• Arch Intern Med · May 2007

    Comparative Study

    Evaluation of serious adverse drug reactions: a proactive pharmacovigilance program (RADAR) vs safety activities conducted by the Food and Drug Administration and pharmaceutical manufacturers.

    • Charles L Bennett, Jonathan R Nebeker, Paul R Yarnold, Cara C Tigue, David A Dorr, June M McKoy, Beatrice J Edwards, John F Hurdle, Dennis P West, Denys T Lau, Cara Angelotta, Sigmund A Weitzman, Steven M Belknap, Benjamin Djulbegovic, Martin S Tallman, Timothy M Kuzel, Al B Benson, Andrew Evens, Steven M Trifilio, D Mark Courtney, and Dennis W Raisch.
    • Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL 60611, USA. cbenne@northwestern.edu
    • Arch Intern Med. 2007 May 28; 167 (10): 1041-9.

    BackgroundThe Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and pharmaceutical manufacturers conduct most postmarketing pharmaceutical safety investigations. These efforts are frequently based on data mining of databases. In 1998, investigators initiated the Research on Adverse Drug events And Reports (RADAR) project to investigate reports of serious adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and prospectively obtain information on these cases. We compare safety efforts for evaluating serious ADRs conducted by the FDA and pharmaceutical manufacturers vs the RADAR project.MethodsWe evaluated the completeness of serious ADR descriptions in the FDA and RADAR databases and the comprehensiveness of notifications disseminated by pharmaceutical manufacturers and the RADAR investigators. A serious ADR was defined as an event that led to death or required intensive therapies to reverse.ResultsThe RADAR investigators evaluated 16 serious ADRs. Compared with descriptions of these ADRs in FDA databases (2296 reports), reports in RADAR databases (472 reports) had a 2-fold higher rate of including information on history and physical examination (92% vs 45%; P<.001) and a 9-fold higher rate of including basic science findings (34% vs 4%; P = .08). Safety notifications were disseminated earlier by pharmaceutical suppliers (2 vs 4 years after approval, respectively), although notifications were less likely to include information on incidence (46% vs 93%; P = .02), outcomes (8% vs 100%; P<.001), treatment or prophylaxis (25% vs 93%; P<.001), or references (8% vs 80%; P<.001).ConclusionProactive safety efforts conducted by the RADAR investigators are more comprehensive than those conducted by the FDA and pharmaceutical manufacturers, but dissemination of related safety notifications is less timely.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.