Literature DB >> 6799125

Validity of anecdotal reports of suspected adverse drug reactions: the problem of false alarms.

G R Venning.   

Abstract

Suspected adverse drug reactions first reported in 1963 in the "British Medical Journal," the "Lancet," the "Journal of the American Medical Association," and the "New England Journal of Medicine" were reviewed 18 years later to assess their initial validity and subsequent verification. Of 52 first reports, five were deliberate investigations into potential or predictable reactions, and in each case causality was reasonably established; the other 47 reports were essentially anecdotal. Of these 47 reports, 14 related to categories of adverse reaction where false-positive reports were unlikely: immediate reactions, local reactions, and known reactions caused by a different mode of administration or a brand previously thought or claimed to be safe. The problem of false alarms rose in the remaining types of reactions: general reactions that did not occur immediately after administration and arose for the first time with a new chemical entity. Of 33 reports of such suspected adverse reactions, validity was satisfactorily established in 14 cases on the basis of rechallenge, predictability from known pharmacology, or the unique nature of the reaction. Of the remaining 19 reports, further verification still has not been satisfactorily established in 12. Seven of these possible false alarms were haematological reactions.Although 35 of the 47 anecdotal reports were clearly correct, of the 19 reports that were not reasonably validated at the time of the report, only seven were subsequently verified. This suggests that agencies monitoring adverse drug reactions should adopt criteria for assessing the validity of first reports of suspected adverse reactions. Such criteria should include: reactions on rechallenge, a pharmacological basis for the adverse reaction, immediate acute reactions, local reactions at the site of administration, reactions with a new route of administration of a drug known to provoke such reactions by another route, and the repeated occurrence of very rare events.

Mesh:

Year:  1982        PMID: 6799125      PMCID: PMC1495801          DOI: 10.1136/bmj.284.6311.249

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br Med J (Clin Res Ed)        ISSN: 0267-0623


  34 in total

1.  ORAL NEOMYCIN: A POSSIBLE ANAESTHETIC HAZARD.

Authors:  E D ROSS; J A SETTLE; A B TELFER
Journal:  Br Med J       Date:  1963-11-02

2.  Hypotensive reactions after small doses of reserpine given parenterally.

Authors:  G F FLETCHER
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1963-02-07       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  Lactation due to methyldopa.

Authors:  W A PETTINGER; D HORWITZ; A SJOERDSMA
Journal:  Br Med J       Date:  1963-06-01

4.  Potential dangers of morphine in acute diverticulitis of the colon.

Authors:  N S PAINTER; S C TRUELOVE
Journal:  Br Med J       Date:  1963-07-06

5.  Water intoxication due to oxytocin. Report of a case.

Authors:  J G PETTMAN
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1963-02-28       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  Reaction to "varidase".

Authors:  J M NEUTZE; A R BEAN
Journal:  Br Med J       Date:  1963-02-16

7.  Hepatitis caused by the newer amine-oxidase-inhibiting drugs.

Authors:  C D HOLDSWORTH; M ATKINSON; W GOLDIE
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1961-09-16       Impact factor: 79.321

8.  Oral contraceptive use in older women and fatal myocardial infarction.

Authors:  J I Mann; W H Inman; M Thorogood
Journal:  Br Med J       Date:  1976-08-21

9.  An algorithm for the operational assessment of adverse drug reactions. I. Background, description, and instructions for use.

Authors:  M S Kramer; J M Leventhal; T A Hutchinson; A R Feinstein
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1979-08-17       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  Thromboembolic disease and the steroidal content of oral contraceptives. A report to the Committee on Safety of Drugs.

Authors:  W H Inman; M P Vessey; B Westerholm; A Engelund
Journal:  Br Med J       Date:  1970-04-25
View more
  18 in total

Review 1.  Pharmacovigilance in perspective.

Authors:  R H Meyboom; A C Egberts; F W Gribnau; Y A Hekster
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 5.606

Review 2.  Assessing the quality of research.

Authors:  Paul Glasziou; Jan P Vandenbroucke; Iain Chalmers
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-01-03

Review 3.  Detection, verification, and quantification of adverse drug reactions.

Authors:  Bruno H Ch Stricker; Bruce M Psaty
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-07-03

4.  The challenge of evaluating surgical procedures.

Authors:  G M Stirrat; S C Farrow; J Farndon; N Dwyer
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  1992-03       Impact factor: 1.891

Review 5.  Clarification of terminology in drug safety.

Authors:  Jeffrey K Aronson; Robin E Ferner
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 5.606

Review 6.  Case reports of suspected adverse drug reactions--systematic literature survey of follow-up.

Authors:  Yoon Kong Loke; Deirdre Price; Sheena Derry; Jeffrey K Aronson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2006-01-18

7.  Use of fallacious arguments, Ad Hominem attacks, and biased 'expert opinions' can make CBP research 'appear flawed'.

Authors:  Deed E Harrison; Donald D Harrison; Paul A Oakley; Jason W Haas
Journal:  J Can Chiropr Assoc       Date:  2006-09

8.  Evidence-based protocol for structural rehabilitation of the spine and posture: review of clinical biomechanics of posture (CBP) publications.

Authors:  Paul A Oakley; Donald D Harrison; Deed E Harrison; Jason W Haas
Journal:  J Can Chiropr Assoc       Date:  2005-12

9.  Signal detection: historical background.

Authors:  Toine C G Egberts
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 5.606

10.  Learning how to control biases in studies to identify adverse effects of drugs: a brief personal history.

Authors:  Hershel Jick
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 5.344

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.