Abstract
AimTo develop and test a new adverse drug reaction (ADR) causality assessment tool (CAT).MethodsA comparison between seven assessors of a new CAT, formulated by an expert focus group, compared with the Naranjo CAT in 80 cases from a prospective observational study and 37 published ADR case reports (819 causality assessments in total).Main Outcome Measures Utilisation of causality categories, measure of disagreements, inter-rater reliability (IRR).ResultsThe Liverpool ADR CAT, using 40 cases from an observational study, showed causality categories of 1 unlikely, 62 possible, 92 probable and 125 definite (1, 62, 92, 125) and ‘moderate’ IRR (kappa 0.48), compared to Naranjo (0, 100, 172, 8) with ‘moderate’ IRR (kappa 0.45). In a further 40 cases, the Liverpool tool (0, 66, 81, 133) showed ‘good’ IRR (kappa 0.6) while Naranjo (1, 90, 185, 4) remained ‘moderate’.ConclusionThe Liverpool tool assigns the full range of causality categories and shows good IRR. Further assessment by different investigators in different settings is needed to fully assess the utility of this tool.
Highlights
Adverse drug reactions are a frequent source of morbidity and mortality [1,2]
The Liverpool tool assigns the full range of causality categories and shows good inter-rater reliability (IRR)
These criteria were not meant for adverse drug reaction (ADR), the elements have been adapted in ADR causality tools
Summary
Adverse drug reactions are a frequent source of morbidity and mortality [1,2]. Causality assessment of ADRs may be undertaken by clinicians, academics, pharmaceutical industry, regulators and in different settings, including clinical trials [3,4,5,6]. Bradford Hill set out criteria for establishing causality which included assessment of strength of the association, consistency of the association, specificity, temporal relationship, biological gradient (dose response), biological plausibility, coherence, experimental evidence, and reasoning by analogy. These criteria were not meant for ADRs, the elements have been adapted in ADR causality tools. It is known that assessing ADR likelihood without a structure can lead to wide disagreements between assessors [12] These disagreements may be the result of differing clinical backgrounds, specialties and experience. A large number of causality tools have been developed ranging from the simple to the complex, but none have gained universal acceptance [13]
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.