Literature DB >> 9241490

Principles of signal detection in pharmacovigilance.

R H Meyboom1, A C Egberts, I R Edwards, Y A Hekster, F H de Koning, F W Gribnau.   

Abstract

Adverse drug effects are manifold and heterogenous. Many situations may hamper the signalling (i.e. the detection of early warning signs) of adverse effects and new signals often differ from previous experiences. Signals have qualitative and quantitative aspects. Different categories of adverse effects need different methods for detection. Current pharmacovigilance is predominantly based on spontaneous reporting and is mainly helpful in detecting type B effects (those effects that are often allergic or idiosyncratic reactions, characteristically occurring in only a minority of patients and usually unrelated to dosage and that are serious, unexpected and unpredictable) and unusual type A effects (those effects that are related to the pharmacological effects of the drug and are dosage-related). Examples of other sources of signals are prescription event monitoring, large automated data resources on morbidity and drug use (including record linkage), case-control surveillance and follow-up studies. Type C effects (those effects related to an increased frequency of 'spontaneous' disease) are difficult to study, however, and continue to pose a pharmacoepidemiological challenge. Seven basic considerations can be identified that determine the evidence contained in a signal: quantitative strength of the association, consistency of the data, exposure response relationship, biological plausibility, experimental findings, possible analogies and the nature and quality of the data. A proposal is made for a standard signal management procedure at pharmacovigilance centres, including the following steps: signal delineation, literature search, preliminary inventory of data, collection of additional information, consultation with the World Health Organization Centre for International Drug Monitoring and the relevant drug companies, aggregated data assessment and a report in writing. A better understanding of the conditions and mechanisms involved in the detection of adverse drug effects may further improve strategies for pharmacovigilance.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9241490     DOI: 10.2165/00002018-199716060-00002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Drug Saf        ISSN: 0114-5916            Impact factor:   5.606


  8 in total

1.  THE ENVIRONMENT AND DISEASE: ASSOCIATION OR CAUSATION?

Authors:  A B HILL
Journal:  Proc R Soc Med       Date:  1965-05

2.  Teaching monograph. Tissue reactions to drugs.

Authors:  N S Irey
Journal:  Am J Pathol       Date:  1976-03       Impact factor: 4.307

3.  Quality criteria for early signals of possible adverse drug reactions.

Authors:  I R Edwards; M Lindquist; B E Wiholm; E Napke
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1990-07-21       Impact factor: 79.321

4.  Attribution of causation in epidemiology: chain or mosaic?

Authors:  B G Charlton
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1996-01       Impact factor: 6.437

5.  The discovery of drug-induced illness.

Authors:  H Jick
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1977-03-03       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  Identification of adverse reactions to new drugs. III: Alerting processes and early warning systems.

Authors:  G R Venning
Journal:  Br Med J (Clin Res Ed)       Date:  1983-02-05

7.  Postmarketing surveillance of adverse drug reactions in general practice. I: search for new methods.

Authors:  W H Inman
Journal:  Br Med J (Clin Res Ed)       Date:  1981-04-04

8.  Causation and disease: the Henle-Koch postulates revisited.

Authors:  A S Evans
Journal:  Yale J Biol Med       Date:  1976-05
  8 in total
  59 in total

1.  Cutaneous reactions to drugs. An analysis of spontaneous reports in four Italian regions.

Authors:  L Naldi; A Conforti; M Venegoni; M G Troncon; A Caputi; E Ghiotto; A Cocci; U Moretti; G Velo; R Leone
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 4.335

2.  Spontaneous reporting--of what? Clinical concerns about drugs.

Authors:  I R Edwards
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 4.335

Review 3.  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

4.  A retrospective evaluation of a data mining approach to aid finding new adverse drug reaction signals in the WHO international database.

Authors:  M Lindquist; M Ståhl; A Bate; I R Edwards; R H Meyboom
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 5.606

5.  An ABC of drug-related problems.

Authors:  R H Meyboom; M Lindquist; A C Egberts
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 5.606

Review 6.  Quantitative methods in pharmacovigilance: focus on signal detection.

Authors:  Manfred Hauben; Xiaofeng Zhou
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 5.606

Review 7.  What can consumer adverse drug reaction reporting add to existing health professional-based systems? Focus on the developing world.

Authors:  Rohini B M Fernandopulle; Krisantha Weerasuriya
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 5.606

8.  Use of measures of disproportionality in pharmacovigilance: three Dutch examples.

Authors:  Antoine C G Egberts; Ronald H B Meyboom; Eugène P van Puijenbroek
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 5.606

9.  Signal selection and follow-up in pharmacovigilance.

Authors:  Ronald H B Meyboom; Marie Lindquist; Antoine C G Egberts; I Ralph Edwards
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 5.606

10.  Statistical techniques for signal generation: the Australian experience.

Authors:  Patrick Purcell; Simon Barty
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 5.606

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.