Advertisement

Adverse Event Reporting and Standardized Medical Terminologies: Strengths and Limitations

  • 7 Citations

Abstract

The International Conference on Harmonization (ICH) is a unique multinational effort involving globalization of the pharmaceutical industry. In response to a need perceived by both industry and regulatory authorities for a common medical terminology designed for regulatory purposes, the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA®) was developed under ICH auspices.

As a dynamic terminology, MedDRA has undergone review and refinements by its associated Expert Working Group to facilitate analysis and presentation of data. The MedDRA Maintenance and Support Services Organization is responsible for maintaining and updating the terminology, utilizing user experience and feedback.

While not the first coding terminology designed for adverse reaction reporting, MedDRA reportedly offers advantages over previous terminologies. Further, a common terminology provides for greater ease of analysis and data transmission both within and between countries.

However, no medical terminology is without limitations, particularly with respect to coding issues and specific clinical entities. These limitations must be recognized and considered in the performance of pharmacovigilance and pharmacoepidemiology, if the terminology’s utility as a safety tool is to be maximized.

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

Access options

Buy single article

Instant unlimited access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Price includes VAT for USA

Subscribe to journal

Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.

US$ 189

This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.

References

  1. 1.

    International Conference on Harmonization Web site: www.ifpma.org/ichl.html; www.ifpma.org/ich5m.html; www.ifpma.org/ichMedDRA.html.

  2. 2.

    MedDRA Maintenance and Support Services Organization Website: www.meddramsso.com.

  3. 3.

    Goldman SA. Lithium and neuroleptics in combination: the spectrum of neurotoxicity. Psychopharma-col Bull. 1996; 32(3):299–309.

  4. 4.

    Venulet J, Bankowski Z. Harmonising adverse drug reaction terminology: the role of the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences. Drug Saf. 1998; 19(3): 165–172.

  5. 5.

    Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences Working Group I. International Reporting of Adverse Drug Reactions, Final Report of CIOMS Working Group I. Geneva, Switzerland: Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences; 1990.

  6. 6.

    Jones JK. Definition of events associated with drugs: regulatory perspectives. J Rheumatology. 1988; 15(Suppl 17):14–19.

  7. 7.

    Venulet J. Establishing requirements for the use of terms for reporting adverse drug reactions. Int J Clin Pharmacol Res. 1992; 12(3):61–64.

  8. 8.

    US Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Coding Symbols for Thesaurus of Adverse Reaction Terms. Fifth edition. Rockville, MD: US Food and Drug Administration; 1995.

  9. 9.

    World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for International Drug Monitoring. Adverse Reaction Terminology. Uppsala, Sweden: World Health Organization; 1992.

  10. 10.

    World Health Organization. International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Health Related Problems. Tenth revision. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 1992.

  11. 11.

    Wood KL. The Medical Dictionary for Drug Regulatory Affairs (MEDDRA) project. Pharmacoepide-miol Drug Saf. 1994;3:7–13.

  12. 12.

    Kubota K, Inman WHW. Terminology in prescription-event monitoring. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1994; 46(6):497–500.

  13. 13.

    Breant C, Borst F, Campi D, Gricsser V, Momjian S. A hospital-wide clinical findings dictionary based on an extension of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD). ProcAMIA Symp. 1999;706–710.

  14. 14.

    Huntley K, Veverka MJ, Golden M. The FDA’s Medical Dictionary for Drug Regulatory Affairs alpha test. Drug Inf J. 1995;29:1133–1143.

  15. 15.

    White CA. A preliminary assessment of the impact of MEDDRA on adverse event reports and product labeling. Drug InfJ. 1998;32:347–362.

  16. 16.

    Brown EG, Clark E. Evaluation of MEDDRA in representing medicinal product data sheet information. Pharmaceutical Med. 1996;10:111–118.

  17. 17.

    Brown EG, Wood L, Wood S. The Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA). Drug Saf. 1999; 20(3):109–117.

  18. 18.

    Goldman SA. Lithium and neuroleptics in combination: is there enhancement of neurotoxicity leading to permanent sequelae? J Clin Pharmacol. 1996; 36(10):951–962.

  19. 19.

    Caroff SN, Mann SC. Neuroleptic malignant syndrome. Med Clin North Am. 1993; 77(3):185–202.

  20. 20.

    Addonizio G, Susman VL, Roth SD. Symptoms of neuroleptic malignant syndrome in 82 consecutive inpatients. Am J Psychiatry. 1986; 143(3):1587–1590.

  21. 21.

    Gurrera RJ, Chang SS, Romero JA. A comparison of diagnostic criteria for neuroleptic malignant syndrome. J Clin Psychiatry. 1992; 53(3):56–62.

  22. 22.

    Brown EG, Douglas S. Tabulation and analysis of pharmacovigilance data using the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2000; 9(6): 479–489.

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Stephen A. Goldman MD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Goldman, S.A. Adverse Event Reporting and Standardized Medical Terminologies: Strengths and Limitations. Ther Innov Regul Sci 36, 439–444 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1177/009286150203600224

Download citation

Key Words

  • Adverse
  • Reporting
  • MedDRA®
  • Pharmacovigilance
  • Pharmacoepidemiology