Adverse Event Reporting and Standardized Medical Terminologies: Strengths and Limitations

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, access via your institution.

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.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

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

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

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

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

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

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

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

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

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

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

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

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

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

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

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