety of Flibanserin: A Role for Regulators, Clinicians, and Patients.

Authors:  Sheriza N Baksh; Walid F Gellad; G Caleb Alexander
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2016-05       Impact factor: 5.606

6.  Traceability of Biologics in The Netherlands: An Analysis of Information-Recording Systems in Clinical Practice and Spontaneous ADR Reports.

Authors:  Kevin Klein; Joep H G Scholl; Niels S Vermeer; André W Broekmans; Eugène P Van Puijenbroek; Marie L De Bruin; Pieter Stolk
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 5.606

7.  Identification of a Syndrome Class of Neuropsychiatric Adverse Reactions to Mefloquine from Latent Class Modeling of FDA Adverse Event Reporting System Data.

Authors:  Remington L Nevin; Jeannie-Marie Leoutsakos
Journal:  Drugs R D       Date:  2017-03

8.  Methods for estimating causal relationships of adverse events with dietary supplements.

Authors:  Kazuki Ide; Hiroshi Yamada; Mamoru Kitagawa; Yohei Kawasaki; Yuma Buno; Kumi Matsushita; Masayuki Kaji; Kazuko Fujimoto; Masako Waki; Mitsuyoshi Nakashima; Keizo Umegaki
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2015-11-25       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 9.  What to do with healthcare incident reporting systems.

Authors:  Julius Cuong Pham; Thierry Girard; Peter J Pronovost
Journal:  J Public Health Res       Date:  2013-12-01

10.  Pharmacovigilance Considerations for Biosimilars in the USA.

Authors:  Gustavo Grampp; Thomas Felix
Journal:  BioDrugs       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 5.807

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.