Dataset Information

Caveat Medicus: Clinician experiences in publishing reports of serious oncology-associated adverse drug reactions.

ABSTRACT: Oncology-associated adverse drug/device reactions can be fatal. Some clinicians who treat single patients with severe oncology-associated toxicities have researched case series and published this information. We investigated motivations and experiences of select individuals leading such efforts. Clinicians treating individual patients who developed oncology-associated serious adverse drug events were asked to participate. Inclusion criteria included having index patient information, reporting case series, and being collaborative with investigators from two National Institutes of Health funded pharmacovigilance networks. Thirty-minute interviews addressed investigational motivation, feedback from pharmaceutical manufacturers, FDA personnel, and academic leadership, and recommendations for improving pharmacovigilance. Responses were analyzed using constant comparative methods of qualitative analysis. Overall, 18 clinicians met inclusion criteria and 14 interviewees are included. Primary motivations were scientific curiosity, expressed by six clinicians. A less common theme was public health related (three clinicians). Six clinicians received feedback characterized as supportive from academic leaders, while four clinicians received feedback characterized as negative. Three clinicians reported that following the case series publication they were invited to speak at academic institutions worldwide. Responses from pharmaceutical manufacturers were characterized as negative by 12 clinicians. One clinician's wife called the post-reporting time the "Maalox month," while another clinician reported that the manufacturer collaboratively offered to identify additional cases of the toxicity. Responses from FDA employees were characterized as collaborative for two clinicians, neutral for five clinicians, unresponsive for negative by six clinicians. Three clinicians endorsed developing improved reporting mechanisms for individual physicians, while 11 clinicians endorsed safety activities that should be undertaken by persons other than a motivated clinician who personally treats a patient with a severe adverse drug/device reaction. Our study provides some of the first reports of clinician motivations and experiences with reporting serious or potentially fatal oncology-associated adverse drug or device reactions. Overall, it appears that negative feedback from pharmaceutical manufacturers and mixed feedback from the academic community and/or the FDA were reported. Big data, registries, Data Safety Monitoring Boards, and pharmacogenetic studies may facilitate improved pharmacovigilance efforts for oncology-associated adverse drug reactions. These initiatives overcome concerns related to complacency, indifference, ignorance, and system-level problems as barriers to documenting and reporting adverse drug events- barriers that have been previously reported for clinician reporting of serious adverse drug reactions.

SUBMITTER: Bennett CL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6668902 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Caveat Medicus: Clinician experiences in publishing reports of serious oncology-associated adverse drug reactions.

Bennett Charles L CL Schooley Benjamin B Taylor Matthew A MA Witherspoon Bartlett J BJ Godwin Ashley A Vemula Jayanth J Ausdenmoore Henry C HC Sartor Oliver O Yang Y Tony YT Armitage James O JO Hrushesky William J WJ Restaino John J Thomsen Henrik S HS Yarnold Paul R PR Young Terence T Knopf Kevin B KB Chen Brian B

PloS one 20190731 7

Oncology-associated adverse drug/device reactions can be fatal. Some clinicians who treat single patients with severe oncology-associated toxicities have researched case series and published this information. We investigated motivations and experiences of select individuals leading such efforts. Clinicians treating individual patients who developed oncology-associated serious adverse drug events were asked to participate. Inclusion criteria included having index patient information, reporting ca ...[more]

PMID: 31365527

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAdverse Drug Reactions (ADRs) are of great public health concern. FDA-approved drug labeling summarizes ADRs of a drug product mainly in three sections, i.e., Boxed Warning (BW), Warnings and Precautions (WP), and Adverse Reactions (AR), where the severity of ADRs are intended to decrease in the order of BW > WP > AR. Several reported studies have extracted ADRs from labeling documents, but most, if not all, did not discriminate the severity of the ADRs by the different labeling sections. Such a practice could overstate or underestimate the impact of certain ADRs to the public health. In this study, we applied the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) to drug labeling and systematically analyzed and compared the ADRs from the three labeling sections with a specific emphasis on analyzing serious ADRs presented in BW, which is of most drug safety concern.ResultsThis study investigated New Drug Application (NDA) labeling documents for 1164 single-ingredient drugs using Oracle Text search to extract MedDRA terms. We found that only a small portion of MedDRA Preferred Terms (PTs), 3819 out of 21,920 or 17.42%, were observed in a whole set of documents. In detail, 466/3819 (12.0%) PTs were in BW, 2023/3819 (53.0%) were in WP, and 2961/3819 (77.5%) were in AR sections. We also found a higher overlap of top 20 occurring BW PTs with WP sections compared to AR sections. Within the MedDRA System Organ Class levels, serious ADRs (sADRs) from BW were prevalent in Nervous System disorders and Vascular disorders. A Hierarchical Cluster Analysis (HCA) revealed that drugs within the same therapeutic category shared the same ADR patterns in BW (e.g., nervous system drug class is highly associated with drug abuse terms such as dependence, substance abuse, and respiratory depression).ConclusionsThis study demonstrated that combining MedDRA standard terminologies with data mining techniques facilitated computer-aided ADR analysis of drug labeling. We also highlighted the importance of labeling sections that differ in seriousness and application in drug safety. Using sADRs primarily related to BW sections, we illustrated a prototype approach for computer-aided ADR monitoring and studies which can be applied to other public health documents.

Project description:Introduction and objectiveEuropean Union legislation has mandated the submission of European Economic Area non-serious reports to the EudraVigilance database since November 2017. As spontaneous reports of suspected adverse reactions to medicines represent a key source of safety signals, the European Medicines Agency has undertaken this work to assess the effects of this requirement on the characteristics of the reports submitted to EudraVigilance and on the detection of adverse drug reactions through routine analyses of the database.MethodsChanges in the numbers of serious and non-serious reports transmitted to EudraVigilance were examined over the period during which the legislation was implemented. The numbers and nature of potential safety signals emerging from established statistical algorithms used at the European Medicines Agency applied either to only the serious reports or to all reports in EudraVigilance were compared.ResultsUp to November 2017, less than 25% of European Economic Area reports in EudraVigilance were classified as non-serious, since than this figure was slightly above 60%. This change accompanied an increase in the total number of reports received. Addition of non-serious reports to the signal detection process resulted in a small overall increase in signals of disproportionate reporting with some new signals of disproportionate reporting appearing and some existing signals of disproportionate reporting disappearing; the sensitivity of the signal detection system was slightly increased and the proportion of signals of disproportionate reporting that corresponded to known adverse drug reactions (a measure of efficiency) was unchanged.ConclusionsThe change in legislation has led to a small increase in sensitivity, without affecting the efficiency of the routine statistical measures used. The number of non-serious reports as a proportion of reports in EudraVigilance is likely to increase over time and further monitoring of the impact on signal detection is required. Further work is also required on the qualitative impact of non-serious reports on the nature of signals detected and on their evaluation.

Project description:BackgroundAdverse drug reactions (ADRs) and medication errors in children may result from a lack of appropriate drugs, dosages, and pharmaceutical forms. In addition, children may respond differently to drugs than adults. Reporting of ADRs in the pediatric population is therefore of importance in order to increase the amount of safety data. However, different methodological approaches are used to collect ADRs.ObjectiveThe aim of the present study was to analyze whether there were differences in the ADRs collected in the KiDSafe project (845 ADR reports) compared with the spontaneous ADR reports sent to EudraVigilance (697 reports) in the same time period. The strengths and limitations of these two different approaches should be discussed.MethodsThe same inclusion criteria were applied for the systematically collected ADRs in the KiDSafe project and the spontaneous reports from EudraVigilance, and only reports of ADRs coded with hospitalization were considered. In both datasets, the number of reports (related to number of hospitals), their documentation quality (VigiGrade), causal relationship (World Health Organization-Uppsala Monitoring Centre [WHO-UMC] criteria), most frequently reported drugs and ADRs, demographical parameters of the patients, reported medical histories, and the seriousness of ADR reports were analyzed descriptively. The results of the two analyses were compared.ResultsThere was considerable underreporting of ADRs via the spontaneous reports (0.4 reports per hospital; 697/1902) compared with 70.4 reports per hospital (845/12) in the systematically collected KiDSafe reports. Documentation quality assessment yielded similar results in both datasets. Among the 10 most frequently reported drugs, anticonvulsants such as levetiracetam (6.6%), valproic acid (5.6%), oxcarbazepine (3.6%), and lamotrigine (3.4%) were mainly reported in the KiDSafe reports, while in the EudraVigilance reports, mite allergen extract (4.4%) and allergens (3.6%) were preferentially reported. Seizures were the most frequently reported clinically specific ADRs in the KiDSafe reports, whereas anaphylactic reactions and urticaria were prominent in the spontaneous reports from EudraVigilance. Notably, the proportion of reports referring to medication errors and other medication safety related issues were more prominent in KiDSafe than in the spontaneous reports (27.8% vs. 12.6% and 46.0% vs. 29.0%, respectively).ConclusionIn general, reports from both data sources contributed to the identification of ADRs and dedicated issues related to drug therapy. However, these differed by nature and strength of the signal, likely due to the characteristics of the individual method. A combined approach could likely compensate for limitations inherent to the single approaches, but will most likely only be applied to dedicated pharmacovigilance topics or research objectives.

Project description:Background:The Protecting Canadians from Unsafe Drugs Act will eventually require institutions to report all serious adverse drug reactions (ADRs), although the proposed regulations do not yet define what will need to be reported and by whom. Knowledge about the occurrence of serious ADRs in the hospital setting is needed to optimize the effectiveness of reporting and to determine the potential implications of mandatory reporting. Objectives:To quantify and characterize suspected serious ADRs in patients admitted to a general medicine service, to assess the likelihood of causality, and to determine inter-rater agreement for identification of ADRs and assessment of their likelihood. Methods:This prospective observational study involved 60 consecutive patients admitted to a general medicine service at a tertiary care teaching centre starting on March 28, 2016. The primary outcome was the number of serious ADRs, defined by Health Canada as ADRs that result in hospital admission, congenital malformation, persistent or significant disability or incapacity, or death; that are life-threatening; or that require significant intervention to prevent one of these outcomes. Medical records were reviewed independently by pairs of pharmacists for serious ADRs, and the likelihood of causality was assessed using the World Health Organization-Uppsala Monitoring Centre system. Inter-rater agreement was calculated using the kappa score, and disagreements were resolved by discussion and consensus. Results:Twenty-three serious ADRs occurred in the sample of 60 patients. The proportion of patients experiencing a serious ADR that contributed to the original hospital admission was 19/60 (32%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 20%-43%), and 4 patients (7%, 95% CI 0%-13%) experienced a serious ADR during their hospital stay. Inter-rater agreement for occurrence of serious ADRs was moderate (kappa 0.58, 95% CI 0.35-0.76). Conclusion:Reportable serious ADRs were common among patients admitted to a general medicine service. Canadian hospitals would face difficulties reporting all serious ADRs because of the frequency of their occurrence and the subjectivity of their identification.

Dataset Information

Caveat Medicus: Clinician experiences in publishing reports of serious oncology-associated adverse drug reactions.

Publications

Caveat Medicus: Clinician experiences in publishing reports of serious oncology-associated adverse drug reactions.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets