AN OVERVIEW OF VARIOUS SCALES USED IN CAUSALITY ASSESSMENT OF ADVERSE DRUG REACTIONS

ADUSUMILLI PRAMOD  KUMAR; DHARINI BHOOPATHI; HARIPRIYA SUNKARA; SRI HARSHA CHALASANI

doi:10.22159/ijpps.2020v12i5.37209

Authors

ADUSUMILLI PRAMOD KUMAR Department of Pharmacy Practice, Chebrolu Hanumaiah Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Guntur, Andhrapradesh
DHARINI BHOOPATHI Adverse Drug Reaction Monitoring Center, SDS Tuburculosis Research Centre and Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Chest Diseases, Bengaluru, Karnataka,
HARIPRIYA SUNKARA Department of Pharmacy Practice, Chebrolu Hanumaiah Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Guntur, Andhrapradesh
SRI HARSHA CHALASANI Faculty of Pharmacy, JSS Academy of Higher Education and Research, Mysuru, Karnataka

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22159/ijpps.2020v12i5.37209

Keywords:

Pharmacovigilance, Causality assessment scales, Adverse drug reactions

Abstract

Establishing a relationship of causality between the medications received and the events occurred utilizing causality assessment scale is much needed to reduce the occurrence of Adverse Drug Reactions (ADRs) and to prevent exposure of patients towards additional drug hazards. Causality assessment can be defined as the determination of chance, whether a selected intervention is the root cause of the adverse event observed. The causality assessment is the responsibility of either a single expert or an established committee. As it is a common phenomenon of variable perception of knowledge and experience by each expert, there is a high possibility of disagreement and inter-individual variability on assessment. Many of the causality assessment methods have their advantages and disadvantages. However, no single scale has been adopted as standardized and considered for uniform acceptance.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Rehan HS, Chopra D, Kakkar A. Physician's guide to pharmacovigilance: terminology and causality assessment. Eur J Intern Med 2009;20:3-8.

Sangeetha RA, Jamuna RR, Kala P. Pattern of adverse drug reactions in a tertiary care teaching hospital: a cross-sectional study. Asian J Pharm Clin Res 2017;10:170-3.

Shareef JA, Fernandes JE, Samaga LA, Khader SA. A study on adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients with diabetes mellitus in a multi-specialty teaching hospital. Asian J Pharm Clin Res 2016;9:114-7.

Lazarou J, Pomeranz BH, Corey PN. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. JAMA 1998;279:1200-5.

Ramesh M, Pandit J, Parthasarathi G. Adverse drug reactions in a south Indian hospital–their severity and cost involved. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2003;12:687–92.

Arulmani R, Rajendran SD, Suresh B. Adverse drug reaction monitoring in a secondary care hospital in South India. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2008;65:210–6.

Alhawassi TM, Krass I, Bajorek BV, Pont LG. A systematic review of the prevalence and risk factors for adverse drug reactions in the elderly in the acute care setting. Clin Interv Aging 2014;9:2079–86.

Bord CA, Rachl CL. Adverse drug reactions in United States hospitals. Pharmacother: J Human Pharmacol Drug Ther 2006;26:601–8.

Kongkaew C, Noyce PR, Ashcroft DM. Hospital admissions associated with adverse drug reactions: a systematic review of prospective observational studies. Ann Pharmacother 2008;42:1017–25.

Smyth RL, Peak M, Turner MA, Nunn AJ, Williamson PR, Young B, et al. Systematic review of paediatric adverse drug reactions. InADRIC: Adverse Drug Reactions In Children–a programme of research using mixed methods. NIHR Journals Library; 2014.

World Health Organization (WHO), Uppsala Monitoring Centre. The use of the WHO-UMC system for standardized case causality assessment. WHO [Internet]. Available from: http://www.who-umc.org/graphics/4409.pdf. [Last accessed on 10 Jan 2020].

Macedo AF, Marques FB, Ribeiro CF, Texeira F. Causality assessment of adverse drug reactions: comparison of the results obtained from published decisional algorithms and from the evaluations of an expert panel. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2005;14:885-90.

Arimone Y, Begaud B, Miremont Salame G, Fourrier Reglat A. Agreement of expert judgment in causality assessment of adverse drug reactions. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2005;61:169-73.

Turner WM. The food and drug administration algorithm. Special workshop–regulatory. Drug Inf J 1984;18:259–66.

Danan G, Benichou C. Causality assessment of adverse reactions to drugs-I. A novel method based on the conclusions of international consensus meetings: application to drug-induced liver injuries. J Clin Epidemiol 1993;46:1323-30.

Blanc S, Leuenberger P, Berger JP, Brooke EM, Schelling JL. Judgments of trained observers on adverse drug reactions. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1979;25:493-8.

Taofikat BA, Savovi J, Ernst E. Methods for causality assessment of adverse drug reactions a systematic review. Drug Safety 2008;31:21-37.

Meyboom RH, Egbertes ACG, Gribnau FW, Hekster YA. Pharmacovigilance in perspective. Drug Safety 1999;21:429–47.

Macedo AF, Marques FB, Ribeiro CF, Teixeira F. Causality assessment of adverse drug reactions: comparison of the results obtained from published decisional algorithms and from the evaluations of an expert panel, according to different levels of imputability. J Clin Pharm Ther 2003;28:137–43.

Rodriguez MC, Vacca CP, Perez J, Bignone I, Bergman M, Valsecia M. Buenas practicas de Farmacovigilancia para las Americas. Washington DC. Organización Panamericana de la Salud; 2011. p. 73.

Shakir SAW, Layton D. Causal association in pharmacovigilance and pharmacoepidemiology thoughts on the application of the Austin Bradford-Hill criteria. Drug Safety 2002;25:467–71.

Mugosa S, Bukumiric Z, Kovacevic A, Boskovic A, Protic D, Todorovic Z. Adverse drug reactions in hospitalized cardiac patients: characteristics and risk factors. Vojnosanitetski Pregled 2015;72:975-81.

Meyboom RH, Hekster YA. Causal or casual? The role of causality assessment in pharmacovigilance. Drug Safety 1997;17:374–89.

Angamo MT, Chalmers L, Curtain CM, Bereznicki LR. Adverse-drug-reaction-related hospitalisations in developed and developing countries: a review of prevalence and contributing factors. Drug Safety 2016;39:847–57.

Wiholm BE. The swedish drug-event assessment methods. Special workshop–regulatory. Drug Inf J 1984;18:267-9.

Dangoumau J, Evreux JC, Jouglard J. Method for determination of undesirable effects of drugs. Therapie 1978;333:73-81.

Kramer MS, Leventhal JM, Hutchinson TA, Feinstein AR. An algorithm for the operational assessment of adverse drug reactions: Background, description, and instructions for use. JAMA 1979;242:623-32.

Lagier G, Vincens M, Castot A. Imputability in drug monitoring: principles of the balanced drug reaction assessment method and principal errors to avoid. Therapie 1983;38:303-18.

Castle WM. Assessment of causality in industrial settings. Drug Inf J 1984;18:297-302.

Venulet J, Ciucci A, Berneker GC. Standardised assessment of drug-adverse reaction associations: rationale and experience. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol 1980;18:381-8.

Loupi E, Ponchon AC, Ventre JJ, Evreux JC. Imputability of a teratogenic effect. Therapie 1986;41:207-10.

Maria VA, Victorino RM. Development and validation of a clinical scale for the diagnosis of drug-induced hepatitis. Hepatol 1997;26:664-9.

Mashford ML. The Australian method of drug-event assessment. Special Workshop–regulatory. Drug Inf J 1984;18:271-3.

Naranjo CA, Busto U, Sellers EM, Sandor P, Ruiz I, Roberts EA, et al. A method for estimating the probability of adverse drug reactions. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1981;30:239-45.

Horn JR, Hansten PD, Chan LN. Proposal for a new tool to evaluate drug interaction cases. Ann Pharmacother 2007;41:674-80.

Naranjo CA, Lanctot KL. A consultant‟s view on the role of Bayesian differential diagnosis in the safety assessment of pharmaceuticals. Drug Inf J 1992;26:593-601.

Lanctot KL, Naranjo CA. Computer-assisted evaluation of adverse events using a Bayesian approach. J Clin Pharmacol 1994;34:142-7.

Collet JP, Macdonald N, Cashman N, Pless R. Monitoring signals for vaccine safety: the assessment of individual adverse event reports by an expert advisory committee. Bull World Health Organisation 2000;78:178-85.

Kyonen M, Folatre I, Lagos X, Vargas S. Comparison of two methods to assess causality of adverse drug reactions. Rev Med Chile 2015;143:880-6.

Benahmed S, Picot MC, Dumas F, Demoly P. Accuracy of a pharmacovigilance algorithm in diagnosing drug hypersensitivity reactions. Arch Intern Med 2005;165:1500-5.

Smyth RL, Peak M, Turner MA, Nunn AJ, Williamson PR, Young B, et al. Development of the liverpool adverse drug reaction avoidability tool. In ADRIC: Adverse drug reactions in children–a programme of research using mixed methods. NIHR Journals Library; 2014.

Holt S, Schmiedl S, Thürmann PA. Potentially inappropriate medications in the elderly: the PRISCUS list. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2010;107:543.

Lewis JH, Larrey D, Olsson R, Lee WM. Utility of the roussel uclaf causality assessment method (RUCAM) to analyze the hepatic findings in a clinical trial program: evaluation of the direct thrombin inhibitor ximelagatran. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 2008;46:327-39.

Teschke R, Wolff A, Frenzel C, Schwarzenboeck A. Drug and herb induced liver injury: council for international organizations of medical sciences scale for causality assessment. World J Hepatol 2014;6:17.

Gallagher RM, Kirkham JJ, Mason JR, Bird KA. Development and inter-rater reliability of the Liverpool adverse drug reaction causality assessment tool. S PLos One 2011;6. Doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0028096

Miremont G, Haramburu F, Begaud B, Pere JC. Adverse drug reactions: physicians' opinions versus a causality assessment method. Eur J Pharmacol 1994;46:285-9.

Emanueli A, Sacchetti G. An algorithm for the classification of untoward events in large scale clinical trials. Agents and actions. Supplements 1980;7:318-22.

Stephens M. Assessment of causality in industrial setting special workshop industrial. Drug Inf J 1984;18:307-13.