Causality Assessment Between Drugs and Fatal Cerebral Haemorrhage Using Electronic Medical Records: Comparative Evaluation of Disease-Specific and Conventional Methods.
Journal
Drugs - real world outcomes
ISSN: 2199-1154
Titre abrégé: Drugs Real World Outcomes
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101658456
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 Feb 2024
06 Feb 2024
Historique:
accepted:
13
12
2023
medline:
7
2
2024
pubmed:
7
2
2024
entrez:
6
2
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
A new algorithm for causality assessment of drugs and fatal cerebral haemorrhage (ACAD-FCH) was published in 2021. However, its use in clinical practice has not been verified. This study aimed to explore the practical value of the ACAD-FCH when applying information available in clinical practice. The medical records of patients who died at the University of Tokyo Hospital in 2020 were reviewed, and cases with intracranial haemorrhage were selected. Two evaluators independently assessed these cases using three methods (the ACAD-FCH, Naranjo algorithm, and WHO-UMC scale). The number of 'Yes', 'No', and 'No information/Do not know' responses to each question by both evaluators were summed and compared. Inter-rater reliability was evaluated for each method using agreement rates and kappa coefficients with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Among 316 deaths, 24 cases with intracranial haemorrhage were evaluated. The proportion of ‛No information/Do not know' responses for each question was 35.6% (95% CI 31.4-40.6%) for the ACAD-FCH and 66.9% (95% CI 62.5-71.1%) for the Naranjo algorithm. The respective agreement rates and kappa coefficients were 0.917 (0.798-1.00) and 0.867 (0.675-1.00) for the ACAD-FCH, 0.708 (0.512-0.904) and 0.139 (-0.236 to 0.513) for the Naranjo algorithm, and 0.50 (0.284-0.716) and 0.326 (0.110-0.541) for the WHO-UMC scale, respectively. Our findings suggest the utility of the ACAD-FCH when assessing death cases with intracranial haemorrhage. However, larger studies including intra-rater assessments are warranted for further validation of this algorithm.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38321346
doi: 10.1007/s40801-023-00413-y
pii: 10.1007/s40801-023-00413-y
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Subventions
Organisme : Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology
ID : JP22K15335
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Bergvall T, Norén GN, Lindquist M. vigiGrade: a tool to identify well-documented individual case reports and highlight systematic data quality issues. Drug Saf. 2014;37:65–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-013-0131-x .
doi: 10.1007/s40264-013-0131-x
pubmed: 24343765
Brajovic S, Piazza-Hepp T, Swartz L, Dal Pan G. Quality assessment of spontaneous triggered adverse event reports received by the Food and Drug Administration. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2012;21:565–70. https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.3223 .
doi: 10.1002/pds.3223
pubmed: 22359404
Lindquist M. Data quality management in pharmacovigilance. Drug Saf. 2004;27:857–70. https://doi.org/10.2165/00002018-200427120-00003 .
doi: 10.2165/00002018-200427120-00003
pubmed: 15366974
Marwitz K, Jones SC, Kortepeter CM, Dal Pan GJ, Muñoz MA. An evaluation of postmarketing reports with an outcome of death in the US FDA adverse event reporting system. Drug Saf. 2020;43:457–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-020-00908-5 .
doi: 10.1007/s40264-020-00908-5
pubmed: 31981082
Plessis L, Gómez A, García N, Cereza G, Figueras A. Lack of essential information in spontaneous reports of adverse drug reactions in Catalonia—a restraint to the potentiality for signal detection. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2017;73:751–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-017-2223-5 .
doi: 10.1007/s00228-017-2223-5
pubmed: 28251276
Hutchinson TA, Lane DA. Assessing methods for causality assessment of suspected adverse drug reactions. J Clin Epidemiol. 1989;42:5–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(89)90020-6 .
doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(89)90020-6
pubmed: 2913186
Agbabiaka TB, Savović J, Ernst E. Methods for causality assessment of adverse drug reactions: a systematic review. Drug Saf. 2008;31:21–37. https://doi.org/10.2165/00002018-200831010-00003 .
doi: 10.2165/00002018-200831010-00003
pubmed: 18095744
Japanese Adverse Drug Event Report database (JADER). https://www.pmda.go.jp/safety/info-services/drugs/adr-info/suspected-adr/0004.html . Accessed 21 Sept 2023.
Ohta M. Causality assessment between reported fatal cerebral haemorrhage and suspected drugs: developing a new algorithm based on the analysis of the Japanese Adverse Event Report (JADER) database and literature review. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2021;77:1443–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-021-03131-y .
doi: 10.1007/s00228-021-03131-y
pubmed: 33829295
Bandekar M, Anwikar S, Kshirsagar N. Quality check of spontaneous adverse drug reaction reporting forms of different countries. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2010;19:1181–5. https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.2004 .
doi: 10.1002/pds.2004
pubmed: 20845409
Oosterhuis I, Rolfes L, Ekhart C, Muller-Hansma A, Härmark L. First experiences with a tool to measure the level of clinical information present in adverse drug reaction reports. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2018;17:111–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/14740338.2018.1400008 .
doi: 10.1080/14740338.2018.1400008
pubmed: 29157026
Naranjo CA, Busto U, Sellers EM, et al. A method for estimating the probability of adverse drug reactions. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1981;30:239–45. https://doi.org/10.1038/clpt.1981.154 .
doi: 10.1038/clpt.1981.154
pubmed: 7249508
Centre UM. The use of the WHO-UMC system for standardised case causality assessment. Uppsala: Uppsala Monitoring Centre; 2018.
Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–74. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310 .
doi: 10.2307/2529310
pubmed: 843571
Meyboom RH, Hekster YA, Egberts AC, Gribnau FW, Edwards IR. Causal or casual? The role of causality assessment in pharmacovigilance. Drug Saf. 1997;17:374–89. https://doi.org/10.2165/00002018-199717060-00004 .
doi: 10.2165/00002018-199717060-00004
pubmed: 9429837
Théophile H, André M, Miremont-Salamé G, Arimone Y, Bégaud B. Comparison of three methods (an updated logistic probabilistic method, the Naranjo and Liverpool algorithms) for the evaluation of routine pharmacovigilance case reports using consensual expert judgement as reference. Drug saf. 2013;36:1033–44.
doi: 10.1007/s40264-013-0083-1
pubmed: 23828659
de Menezes RR, Silva MDG, Ribeiro ALP, et al. Causality assessment of adverse drug reactions by applying a global introspection method in a high complexity hospital. Explor Res Clin Soc Pharm. 2021;3:100064. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcsop.2021.100064 .
doi: 10.1016/j.rcsop.2021.100064
Kane-Gill SL, Kirisci L, Pathak DS. Are the Naranjo criteria reliable and valid for determination of adverse drug reactions in the intensive care unit? Ann Pharmacother. 2005;39:1823–7. https://doi.org/10.1345/aph.1G177 .
doi: 10.1345/aph.1G177
pubmed: 16204392
Gallagher RM, Kirkham JJ, Mason JR, et al. Development and inter-rater reliability of the Liverpool adverse drug reaction causality assessment tool. PLoS ONE. 2011;6: e28096. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0028096 .
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0028096
pubmed: 22194808
pmcid: 3237416
Thaker SJ, Sinha RS, Gogtay NJ, Thatte UM. Evaluation of inter-rater agreement between three causality assessment methods used in pharmacovigilance. J Pharmacol Pharmacother. 2016;7:31–3. https://doi.org/10.4103/0976-500x.179361 .
doi: 10.4103/0976-500x.179361
pubmed: 27127394
pmcid: 4831488
Mouton JP, Mehta U, Rossiter DP, Maartens G, Cohen K. Interrater agreement of two adverse drug reaction causality assessment methods: a randomised comparison of the Liverpool Adverse Drug Reaction Causality Assessment Tool and the World Health Organization-Uppsala Monitoring Centre system. PLoS ONE. 2017;12: e0172830. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172830 .
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0172830
pubmed: 28235001
pmcid: 5325562
Leopoldino RWD, de Oliveira LVS, Fernandes FEM, et al. Causality assessment of adverse drug reactions in neonates: A comparative study between Naranjo’s algorithm and Du’s tool. Int J Clin Pharm. 2023;45(4):1–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-023-01595-9 .
doi: 10.1007/s11096-023-01595-9
Behera SK, Das S, Xavier AS, Velupula S, Sandhiya S. Comparison of different methods for causality assessment of adverse drug reactions. Int J Clin Pharm. 2018;40:903–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-018-0694-9 .
doi: 10.1007/s11096-018-0694-9
pubmed: 30051231