Skip to main content
Log in

Pharmacovigilance as Scientific Discovery: An Argument for Trans-Disciplinarity

  • Current Opinion
  • Published:
Drug Safety Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Pharmacovigilance currently faces several unsolved challenges. Of particular importance are issues concerning how to ascertain, collect, confirm, and communicate the best evidence to assist the clinical choice for individual patients. Here, we propose that these practical challenges partially stem from deeper fundamental issues concerning the epistemology of pharmacovigilance. After reviewing some of the persistent challenges, recent measures, and suggestions in the current pharmacovigilance literature, we support the argument that the detection of potential adverse drug reactions ought to be seen as a serendipitous scientific discovery. We further take up recent innovations from the multidisciplinary field of serendipity research about the importance of networks, diversity of expertise, and plurality of methodological perspectives for cultivating serendipitous discovery. Following this discussion, we explore how pharmacovigilance could be systematized in a way that optimizes serendipitous discoveries of untargeted drug effects, emerging from the clinical application. Specifically, we argue for the promotion of a trans-disciplinary responsive network of scientists and stakeholders. Trans-disciplinarity includes extending the involvement of stakeholders beyond the regulatory community, integrating diverse methods and sources of evidence, and enhancing the ability of diverse groups to raise signals of harms that ought to be followed up by the network. Consequently, promoting a trans-disciplinary approach to pharmacovigilance is a long-term effort that requires structural changes in medical education, research, and enterprise. We suggest a number of such changes, discuss to what extent they are already in process, and indicate the advantages from both epistemological and ethical perspectives.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The air transport industry might be an example of such a system.

References

  1. Onakpoya IJ, Heneghan CJ, Aronson JK. Delays in the post-marketing withdrawal of drugs to which deaths have been attributed: a systematic investigation and analysis. J Chem Inf Model. 2013;53:1689–99.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Kimmelman J, London AJ. The structure of clinical translation: efficiency, information, and ethics. Hastings Cent Rep. 2015;45:27–39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Osimani B. Until RCT proven? On the asymmetry of evidence requirements for risk assessment. J Eval Clin Pract. 2013;19:454–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Osimani B, Mignini F. Causal assessment of pharmaceutical treatments: why standards of evidence should not be the same for benefits and harms? Drug Saf. 2015;38:1–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Landes J, Osimani B, Poellinger R. Epistemology of causal inference in pharmacology: towards a framework for the assessment of harms. Eur J Philos Sci. 2018;8:3–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Vandenbroucke J. In defense of case reports and case studies. Ann Intern Med. 2001;134:330–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Trontell A. Expecting the unexpected: drug safety, pharmacovigilance, and the prepared mind. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:1385–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Edwards R, Lindquist M. Pharmacovigilace: critique and ways forward. Berlin: Springer; 2017.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  9. Copeland S. On serendipity in science: discoveries at the intersection of chance and wisdom. Synthese. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-017-1544-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Anjum RL, Copeland S, Rocca E. Medical scientists and philosophers worldwide appeal to EBM to expand the notion of ‘evidence’. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2018-111092 [Epub ahead of print].

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kelly WN, Arellano FM, Barnes J, Bergman U, Edwards IR, Fernandez AM, et al. Guidelines for submitting adverse event reports for publication. Drug Saf. 2007;30:367–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Maitra A, Annervaz K, Jain T, Shivaram M, Sengupta S. A novel text analysis platform for pharmacovigilance of clinical drugs. Proc Comp Sci. 2014;36:322–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Edwards R. Adverse drug effects and their clinical management: a personal view. Drug Saf. 2014;37:383–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Carleton B. What is the future of pharmacovigilance and how can we make it as good as possible? In: Edwards R, Lindquist M, editors. Pharmacovigilance critiques and ways forward. Berlin: Springer International Publishing; 2017. p. 21–30.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Rocca E. Bridging the boundaries between scientists and clinicians: mechanistic hypotheses and patient stories in risk assessment of drugs. J Eval Clin Pract. 2017;23:114–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Inacio P, Cavaco A, Airaksinen M. The value of patient reporting to the pharmacovigilance system: a systematic review. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2016;83:227–46.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Harmark L, Raine J, Leufkens HL, Edwards R, Moretti U, Macilic Sarinic V, et al. Patient-reported safety information: a renaissance for pharmacovigilance? Drug Saf. 2016;39:883–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hauben M, Madigan D, Gerrits CM, Walsh L, van Puijenbroek EP. The role of data mining in pharmacovigilance. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2005;4:929–48.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Houyez F. Connecting regulators and patient organisations. Uppsala Rep. 2018;79:17–8.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Bowdler J. The Erice declaration: on communicating drug safety information. Prescrire Int. 1998;7:191.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Caduff-Janosa P. Lost in regulation. In: Edwards R, Lindquist M, editors. Pharmacovigilance critiques and ways forward. Berlin: Springer International Publishing; 2017. p. 9–19.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Walpole H. Letter to Mann, 28 January 1754. In: Lewis WS, editor. The Yale edition of Horace Walpole’s correspondence, vol. 20. New Haven: Yale University Press; 1960. p. 407–11.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Arfini S, Bertolotti T, Magnani L. The antinomies of serendipity how to cognitively frame serendipity for scientific discoveries. Topoi. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-018-9571-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. McBirnie A. Chapter 5.1. Serendipity in a connected world. In: Race TM, Stephann M, editors. Accidental information discovery: cultivating serendipity in the digital age. Amsterdam: Chandos Publishing; 2016. p. 83–91.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Björneborn L. Three key affordances for serendipity: toward a framework connecting environmental and personal factors in serendipitous encounters. J Doc. 2017;73:1053–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Copeland S. “Fleming Leapt on the Unusual like a Weasel on a Vole”: challenging the paradigms of discovery in science. Perspect Sci. 2018;26:694–721.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Yaqub O. Serendipity: towards a taxonomy and a theory. Res Policy. 2018;47:169–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Baker J. The effect of drugs in the foetus. Pharmacol Rev. 1960;12:37–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Dally A. Thalidomide: was the tragedy preventable? Lancet. 1998;351:1197–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Laroche M-L, Batz A, Geniaux H, Fechant C, Merle L, Maison P. Pharmacovigilance in Europe: place of the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) in organisation and decisional processes. Pharmacovigilance. 2016;71:161–9.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Polanyi M. The logic of liberty. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press; 1951.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Merton R. The bearing of empirical research upon the development of social theory. Am Sociol Rev. 1948;13:505–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Ciesielski TH, Aldrich MC, Marsit CJ, Hiatt RA, Williams SM. Transdisciplinary approaches enhance the production of translational knowledge. Transl Res. 2017;182:123–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Vargesson N. Thalidomide-induced teratogenesis: history and mechanisms. Birth Defects Res C Embryo Today. 2015;105:140–56.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. D’Amato RJ, Loughnan MS, Flynn E, Folkman J. Thalidomide is an inhibitor of angiogenesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1994;91:4082–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Campillos M, Kuhn M, Gavin A-C, Jensen LJ, Bork P. Drug target identification using side-effect similarity. Science. 2008;321:263–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Michener WK, Bildstein KL, McKee A, Parmenter RR, Hargrove WW, McClearn D, et al. Biological field stations: research legacies and sites for serendipity. Bioscience. 2009;59:300–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. DiLiberti J, Farndon P, Dennis N, Curry C. The fetal valproate syndrome. Am J Med Genet. 1984;19:473–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Schardein J. Chemically induced birth defects. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.; 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Darbellay F, Moody Z, Sedooka A, Steffen G. Interdisciplinary research boosted by serendipity. Creat Res J. 2014;26:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2014.873653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Jahn T, Bergmann M, Keil F. Transdisciplinarity: between mainstreaming and marginalization. Ecol Econ. 2012;79:1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Kirwan J, de Wit M, Frank L, Haywood K, Salek S, Brace-McDonnell S, et al. Emerging guidelines for patient engagement in research. Value Health. 2017;20:481–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Choi B, Pak A. Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in health research, services, education and policy: 1. Definitions, objectives, and evidence of effectiveness. Clin Investig Med. 2006;29:351–64.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Lynch J. It’s not easy being interdisciplinary. Int J Epidemiol. 2006;35:1119–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Rocca E. The judgements that evidence-based medicine adopts. J Eval Clin Pract. 2018;24:1184–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Andersen F, Anjum RL, Rocca E. Philosophy of Biology: philosophical bias is the one bias that science cannot avoid. eLife. 2019;8:e44929. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.44929.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank four anonymous reviewers for constructive feedback on a previous draft of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elena Rocca.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Elena Rocca, Samantha Copeland, and I. Ralph Edwards have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this article.

Funding

This research was funded by the Norwegian Research Council (Grant no. 240073).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rocca, E., Copeland, S. & Ralph Edwards, I. Pharmacovigilance as Scientific Discovery: An Argument for Trans-Disciplinarity. Drug Saf 42, 1115–1124 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-019-00826-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-019-00826-1

Navigation