Comparison of different methods for causality assessment of adverse drug reactions
- 180 Downloads
Background The causality assessment of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) remains a challenge, and none of the different available method of causality assessment used for assessing adverse reactions has been universally accepted as the gold standard. Objective To examine the agreement and correlation among three broad approaches for causality assessment of ADRs viz. World Health Organization-Uppsala Monitoring Centre (WHO-UMC) system, Naranjo algorithm, and updated Logistic method. Setting ADR monitoring centre (AMC) of a tertiary care teaching hospital in India. Method A total of 230 cases of ADR from April 2017 to August 2017 were retrospectively analyzed by each of these three methods. The agreement among the different methods was calculated by Cohen’s kappa (κ), and Spearman’s correlation was used to find the correlation among these methods. Main outcome measures Cohen’s kappa value and Spearman’s correlation coefficient for comparison among the different methods. Results The Cohen’s κ used for analyzing the agreement between WHO-UMC system and Naranjo algorithm was 0.45, between WHO-UMC system and updated Logistic method was 0.405, and between Naranjo algorithm and updated Logistic method was 0.606. The Spearman’s correlation coefficient was 0.793 for Naranjo algorithm vs. updated Logistic method, 0.735 for WHO-UMC system vs. Naranjo algorithm, and 0.696 for WHO-UMC system vs. updated Logistic method. Conclusion Causality assessment based on objective measurements (scores and probabilities) like updated Logistic method and Naranjo algorithm are less prone to subjective variations compared to the WHO-UMC system which is based on expert judgement.
KeywordsAdverse drug reaction ADRs Causality assessment Naranjo algorithm Updated Logistic method WHO-UMC system
We are grateful to the physicians, surgeons, and heads of the respective departments for reporting the ADR cases to the AMC, JIPMER, Puducherry.
No funding was obtained for this work.
Conflicts of interest
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest concerning the research, authorship, and publication of this article.
- 1.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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 2.Khan LM, Al-Harthi SE, Osman AM, Sattar MA, Ali AS. Dilemmas of the causality assessment tools in the diagnosis of adverse drug reactions. Saudi Pharm J SPJ Off Publ Saudi Pharm Soc. 2016;24:485–93.Google Scholar
- 3.Hire RC, Kinage PJ, Gaikward NN. Causality assessment in pharmacovigilance: a step towards quality care. Sch J App Med Sci. 2013;1:386–92.Google Scholar
- 7.US Food and Drug Administration; [Last accessed on 2012 Dec 30]. Safety reporting requirements for INDs and BA/BE studies. In: Guidance for industry and investigators. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/…/Guidances/UCM227351.pdf.
- 8.European Medicines Agency and Heads of Medicines Agencies; [Last accessed on 2012 Dec 30]. Module VI—Management and reporting of adverse reactions to medicinal products (Rev 1). In: Guideline on good pharmacovigilance practices (GVP). http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2012/06/WC500129135.pdf.
- 18.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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 19.Son M-K, Lee Y-W, Jung H-Y, Yi S-W, Lee K-H, Kim S-U, et al. Comparison of the Naranjo and WHO-Uppsala Monitoring Centre criteria for causality assessment of adverse drug reactions. Korean J Med. 2008;74:181–7.Google Scholar
- 20.Rehan HS, Chopra D, Kakkar AK. Causality assessment of spontaneously reported adverse drug events: comparison of WHO-UMC criteria and Naranjo probability scale. Int J Risk Saf Med. 2007;19:223–7.Google Scholar
- 24.Théophile H, Arimone Y, Miremont-Salamé G, Moore N, Fourrier-Réglat A, Haramburu F, et al. Comparison of three methods (consensual expert judgement, algorithmic and probabilistic approaches) of causality assessment of adverse drug reactions: an assessment using reports made to a French pharmacovigilance centre. Drug Saf. 2010;33:1045–54.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 25.The use of the WHO-UMC system for standardised case causality assessment. https://www.WHO-UMC.org/media/2768/standardised-case-causality-assessment.pdf. Accessed 27 Oct 2017.
- 27.Pharmacovigilance programme of India. http://www.ipc.gov.in/PvPI/pv_home.html. Accessed 30 Oct 2017.
- 28.Ganesan S, Sandhiya S, Reddy KC, Subrahmanyam DK, Adithan C. The impact of the educational intervention on knowledge, attitude, and practice of pharmacovigilance toward adverse drug reactions reporting among health-care professionals in a tertiary care hospital in South India. J Nat Sci Biol Med. 2017;8:203–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 29.Palaniappan M, Selvarajan S, George M, Subramaniyan G, Dkhar SA, Pillai AA, et al. Pattern of adverse drug reactions reported with cardiovascular drugs in a tertiary care teaching hospital. J Clin Diagn Res. 2015;9:FC01-04.Google Scholar
- 34.Macedo AF, Marques FB, Ribeiro CF, Teixeira F. Causality assessment of adverse drug reactions: comparison of the results obtained from published decisional algorithms and from the evaluations of an expert panel, according to different levels of imputability. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2003;28:137–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 35.Lei H, Rehman A, Haq A. Adverse drug reaction reports in Malaysia: comparison of causality assessments. Malays J Pharm Sci. 2007;5:7–17.Google Scholar
- 36.Safety of medicines—a guide to detecting and reporting adverse drug reactions—why health professionals need to take action. http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/en/d/Jh2992e/. Accessed 26 Oct 2017.