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.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The air transport industry might be an example of such a system.
References
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.
Kimmelman J, London AJ. The structure of clinical translation: efficiency, information, and ethics. Hastings Cent Rep. 2015;45:27–39.
Osimani B. Until RCT proven? On the asymmetry of evidence requirements for risk assessment. J Eval Clin Pract. 2013;19:454–62.
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.
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.
Vandenbroucke J. In defense of case reports and case studies. Ann Intern Med. 2001;134:330–4.
Trontell A. Expecting the unexpected: drug safety, pharmacovigilance, and the prepared mind. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:1385–7.
Edwards R, Lindquist M. Pharmacovigilace: critique and ways forward. Berlin: Springer; 2017.
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.
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].
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.
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.
Edwards R. Adverse drug effects and their clinical management: a personal view. Drug Saf. 2014;37:383–90.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Houyez F. Connecting regulators and patient organisations. Uppsala Rep. 2018;79:17–8.
Bowdler J. The Erice declaration: on communicating drug safety information. Prescrire Int. 1998;7:191.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Björneborn L. Three key affordances for serendipity: toward a framework connecting environmental and personal factors in serendipitous encounters. J Doc. 2017;73:1053–81.
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.
Yaqub O. Serendipity: towards a taxonomy and a theory. Res Policy. 2018;47:169–79.
Baker J. The effect of drugs in the foetus. Pharmacol Rev. 1960;12:37–9.
Dally A. Thalidomide: was the tragedy preventable? Lancet. 1998;351:1197–9.
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.
Polanyi M. The logic of liberty. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press; 1951.
Merton R. The bearing of empirical research upon the development of social theory. Am Sociol Rev. 1948;13:505–15.
Ciesielski TH, Aldrich MC, Marsit CJ, Hiatt RA, Williams SM. Transdisciplinary approaches enhance the production of translational knowledge. Transl Res. 2017;182:123–34.
Vargesson N. Thalidomide-induced teratogenesis: history and mechanisms. Birth Defects Res C Embryo Today. 2015;105:140–56.
D’Amato RJ, Loughnan MS, Flynn E, Folkman J. Thalidomide is an inhibitor of angiogenesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1994;91:4082–5.
Campillos M, Kuhn M, Gavin A-C, Jensen LJ, Bork P. Drug target identification using side-effect similarity. Science. 2008;321:263–6.
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.
DiLiberti J, Farndon P, Dennis N, Curry C. The fetal valproate syndrome. Am J Med Genet. 1984;19:473–81.
Schardein J. Chemically induced birth defects. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.; 1985.
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.
Jahn T, Bergmann M, Keil F. Transdisciplinarity: between mainstreaming and marginalization. Ecol Econ. 2012;79:1–10.
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.
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.
Lynch J. It’s not easy being interdisciplinary. Int J Epidemiol. 2006;35:1119–22.
Rocca E. The judgements that evidence-based medicine adopts. J Eval Clin Pract. 2018;24:1184–90.
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.
Acknowledgements
We thank four anonymous reviewers for constructive feedback on a previous draft of this paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
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
About this article
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
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-019-00826-1