Skip to main content

Value and Methods of Pharmacovigilance in the Monitoring of Drug Safety in Parkinson’s Disease

  • 398 Accesses

Part of the Neuromethods book series (NM,volume 160)

Abstract

Pharmacovigilance encompasses the detection, assessment, understanding and prevention of drug-related adverse outcomes. This important discipline plays a key role in evaluating drug safety and efficacy under real-world conditions of use following market authorization. Pharmacovigilance focuses mainly on adverse drug reactions (ADRs), which are unintended adverse medical events caused by an approved drug used at normal human doses for the prophylaxis, diagnosis, or therapy of disease, or for modification of physiological function. Spontaneous reporting of ADRs is a key source of pharmacovigilance data on marketed drugs. Analytic pharmacoepidemiologic studies can also be used to study real world safety and effectiveness (RWSE) of marketed drugs. Evaluation of spontaneous reporting data is often referred to as passive pharmacovigilance, with analytic epidemiological studies based on electronic health records or claims data representing active surveillance.

Pharmacovigilance has contributed substantially to our knowledge of the safety of antiparkinsonian drugs. Though patients on dopamine agonists and/or L-DOPA usually develop diurnal somnolence or impulse-control disorders, because they only occur infrequently, they were only identified in the marketing phase by spontaneous reporting of the adverse events. Tolcapone has been shown to produce fulminant hepatitis with a very low frequency, an adverse effect that was unnoticed during premarketing clinical development. Heart valvular disorders in patients treated with ergolinic dopamine agonists were also identified using spontaneous reporting data and later confirmed by large-scale pharmacoepidemiologic studies. Heart failure has been related to pramipexole use by several pharmacoepidemiological studies, after a signal was detected in phase III clinical trials. In this chapter, the main concepts underlying modern pharmacovigilance are outlined, along with the specific role of pharmacovigilance in assessing the safety of antiparkinsonian drugs.

Key words

  • Parkinson’s disease
  • Drug safety
  • Pharmacovigilance
  • Adverse drug reactions
  • Clinical trials

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Protocol
USD   49.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-1-0716-0912-5_8
  • Chapter length: 14 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-1-0716-0912-5
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Hardcover Book
USD   219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Springer Nature is developing a new tool to find and evaluate Protocols. Learn more

References

  1. World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for International Drug Monitoring (2002) Safety of Medicines. A guide to detecting and reporting adverse drug reactions. World Health Organization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bord CA, Rach CL (2006) Adverse drug reactions in United States hospitals. Pharmacotherapy 26:601–608

    Google Scholar 

  3. World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for International Drug Monitoring (2002) The importance of pharmacovigilance. Safety monitoring of medicinal products. World Health Organization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  4. The Council of the European Economic Community (1906) Directive 65/65/EEC of the 26 Jan 1965 on the approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to medicinal products. The Council of the European Economic Community, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  5. Montastruc JL, Sommet A, Lacroix I et al (2006) Pharmacovigilance for evaluating adverse drug reactions: value, organization, and methods. Joint Bone Spine 73:629–632

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Rehan HS, Chopra D, Kakkar AK (2009) Physician’s guide to pharmacovigilance: terminology and causality assessment. Eur J Intern Med 20:3–8

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Olanow CW, Stern MB, Sethi K (2009) The scientific and clinical basis for the treatment of Parkinson disease. Neurology 72:S1–S136

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Strom BL (2000) What is pharmacoepidemiology? In: Strom BL (ed) Pharmacoepidemiology. Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, pp 3–15

    Google Scholar 

  9. Uher R, Farmer A, Henigsberg N et al (2009) Adverse reactions to antidepressants. Br J Psychiatry 195:202–210

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Balatsinou L, Di GG, Sabatino G et al (2004) Asthma worsened by benzoate contained in some antiasthmatic drugs. Int J Immunopathol Pharmacol 17:225–226

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Brown MB, Traynor MJ, Martin GP et al (2008) Transdermal drug delivery systems: skin perturbation devices. Methods Mol Biol 437:119–139

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Edwards IR, Aronson JK (2000) Adverse drug reactions: definitions, diagnosis, and management. Lancet 356:1255–1259

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Mcbride WG (1961) Thalidomide and congenital malformations. Lancet 2:1358–1358

    Google Scholar 

  14. Vargesson N (2015) Thalidomide-induced teratogenesis: history and mechanisms. Birth Defects Res C Embryo Today 105:140–156

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Greene JA, Podolsky SH (2012) Reform, regulation, and pharmaceuticals—the Kefauver-Harris amendments at 50. N Engl J Med 367:1481–1483

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Grimes DA, Schulz KF (2002) Bias and causal associations in observational research. Lancet 359:248–252

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Grimes DA, Schulz KF (2002) An overview of clinical research: the lay of the land. Lancet 359:57–61

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Mann RD (2007) An instructive example of a long-latency adverse drug reaction—sclerosing peritonitis due to practolol. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 16:1211–1216

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Harmark L, Van Grootheest AC (2008) Pharmacovigilance: methods, recent developments and future perspectives. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 64:743–752

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for International Drug Monitoring (2000) Safety monitoring of medicinal products: guidelines for setting up and running a Pharmacovigilance Centre. World Health Organization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  21. World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for International Drug Monitoring (2019) Uppsala Monitoring Centre: VigiBase. World Health Organization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  22. Olivier P, Montastruc JL (2006) The nature of the scientific evidence leading to drug withdrawals for pharmacovigilance reasons in France. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 15:808–812

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Mcnaughton R, Huet G, Shakir S (2014) An investigation into drug products withdrawn from the EU market between 2002 and 2011 for safety reasons and the evidence used to support the decision-making. BMJ Open 4:e004221

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Hazell L, Shakir SA (2006) Under-reporting of adverse drug reactions: a systematic review. Drug Saf 29:385–396

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Stephenson WP, Hauben M (2007) Data mining for signals in spontaneous reporting databases: proceed with caution. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 16:359–365

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Weaver J, Willy M, Avigan M (2008) Informatic tools and approaches in postmarketing pharmacovigilance used by FDA. AAPS J 10:35–41

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Chan EW, Liu KQ, Chui CS et al (2015) Adverse drug reactions – examples of detection of rare events using databases. Br J Clin Pharmacol 80:855–861

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Robb MA, Racoosin JA, Sherman RE et al (2012) The US Food and Drug Administration’s sentinel initiative: expanding the horizons of medical product safety. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 21(Suppl 1):9–11

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Ordonez L, Salgueiro E, Jimeno FJ et al (2015) Spontaneous reporting of Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis associated with antiepileptic drugs. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 19:2732–2737

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Naranjo CA, Busto U, Sellers EM et al (1981) A method for estimating the probability of adverse drug reactions. Clin Pharmacol Ther 30:239–245

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Kramer MS, Leventhal JM, Hutchinson TA et al (1979) An algorithm for the operational assessment of adverse drug reactions. I. Background, description, and instructions for use. JAMA 242:623–632

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Karch FE, Lasagna L (1975) Adverse drug reactions. A critical review. JAMA 234:1236–1241

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Begaud B, Evreux JC, Jouglard J et al (1985) Imputation of the unexpected or toxic effects of drugs. Actualization of the method used in France. Therapie 40:111–118

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Dorsey ER, Constantinescu R, Thompson JP et al (2007) Projected number of people with Parkinson disease in the most populous nations, 2005 through 2030. Neurology 68:384–386

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Cantor CR, Stern MB (2002) Dopamine agonists and sleep in Parkinson's disease. Neurology 58:S71–S78

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Frucht S, Rogers JD, Greene PE et al (1999) Falling asleep at the wheel: motor vehicle mishaps in persons taking pramipexole and ropinirole. Neurology 52:1908–1910

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Ferreira JJ, Galitzky M, Montastruc JL et al (2000) Sleep attacks and Parkinson’s disease treatment. Lancet 355:1333–1334

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Ferreira JJ, Thalamas C, Montastruc JL et al (2001) Levodopa monotherapy can induce “sleep attacks” in Parkinson’s disease patients. J Neurol 248:426–427

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Homann CN, Wenzel K, Suppan K et al (2002) Sleep attacks in patients taking dopamine agonists: review. BMJ 324:1483–1487

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Micallef J, Rey M, Eusebio A et al (2009) Antiparkinsonian drug-induced sleepiness: a double-blind placebo-controlled study of L-dopa, bromocriptine and pramipexole in healthy subjects. Br J Clin Pharmacol 67:333–340

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Giovannoni G, O'sullivan JD, Turner K et al (2000) Hedonistic homeostatic dysregulation in patients with Parkinson’s disease on dopamine replacement therapies. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 68:423–428

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Antonini A, Cilia R (2009) Behavioural adverse effects of dopaminergic treatments in Parkinson’s disease: incidence, neurobiological basis, management and prevention. Drug Saf 32:475–488

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Voon V, Fox SH (2007) Medication-related impulse control and repetitive behaviors in Parkinson disease. Arch Neurol 64:1089–1096

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Voon V, Thomsen T, Miyasaki JM et al (2007) Factors associated with dopaminergic drug-related pathological gambling in Parkinson disease. Arch Neurol 64:212–216

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Perez-Lloret S, Rey MV, Fabre N et al (2012) Do Parkinson’s disease patients disclose their adverse events spontaneously? Eur J Clin Pharmacol 68:857–865

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Assal F, Spahr L, Hadengue A et al (1998) Tolcapone and fulminant hepatitis. Lancet 352:958

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Colosimo C (1999) The rise and fall of tolcapone. J Neurol 246:880–882

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Benabou R, Waters C (2003) Hepatotoxic profile of catechol-O-methyltransferase inhibitors in Parkinson’s disease. Expert Opin Drug Saf 2:263–267

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Borges N (2005) Tolcapone in Parkinson’s disease: liver toxicity and clinical efficacy. Expert Opin Drug Saf 4:69–73

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Pritchett AM, Morrison JF, Edwards WD et al (2002) Valvular heart disease in patients taking pergolide. Mayo Clin Proc 77:1280–1286

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Antonini A, Poewe W (2007) Fibrotic heart-valve reactions to dopamine-agonist treatment in Parkinson’s disease. Lancet Neurol 6:826–829

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Steiger M, Jost W, Grandas F et al (2009) Risk of valvular heart disease associated with the use of dopamine agonists in Parkinson’s disease: a systematic review. J Neural Transm 116:179–191

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Bhattacharyya S, Schapira AH, Mikhailidis DP et al (2009) Drug-induced fibrotic valvular heart disease. Lancet 374:577–585

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Schade R, Andersohn F, Suissa S et al (2007) Dopamine agonists and the risk of cardiac-valve regurgitation. N Engl J Med 356:29–38

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Perez-Lloret S, Rey MV, Crispo J et al (2014) Risk of heart failure following treatment with dopamine agonists in Parkinson’s disease patients. Expert Opin Drug Saf 13:351–360

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Administration USFDA (2012) FDA drug safety communication: ongoing safety review of Parkinson’s drug Mirapex (pramipexole) and possible risk of heart failure. FDA, Silver Spring, MD

    Google Scholar 

  57. Arbouw ME, Movig KL, Guchelaar HJ et al (2012) Dopamine agonists and ischemic complications in Parkinson’s disease: a nested case-control study. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 68:83–88

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Mokhles MM, Trifiro G, Dieleman JP et al (2012) The risk of new onset heart failure associated with dopamine agonist use in Parkinson’s disease. Pharmacol Res 65:358–364

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Renoux C, Dell'aniello S, Brophy JM et al (2012) Dopamine agonist use and the risk of heart failure. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 21:34–41

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Hsieh PH, Hsiao FY (2013) Risk of heart failure associated with dopamine agonists: a nested case-control study. Drugs Aging 30:739–745

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Crispo J, Willis AW, Thibault DP et al (2016) Associations between cardiovascular events and nonergot dopamine agonists in Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord Clin Pract 2016:1–11

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Santiago Perez-Lloret .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Appendix

Appendix

Adverse event or experience: any untoward medical occurrence that may present during treatment with a medicine but which does not necessarily have a causal relationship with this treatment . The basic point here is the coincidence in time without any suspicion of a causal relationship.

Serious adverse event: any event that: is fatal; is life-threatening; is permanently/significantly disabling; requires or prolongs hospitalization; causes a congenital anomaly; or requires intervention to prevent permanent impairment or damage.

Adverse drug reaction (ADR): a response to a medicine which is noxious and unintended, and which occurs at doses normally used in man for the prophylaxis, diagnosis, or therapy of disease, or for the modifications of physiological function. In this description it is of importance that it concerns the response of a patient, in which individual factors may play an important role, and that the phenomenon is noxious (an unexpected therapeutic response, for example, may be a side effect but not an adverse reaction).

Unexpected adverse reaction: an adverse reaction, the nature or severity of which is not consistent with domestic labeling or market authorization, or expected from characteristics of the drug.

Side effect: an unintended pharmacodynamic effect of a pharmaceutical product occurring at doses normally used by a patient which is related to the pharmacological properties of the drug.

Modified from: Safety of Medicines, A guide to detecting and reporting adverse drug reactions . WHO, Geneva, 2002 [1].

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature

About this protocol

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this protocol

Perez-Lloret, S., Crispo, J.A.G., Rey, M.V., Mattison, D., Krewski, D. (2021). Value and Methods of Pharmacovigilance in the Monitoring of Drug Safety in Parkinson’s Disease. In: Perez-Lloret, S. (eds) Clinical Trials In Parkinson's Disease. Neuromethods, vol 160. Humana, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-0716-0912-5_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-0716-0912-5_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Humana, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-0716-0911-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-0716-0912-5

  • eBook Packages: Springer Protocols