Detection, verification, and quantification of adverse drug reactions
- 1 July 2004
- Vol. 329 (7456), 44-47
- https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.329.7456.44
Abstract
Although some will question the use of the term experiment on formal grounds, most experts will likely agree that the widespread marketing of a new drug is in fact a large experiment on a population. This is especially the case when it concerns a novel molecular entity with potentially a new set of clinical experiences. As the marketing of new drugs includes the discovery of adverse effects, the public's health would be best protected by a complementary set of techniques for the detection, verification, and quantification of safety issues. Yet the current approach to this is scattered and disappointing. We discuss why healthcare professionals are not aware of all safety problems of a drug at its introduction and why pharmacoepidemiology should complement the indispensable observational method of case reporting.This publication has 19 references indexed in Scilit:
- Joining the DoTS: new approach to classifying adverse drug reactionsBMJ, 2003
- The pharmaceutical industry as a medicines providerThe Lancet, 2002
- Cerivastatin and Reports of Fatal RhabdomyolysisThe New England Journal of Medicine, 2002
- Use of Measures of Disproportionality in PharmacovigilanceDrug Safety, 2002
- Zur Geschichte der Contergan-Katastrophe im Lichte der ArzneimittelgesetzgebungDeutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift (1946), 2001
- Serum sickness-like reactions to cefaclorJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1992
- Power and weakness of spontaneous reporting: A probabilistic approachJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1992
- The need for randomization in the study of intended effectsStatistics in Medicine, 1983
- Identification of adverse reactions to new drugs. III: Alerting processes and early warning systems.BMJ, 1983
- Validity of anecdotal reports of suspected adverse drug reactions: the problem of false alarmsBMJ, 1982