Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Way Towards Adverse Event Monitoring in Clinical Trials

  • Riview Article
  • Pharmacoepidemiology
  • Published:
Drug Safety Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

Different approaches to the monitoring of adverse reactions to drugs have been used over the years, with the aim of preventing catastrophes like the thalidomide episode and to rationalise drug usage.

In the 1960s, the use of national and international adverse event monitoring was first suggested by the British statistician, David Finney. According to Finney, the method was well suited for the postmarketing surveillance of drugs. The idea was rejected by the World Health Organization (WHO) but was later taken up by the Prescription Event Monitoring Event System in the UK.

Subsequent to problems with practolol in the 1970s it was suggested that adverse event monitoring could also be useful in clinical trials to detect adverse reactions before a drug is launched. The idea of adverse event monitoring has been tested by Astra Hässle in Sweden in clinical trials with felodipine and omeprazole, and is now the standard method within the company.

Adverse event monitoring is an expensive and time-consuming method seen from a short term perspective. However, such monitoring offers an opportunity to optimise the use of clinical trials in safety monitoring, and its ability to predict possible adverse drug reactions is superior to other methods.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Avery CW, Ibelle BP, Allison B, Mandell N. Systematic errors in the evaluation of side effects. American Journal of Psychiatry 123: 875–878, 1967

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Borden EK. Postmarketing surveillance: drug epidemiology. Journal of International Medical Research 9: 401–407, 1981

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Borghi C, Pallavini G, Comi D, Grillo G, Lombardo M, et al. Comparison of three different methods of monitoring unwanted effects during antihypertensive therapy. International Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Therapy and Toxicology 22: 324–328, 1984

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bulpitt CJ, Dollery CT. Side effects of hypertensive agents evaluated by a self administered questionnaire. British Medical Journal 3: 485–490, 1973

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ciccolunghi SN, Chaudri HA. A methodological study of some factors influencing the reporting of symptoms. Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 15: 496–505, 1975

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cocchetto DM, Nardi VN. Benefit-risk assessment of investigational drugs: current methodology, limitations, and alternative approaches. Pharmacotherapy 6: 286–303, 1986

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Committee on Safety of Medicines. CSM update. British Medical Journal 291: 46, 1985

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costa FV, Ambrosioni E, Magnani B. Side effects of antihypertensive drugs. Incidence and methods of collection. International Journal of Clinical Pharmacology and Biopharmacy 17: 405–409, 1979

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Coulter DM. Eye pain with nifedipine and disturbance of taste with captopril: a mutually controlled study showing a method of postmarketing surveillance. British Medical Journal 296: 1086–1088, 1988

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cruickshank JM, Fitzgerald JD, Tucker M. Beta-adrenoceptor blocking drugs: pronethalol, propranolol and practolol. In Laurence DR et al. (Eds.) Safety testing of new drugs, pp. 93–123, Academic Press, London, 1984

    Google Scholar 

  • Culliton BJ, Waterfall WK. Postmarketing surveillance. British Medical Journal 280: 1175–1176, 1980

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Editorial. Good clinical practice in Europe, Scrip, 1989

  • Edwards R. New Zealand — Intensive Medicines Monitoring Programme. In Adverse drug reactions. A global perspective on signal generation and analysis. pp. 47–48, Proceedings from WHO Anniversary Symposium, September 22–23, 1988, Uppsala, Sweden, 1988

  • Erslev AJ, Wintrobe MW. Detection and prevention of drug induced blood dyscrasias. Journal of the American Medical Association 182: 114–119, 1962

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faich GA. Adverse-drug-reaction monitoring. New England Journal of Medicine 314: 1589–1592, 1986

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Finer D. Fortfarande ställs världen regelbundet inför biverkning-skatastrofer. Läkartidningen 80: 4402–4404, 1983

    Google Scholar 

  • Finney DJ. The design and logic of a monitor of drug use. Journal of Chronic Diseases 18: 77–98, 1965

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Food and Drug Administration. Guideline for the format and content of the clinical and statistical sections of new drug applications, Rockville, July 1988

  • Friedman GD. Screening criteria for drug monitoring. The Kaiser-Permanente drug reaction monitoring system. Journal of Chronic Diseases 25: 11–20, 1972

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman GD, Collen MF, Halris LE, Van Brunt EE, Davis LS. Experience in monitoring drug reactions in outpatients. The Kaiser-Permanente drug monitoring system. Journal of the American Medical Association 217: 567–572, 1971

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Huskisson EC, Wojtulewski JA. Measurement of side effects of drugs. British Medical Journal 2: 698–699, 1974

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Inman WHW. Postmarketing surveillance of adverse drug reactions in general practice. II: Prescription event monitoring at the University of Southhampton. British Medical Journal 282: 1216–1217, 1981

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Inman WHW. Prescription event monitoring in benefit-risk evaluation. In Bostrom et al. (Eds) Detection and prevention of adverse drug reactions, pp. 133–145, Almqvist & Wiksell International, Stockholm, Sweden, 1984

    Google Scholar 

  • Jick H. The Boston Collaborative Drug Surveillance Programme. In Richards et al. (Eds) Adverse drug reactions, their prediction, detection and assessment, pp. 61–67, Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh and London, 1972

    Google Scholar 

  • Jick H, Walker AM, Spriet-Poura C. Postmarketing followup. Journal of the American Medical Association 242: 2310–2314, 1979

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kennerfalk A, Lundborg P, Wallander M-A. Säkerhetsbedömning av felodipine ER — Plendil, In Proceedings of the Swedish Society of Medicine, Stockholm, 1990

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawrie E, Brunton JL, Bomford G, Hakim RD. Report of the Second Hyderabad Chloroform Commission. Lancet 1: 149–159, 1890

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawson DH. Detection of drug induced disease. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 7: 13–18, 1979

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lundborg P, Wallander M -A. Biverkningsregistrering vid läkemedelsprövning. In Johnsson et al. (Eds) KJinisk läkemedelsprövning, Nordiskt Symposium Goteborg 1982, pp. 151–159, Lindgren & Soner AB, Mölndal, 1983

    Google Scholar 

  • McKendrick JG, Coats J, Newman D. Report on the action of anaesthetics. British Medical Journal 2: 957–972, 1880

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Moir DC. Clinical pharmacology: drug monitoring. British Medical Journal 282: 632–634, 1981

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Peace KE. Design, monitoring, and analysis issues relative to adverse events. Drug Information Journal 21: 21–28, 1987

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • PEM Newsletter. Drug Safety Research Unit, North Croft House, Winchester Road, Botley, Hampshire, September 1987

  • Royal BW. Monitoring adverse reactions to drugs. WHO Chronicle 27: 469–475, 1973

    Google Scholar 

  • Taussig HB. A study of the German outbreak of phocomelia. Journal of the American Medical Association 180: 1106–1114, 1962

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Skegg DCG, Doll R. The case for recording events in clinical trials. British Medical Journal 2: 1523–1524, 1977a

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Skegg DCG, Doll R. Frequency of eye complaints and rashes among patients receiving practolol and propranolol. Lancet 2: 475–478, 1977b

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Strom BL, Melmon KL. Can postmarketing surveillance help to effect optimal drug therapy? Journal of the American Medical Association 242: 2420–2423, 1979

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Vere DW. Drug adverse reactions as masqueraders. Adverse Drug Reaction Bulletin 60: 208–211, 1976

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallander M-A. A system for adverse drug reaction monitoring within a pharmaceutical company. In Cardiovascular information, pp. 18–19, AB Hässle, Mölndal, 1982

  • Wallander M-A, Dimenas E, Svardsudd K, Wiklund I. Evaluation of three methods of symptom reporting in a clinical trial of felodipine. European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 41: 187–196, 1991

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wallander M-A, Lundborg P. Application of a new method for adverse experience monitoring: some experiences. In Edlavitch SA (Ed.) Pharmacoepidemiology, Vol. 1, pp. 163–169, Lewis Publisher Inc., Chelsea, 1989

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallander M-A, Lundborg P, Svardsudd K. Adverse event monitoring in clinical trials with omeprazole and felodipine. European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 42: 517–522, 1992

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wallander M-A, Palmer LS. A monitoring system for adverse drug experiences in a pharmaceutical company: the integration of pre- and postmarketing data. Drug Information Journal 20: 225–235, 1986

    Google Scholar 

  • Yohn J (Ed.) Getting your drug approved: FDA’s own guidelines, pp. 2209–1798, David Swit, Washington Business Information, Inc, Arlington, 1990

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Research Laboratories, Astra Hässle, S-431 83, Mölndal, Sweden

    Mari-Ann Wallander

  2. Department of Family Medicine, Akademiska Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden

    Mari-Ann Wallander

Authors
  1. Mari-Ann Wallander
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wallander, MA. The Way Towards Adverse Event Monitoring in Clinical Trials. Drug-Safety 8, 251–262 (1993). https://doi.org/10.2165/00002018-199308030-00006

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00002018-199308030-00006

Keywords

Search

Navigation