Agreement and correlation between WHO-UMC Causality scale and the Naranjo algorithm for causality assessment of adverse drug reactions at tertiary care center in Northern India.

IF 1.1 Q4 PRIMARY HEALTH CARE
Saurav Misra, Manmeet Kaur, Tirthankar Deb, Amit Kaushik, Abhimanyu Vohra, Kashish Sindhwani, Ashish K Saranjhna
{"title":"Agreement and correlation between WHO-UMC Causality scale and the Naranjo algorithm for causality assessment of adverse drug reactions at tertiary care center in Northern India.","authors":"Saurav Misra, Manmeet Kaur, Tirthankar Deb, Amit Kaushik, Abhimanyu Vohra, Kashish Sindhwani, Ashish K Saranjhna","doi":"10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_1148_24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To develop a structured and harmonized causality assessment method has been a holy grail in pharmacovigilance. The Pharmacovigilance Programme of India (PvPI) recommends the use of the World Health Organization-Uppsala Monitoring Centre (WHO-UMC) scale, whereas many clinicians prefer the Naranjo algorithm for its simplicity. There is no universally accepted method for the causality grading of ADRs. In the present study, we assessed agreement and correlation between the two widely used causality assessment scales, that is, the WHO-UMC criteria and the Naranjo algorithm.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>In this study, 313 individual case safety reports were analyzed from April 1, 2020, to March 31, 2023, reported at the Adverse Drug Reaction Monitoring Center (AMC) at Kalpana Chawla Government Medical College, Karnal. Two well-trained independent groups performed a causality assessment. One group performed a causality assessment of 313 ADRs using the WHO-UMC criteria and the other group performed the same using the Naranjo algorithm. The agreement between two ADR causality scales was assessed using the weighted kappa (κ) test. Spearman's correlation was also used to find the correlation between the two scales.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Cohen's kappa coefficient (κ) statistical test was applied between the two scales (WHO-UMC scale and Naranjo algorithm) to find out the agreement between these two scales. A weak agreement was found between the two scales (Kappa statistics with 95% confidence interval = 0.463, [<i>P</i> < 0.001]). Spearman's correlation coefficient was found to be 0.506.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The assessment of causality for adverse drug reactions (ADRs) is challenging, and none of the different methods available for assessing ADR causality is accepted as the gold standard. In our study, we found weak agreement between the WHO-UMC criteria and the Naranjo algorithm. It is essential to standardize the causality assessment tool to create a universally acceptable method for assessing causality. Further research is needed to establish a gold standard method for assessing the causality of adverse drug reactions.</p>","PeriodicalId":15856,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care","volume":"14 4","pages":"1252-1258"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12088569/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_1148_24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PRIMARY HEALTH CARE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: To develop a structured and harmonized causality assessment method has been a holy grail in pharmacovigilance. The Pharmacovigilance Programme of India (PvPI) recommends the use of the World Health Organization-Uppsala Monitoring Centre (WHO-UMC) scale, whereas many clinicians prefer the Naranjo algorithm for its simplicity. There is no universally accepted method for the causality grading of ADRs. In the present study, we assessed agreement and correlation between the two widely used causality assessment scales, that is, the WHO-UMC criteria and the Naranjo algorithm.

Materials and methods: In this study, 313 individual case safety reports were analyzed from April 1, 2020, to March 31, 2023, reported at the Adverse Drug Reaction Monitoring Center (AMC) at Kalpana Chawla Government Medical College, Karnal. Two well-trained independent groups performed a causality assessment. One group performed a causality assessment of 313 ADRs using the WHO-UMC criteria and the other group performed the same using the Naranjo algorithm. The agreement between two ADR causality scales was assessed using the weighted kappa (κ) test. Spearman's correlation was also used to find the correlation between the two scales.

Results: Cohen's kappa coefficient (κ) statistical test was applied between the two scales (WHO-UMC scale and Naranjo algorithm) to find out the agreement between these two scales. A weak agreement was found between the two scales (Kappa statistics with 95% confidence interval = 0.463, [P < 0.001]). Spearman's correlation coefficient was found to be 0.506.

Conclusion: The assessment of causality for adverse drug reactions (ADRs) is challenging, and none of the different methods available for assessing ADR causality is accepted as the gold standard. In our study, we found weak agreement between the WHO-UMC criteria and the Naranjo algorithm. It is essential to standardize the causality assessment tool to create a universally acceptable method for assessing causality. Further research is needed to establish a gold standard method for assessing the causality of adverse drug reactions.

世卫组织- umc因果关系量表与印度北部三级保健中心药物不良反应因果关系评估的Naranjo算法的一致性和相关性。
背景:开发一种结构化的、统一的因果关系评估方法一直是药物警戒领域的圣杯。印度药物警戒规划(PvPI)建议使用世界卫生组织-乌普萨拉监测中心(WHO-UMC)量表,而许多临床医生更喜欢纳兰霍算法,因为它简单。对不良反应的因果关系分级尚无普遍接受的方法。在本研究中,我们评估了两种广泛使用的因果关系评估量表,即WHO-UMC标准和Naranjo算法之间的一致性和相关性。材料与方法:本研究对卡纳尔Kalpana Chawla政府医学院药物不良反应监测中心(AMC)报告的2020年4月1日至2023年3月31日313例个体安全报告进行分析。两个训练有素的独立小组进行了因果关系评估。一组使用WHO-UMC标准对313例不良反应进行了因果关系评估,另一组使用Naranjo算法进行了同样的评估。采用加权kappa (κ)检验评估两个ADR因果关系量表之间的一致性。Spearman的相关性也被用来发现两个量表之间的相关性。结果:对两个量表(WHO-UMC量表和Naranjo算法)进行Cohen’s kappa系数(κ)统计检验,发现两个量表之间的一致性。两个量表之间存在弱一致性(Kappa统计量95%置信区间= 0.463,[P < 0.001])。Spearman相关系数为0.506。结论:药物不良反应(ADR)因果关系的评估具有挑战性,目前评估ADR因果关系的不同方法均未被接受为金标准。在我们的研究中,我们发现WHO-UMC标准与Naranjo算法之间的一致性较弱。建立一种普遍接受的因果关系评估方法,对因果关系评估工具进行标准化是至关重要的。建立评价药物不良反应因果关系的金标准方法有待进一步研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
7.10%
发文量
884
审稿时长
40 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信