MedDRA and pharmacovigilance: a complex and little-evaluated tool.

Q4 Medicine Prescrire International Pub Date : 2016-10-01
{"title":"MedDRA and pharmacovigilance: a complex and little-evaluated tool.","authors":"","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>MedDRA (Medical Dictionary tor Regulatory Activities) is a standardised medical terminology, published by the International Council for Harmonisation, used in particular for coding cases of adverse effects in clinical study reports and pharmacovigilance databases, and to facilitate searches in these databases. MedDRA has a 5-level, hierarchical structure. Some levels are used to code adverse effects, and the others are designed to group together related terms for database searches. The links between these terms are hierarchical and complex. In addition to searches for terms, broad or narrow searches of MedDRA-coded databases can be performed using predefined \"standardised Med-DRA queries\", of which about a hundred are available in early 2016. A French study on 4 adverse effects recorded in France's national pharma- covigilance database showed that the effectiveness of MedDRA and stan- dardised MedDRA queries is highly variable, depending on the adverse effect examined. In some cases, less than half of the cases retrieved were relevant. A study on the adverse effects most frequently reported in clinical trials of 10 randomly selected drugs showed that a given adverse effect could be described using between 4 and several hundred different codes. One risk of fragmenting the reporting of adverse effects across multiple terms is that their true frequency will be underestimated. The development of a harmonised international terminology is a worth-while endeavour. But the complexity of MedDRA and its poorly evaluated performance make it susceptible to manipulation, errors of interpretation and bias. This applies in particular to the adverse effect statistics in the clinical study reports of clinical trials. The evaluation of the effectiveness of MedDRA as a tool for identifying and quantifying the adverse effects of new drugs must continue. For healthcare professionals, the limitations of MedDRA are one more reason to recognise that the known adverse effects of drugs, and their quantification, tend to be underestimated.</p>","PeriodicalId":35983,"journal":{"name":"Prescrire International","volume":"25 175","pages":"247-250"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Prescrire International","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

MedDRA (Medical Dictionary tor Regulatory Activities) is a standardised medical terminology, published by the International Council for Harmonisation, used in particular for coding cases of adverse effects in clinical study reports and pharmacovigilance databases, and to facilitate searches in these databases. MedDRA has a 5-level, hierarchical structure. Some levels are used to code adverse effects, and the others are designed to group together related terms for database searches. The links between these terms are hierarchical and complex. In addition to searches for terms, broad or narrow searches of MedDRA-coded databases can be performed using predefined "standardised Med-DRA queries", of which about a hundred are available in early 2016. A French study on 4 adverse effects recorded in France's national pharma- covigilance database showed that the effectiveness of MedDRA and stan- dardised MedDRA queries is highly variable, depending on the adverse effect examined. In some cases, less than half of the cases retrieved were relevant. A study on the adverse effects most frequently reported in clinical trials of 10 randomly selected drugs showed that a given adverse effect could be described using between 4 and several hundred different codes. One risk of fragmenting the reporting of adverse effects across multiple terms is that their true frequency will be underestimated. The development of a harmonised international terminology is a worth-while endeavour. But the complexity of MedDRA and its poorly evaluated performance make it susceptible to manipulation, errors of interpretation and bias. This applies in particular to the adverse effect statistics in the clinical study reports of clinical trials. The evaluation of the effectiveness of MedDRA as a tool for identifying and quantifying the adverse effects of new drugs must continue. For healthcare professionals, the limitations of MedDRA are one more reason to recognise that the known adverse effects of drugs, and their quantification, tend to be underestimated.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
MedDRA和药物警戒:一个复杂的和很少评估的工具。
MedDRA(监管活动医学词典)是一个标准化的医学术语,由国际协调理事会出版,主要用于临床研究报告和药物警戒数据库中的不良反应病例编码,并便于在这些数据库中进行检索。MedDRA有5个层次结构。一些级别用于编码不利影响,其他级别用于将相关术语组合在一起,以便进行数据库搜索。这些术语之间的联系是分层的、复杂的。除了搜索术语外,还可以使用预定义的“标准化Med-DRA查询”对meddra编码数据库进行广泛或狭窄的搜索,其中大约有100个在2016年初可用。一项法国研究记录在法国国家医药共同警戒数据库的4种不良反应表明,MedDRA和标准化MedDRA查询的有效性是高度可变的,取决于所检查的不良反应。在某些情况下,检索到的案件中只有不到一半是相关的。一项对随机选择的10种药物的临床试验中最常报告的副作用的研究表明,一种给定的副作用可以用4到几百种不同的代码来描述。将不良反应的报告分散到多个术语的一个风险是,它们的真实频率将被低估。制定统一的国际术语是一项值得努力的工作。但是,MedDRA的复杂性及其评估不佳的表现使其容易受到操纵、解释错误和偏见的影响。这尤其适用于临床试验的临床研究报告中的不良反应统计。必须继续评估MedDRA作为识别和量化新药不良反应的工具的有效性。对于医疗保健专业人员来说,MedDRA的局限性是认识到药物的已知副作用及其量化往往被低估的又一个理由。
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 去求助
来源期刊
Prescrire International
Prescrire International Medicine-Pharmacology (medical)
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Drug-induced nightmares. Risks of assisted reproduction. Margins. Drug-induced nail disorders. No more denial.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1