{"title":"药物不良反应的因果关系评估:一个叙述性的回顾,以找到最详尽和易于使用的工具,在批准后设置。","authors":"Pallavi Pradhan, Maude Lavallee, Samuel Akinola, Fernanda Raphael Escobar Gimenes, Anick Berard, Julie Methot, Marie-Eve Piche, Jennifer Midiani Gonella, Lyne Cloutier, Jacinthe Leclerc","doi":"10.32725/jab.2023.010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The core motive of pharmacovigilance is the detection and prevention of adverse drug reactions (ADRs), to improve the risk-benefit balance of the drug. However, the causality assessment of ADRs remains a major challenge among clinicians, and none of the available tools of causality assessment used for assessing ADRs have been universally accepted.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To provide an up-to-date overview of the different causality assessment tools.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted electronic searches in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane database. The eligibility of each tool was screened by three reviewers. Each eligible tool was then scrutinized for its domains (the reported specific set of questions/areas used for calculating the likelihood of cause-and-effect relation of an ADR) to discover the most comprehensive tool. Finally, we subjectively assessed the tool's ease-of-use in a Canadian, Indian, Hungarian, and Brazilian clinical context.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-one eligible causality assessment tools were retrieved. Naranjo's tool and De Boer's tool appeared the most comprehensive among all the tools, covering 10 domains each. Regarding \"ease-of-use\" in a clinical setting, we judged that many tools were hard to implement in a clinical context because of their complexity and/or lengthiness. Naranjo's tool, Jones's tool, Danan and Benichou's tool, and Hsu and Stoll's tool appeared to be the easiest to implement into various clinical contexts.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Among the many tools identified, 1981 Naranjo's scale remains the most comprehensive and easy to use for performing causality assessment of ADRs. Upcoming analysis should compare the performance of each ADR tool in clinical settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":14912,"journal":{"name":"Journal of applied biomedicine","volume":"21 2","pages":"59-66"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Causality assessment of adverse drug reaction: A narrative review to find the most exhaustive and easy-to-use tool in post-authorization settings.\",\"authors\":\"Pallavi Pradhan, Maude Lavallee, Samuel Akinola, Fernanda Raphael Escobar Gimenes, Anick Berard, Julie Methot, Marie-Eve Piche, Jennifer Midiani Gonella, Lyne Cloutier, Jacinthe Leclerc\",\"doi\":\"10.32725/jab.2023.010\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The core motive of pharmacovigilance is the detection and prevention of adverse drug reactions (ADRs), to improve the risk-benefit balance of the drug. However, the causality assessment of ADRs remains a major challenge among clinicians, and none of the available tools of causality assessment used for assessing ADRs have been universally accepted.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To provide an up-to-date overview of the different causality assessment tools.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted electronic searches in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane database. The eligibility of each tool was screened by three reviewers. Each eligible tool was then scrutinized for its domains (the reported specific set of questions/areas used for calculating the likelihood of cause-and-effect relation of an ADR) to discover the most comprehensive tool. Finally, we subjectively assessed the tool's ease-of-use in a Canadian, Indian, Hungarian, and Brazilian clinical context.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-one eligible causality assessment tools were retrieved. Naranjo's tool and De Boer's tool appeared the most comprehensive among all the tools, covering 10 domains each. Regarding \\\"ease-of-use\\\" in a clinical setting, we judged that many tools were hard to implement in a clinical context because of their complexity and/or lengthiness. Naranjo's tool, Jones's tool, Danan and Benichou's tool, and Hsu and Stoll's tool appeared to be the easiest to implement into various clinical contexts.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Among the many tools identified, 1981 Naranjo's scale remains the most comprehensive and easy to use for performing causality assessment of ADRs. Upcoming analysis should compare the performance of each ADR tool in clinical settings.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14912,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of applied biomedicine\",\"volume\":\"21 2\",\"pages\":\"59-66\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of applied biomedicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.32725/jab.2023.010\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of applied biomedicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.32725/jab.2023.010","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Causality assessment of adverse drug reaction: A narrative review to find the most exhaustive and easy-to-use tool in post-authorization settings.
Background: The core motive of pharmacovigilance is the detection and prevention of adverse drug reactions (ADRs), to improve the risk-benefit balance of the drug. However, the causality assessment of ADRs remains a major challenge among clinicians, and none of the available tools of causality assessment used for assessing ADRs have been universally accepted.
Objective: To provide an up-to-date overview of the different causality assessment tools.
Methods: We conducted electronic searches in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane database. The eligibility of each tool was screened by three reviewers. Each eligible tool was then scrutinized for its domains (the reported specific set of questions/areas used for calculating the likelihood of cause-and-effect relation of an ADR) to discover the most comprehensive tool. Finally, we subjectively assessed the tool's ease-of-use in a Canadian, Indian, Hungarian, and Brazilian clinical context.
Results: Twenty-one eligible causality assessment tools were retrieved. Naranjo's tool and De Boer's tool appeared the most comprehensive among all the tools, covering 10 domains each. Regarding "ease-of-use" in a clinical setting, we judged that many tools were hard to implement in a clinical context because of their complexity and/or lengthiness. Naranjo's tool, Jones's tool, Danan and Benichou's tool, and Hsu and Stoll's tool appeared to be the easiest to implement into various clinical contexts.
Conclusion: Among the many tools identified, 1981 Naranjo's scale remains the most comprehensive and easy to use for performing causality assessment of ADRs. Upcoming analysis should compare the performance of each ADR tool in clinical settings.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Applied Biomedicine promotes translation of basic biomedical research into clinical investigation, conversion of clinical evidence into practice in all medical fields, and publication of new ideas for conquering human health problems across disciplines.
Providing a unique perspective, this international journal publishes peer-reviewed original papers and reviews offering a sensible transfer of basic research to applied clinical medicine. Journal of Applied Biomedicine covers the latest developments in various fields of biomedicine with special attention to cardiology and cardiovascular diseases, genetics, immunology, environmental health, toxicology, neurology and oncology as well as multidisciplinary studies. The views of experts on current advances in nanotechnology and molecular/cell biology will be also considered for publication as long as they have a direct clinical impact on human health. The journal does not accept basic science research or research without significant clinical implications. Manuscripts with innovative ideas and approaches that bridge different fields and show clear perspectives for clinical applications are considered with top priority.