Comparison of Three Methods (Consensual Expert Judgement), (Algorithmic and Probabilistic Approaches) of Causality Assessment of Adverse Drug Reactions (original) (raw)

Abstract

Background: Different methods have been proposed for assessing a possible causal link between a drug treatment and an adverse event in individual patients. They approximately belong to three main categories: expert judgement, operational algorithms and probabilistic approaches.

Objective: To compare, in a set of actual drug adverse event reports, three different methods for assessing drug causality, each belonging to one of the three main categories: expert judgement, the algorithm used by the French pharmacovigilance centres since 1985, and a novel method based on the logistic function.

Methods: Fifty drug-event pairs were randomly sampled from the database of the Bordeaux pharmacovigilance centre, France. To serve as the gold standard, the probability for drug causation, from 0 to 1, was first determined for each drug-event pair by a panel of senior experts until consensus was reached. Causality was then assessed by members of the Bordeaux pharmacovigilance centre by using the French algorithm and the logistic method. Results expressed as a probability with the logistic method and as a score from 0 to 4 with the French algorithm were then compared with consensual expert judgement, as were the sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values.

Results: Probabilities ranged from 0.08 to 0.99 (median 0.58; mean 0.60) for experts versus 0.18–0.88 (median 0.73; mean 0.67) for the logistic method. Consensual expert judgement was not discriminant (p = 0.50) in ten cases. For the algorithm, only three of five causality scores were found, doubtful scores being clearly predominant (74%) followed by possible (16%) and probable (10%) scores. Sensitivity and specificity were 0.96 and 0.42, respectively, for the logistic method versus 0.42 and 0.92 for the algorithm. Positive and negative predictive values were 0.78 and 0.83, respectively, for the logistic method versus 0.92 and 0.42 for the algorithm.

Conclusions: Agreement between the three approaches was poor, and only satisfactory for drug events judged as drug-induced by consensual expert judgement. The logistic method showed high sensitivity at the expense of poor specificity. Conversely, the algorithm had poor sensitivity but good specificity. The comparatively good sensitivity and positive predictive values of the logistic method suggest that it may be more useful in the routine or automated assessment of case reports of suspected but still unknown adverse drug reactions. With a substantial rate of false positives relative to true negatives (low specificity), the logistic method does not replace, but can be complemented by, critical clinical assessment of individual cases in evaluating drug-related risk.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Agbabiaka TB, Savovic J, Ernst E. Methods for causality assessment of adverse drug reactions: a systematic review. Drug Saf 2008; 31(1): 21–37
    Article PubMed Google Scholar
  2. Meyboom RH, Hekster YA, Egberts AC, et al. Causal or casual? The role of causality assessment in pharmacovigilance. Drug Saf 1997; 17: 374–89
    Article PubMed CAS Google Scholar
  3. Stephens MD. The diagnosis of adverse medical events associated with drug treatment. Adverse Drug React Acute Poisoning Rev 1987; 6: 1–35
    PubMed CAS Google Scholar
  4. Blanc S, Leuenberger P, Berger JP, et al. Judgments of trained observers on adverse drug reactions. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1979; 25: 493–8
    PubMed CAS Google Scholar
  5. Karch FE, Smith CL, Kerzner B, et al. Adverse drug reactions: a matter of opinion. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1976; 19: 489–92
    PubMed CAS Google Scholar
  6. Koch-Weser J, Sellers EM, Zacest R. The ambiguity of adverse drug reactions. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1977; 11: 75–8
    Article PubMed CAS Google Scholar
  7. Kramer MS. Difficulties in assessing the adverse effects of drugs. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1981; 11 Suppl. 1: 105–10S
    Google Scholar
  8. Rowe G, Wright G. The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: issues and analysis. Int J Forecast 1999; 15: 353–75
    Article Google Scholar
  9. Lanctot KL, Naranjo CA. Comparison of the Bayesian approach and a simple algorithm for assessment of adverse drug events. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1995; 58: 692–8
    Article PubMed CAS Google Scholar
  10. Auriche M. Bayesian approach to the imputability of undesirable phenomena to drugs. Therapie 1985; 40: 301–6
    PubMed CAS Google Scholar
  11. Kramer MS. Imputabilité des effets indésirables: individu (analyse du cas) versus groupe (épidémiologie). 3es entretiens. Lyon: Jacques Cartier, 1989: 31–44
    Google Scholar
  12. Péré JC, Godin MH, Bégaud B, et al. Sensitivity and specificity of imputability criteria: study and comparison of these efficacity indices for 7 methods. Therapie 1985; 40: 307–12
    PubMed Google Scholar
  13. Arimone Y, Bégaud B, Miremont-Salamé G, et al. A new method for assessing drug causation provided agreement with experts’ judgment. J Clin Epidemiol 2006; 59: 308–14
    Article PubMed Google Scholar
  14. Thiessard F, Roux E, Miremont-Salamé G, et al. Trends in spontaneous adverse drug reaction reports to the French pharmacovigilance system (1986–2001). Drug Saf 2005; 28: 731–40
    Article PubMed Google Scholar
  15. Bégaud B, Evreux JC, Jouglard J, et al. Imputation of the unexpected or toxic effects of drugs: actualization of the method used in France. Therapie 1985; 40: 111–8
    PubMed Google Scholar
  16. Meyboom RH, Hekster YA, Egberts AC, et al. Causal or casual? The role of causality assessment in pharmacovigilance. Drug Saf 1997; 17: 374–89
    Article PubMed CAS Google Scholar
  17. Meyboom RH. Causality assessment revisited. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 1998; 7 Suppl. 1: S63–5
    Article PubMed Google Scholar
  18. Karch FE, Lasagna L. Toward the operational identification of adverse drug reactions. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1977; 21: 247–54
    PubMed CAS Google Scholar
  19. Macedo AF, Marques FB, Ribeiro CF. Can decisional algorithms replace global introspection in the individual causality assessment of spontaneously reported ADRs? Drug Saf 2006; 29: 697–702
    Article PubMed Google Scholar
  20. Naranjo CA, Busto U, Sellers EM, et al. A method for estimating the probability of adverse drug reactions. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1981; 30: 239–45
    Article PubMed CAS Google Scholar
  21. Macedo AF, Marques FB, Ribeiro CF, et al. 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
    Article PubMed CAS Google Scholar
  22. Miremont G, Haramburu F, Bégaud B, et al. Adverse drug reactions: physicians’ opinions versus a causality assessment method. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1994; 46: 285–9
    Article PubMed CAS Google Scholar
  23. Benahmed S, Picot MC, Hillaire-Buys D, et al. Comparison of pharmacovigilance algorithms in drug hypersensitivity reactions. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2005; 61(7): 537–41
    Article PubMed Google Scholar
  24. Eiden C, Peyrière H. Comparaison de deux méthodes d’imputabilité des effets indésirables du voriconazole notifiés dans la base nationale de pharmacovigilance: Begaud versus Naranjo. Pharmacien Hospitalier 2009; 44(4): 186–9
    Article Google Scholar
  25. Koh Y, Yap CW, Li SC. A quantitative approach of using genetic algorithm in designing a probability scoring system of an adverse drug reaction assessment system. Int J Med Inform 2008; 77(6): 421–30
    Article PubMed Google Scholar

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Philip Robinson who kindly supervised the writing of this paper in English. This study was funded as a research project by a grant from the non-profit association ARME-Pharmacovigilance (Bordeaux, France). The authors have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Département de Pharmacologie, INSERM U657, Université de Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France
    Hélène Théophile, Yannick Arimone, Ghada Miremont-Salamé, Nicholas Moore, Annie Fourrier-Réglat, Françoise Haramburu & Bernard Bégaud

Authors

  1. Hélène Théophile
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  2. Yannick Arimone
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  3. Ghada Miremont-Salamé
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  4. Nicholas Moore
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  5. Annie Fourrier-Réglat
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  6. Françoise Haramburu
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  7. Bernard Bégaud
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence toHélène Théophile.

Rights and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Théophile, H., Arimone, Y., Miremont-Salamé, G. et al. Comparison of Three Methods (Consensual Expert Judgement), (Algorithmic and Probabilistic Approaches) of Causality Assessment of Adverse Drug Reactions.Drug-Safety 33, 1045–1054 (2010). https://doi.org/10.2165/11537780-000000000-00000

Download citation

Keywords