Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-c654p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-27T13:30:25.775Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Particular aspects of adverse event assessment in post marketing surveillance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 April 2020

D Baier
Get access

Summary

The main feature of observational studies is the representation of naturalistic treatment conditions. In contrast to clinical trials, they allow the evaluation and quantification of adverse event profiles of drugs under “real life” conditions. The price for this unquestionable chance is the proneness to distorting factors, which may aggravate the interpretation of the study results. Analysis of observational study results therefore has to control for potentially influential factors and reconsider possible alternatives explaining observed associations. The most important distorting factors, which should be taken into account during analysis and interpretation are under-reporting, event selection, bias, confounding and misusage? Authors and readers of such study results should be aware of this possible sources of error, in order to derive optimal benefit from this study approach.

Keywords

post-marketing surveillanceresearch designbiasconfounding factorseffect modifiersobservational studymoclobemide
Type
Research Article
Information
European Psychiatry , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , May 1998 , pp. 164 - 170
Copyright
Copyright © Elsevier, Paris 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baier, D, Kohnen, RObservational studies in drug research as illustrated by phase IV research on antidepressants Focus Depress Anxiety 1997; 8: 29–37Google Scholar
Borden, EKPostmarketing surveillance of drugsMatoren, GMThe clinical research process in the pharmaceutical industry GenevaMarcel Dekker 337–353 1984Google Scholar
Boyd, IWHypertension with moclobemide Lancet 1995; 346: 1498CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, DT, Ruch, RSafety of moclobemide in clinical use Clin Neuropharmacol 1993; 16: S63–S68Google ScholarPubMed
Coulter, DM, Pillans, PIHypertension with moclobemide Lancet 1995; 346: 1032CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feighner, JPCardiovascular safety in depressed patients: focus on venlafaxine J Clin Psychiatry 1995; 56: 574–579Google ScholarPubMed
Gieschke, R, Schmid-Burgk, W, Amrein, RInteraction of moclobemide, a novel, reversible monoamine oxidase inhibitor with oral tyramine J Neural Transm 1998; 26: 97–104Google Scholar
Griffin, JPA comparison of spontaneous adverse reaction reporting systems and more recently developed methods of post-marketing surveillance Therapiewoche 1991; 41: 2244Google Scholar
Henry, JAEpidemiology and relative toxicity of antidepressant drugs in overdose Drug Saf 1997; 16: 374–390CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hetzel, WDas Sicherheitsprofil von Moclobemid in klinischen StudienSteinberg, RRIMA in der antidepressiven Therapie New York 1983 49–63Google Scholar
Hilton, S, Jaber, B, Ruch, RMoclobemide safety: monitoring a newly developed product in the 1990s J Clin Psychopharmacol 1995 15 suppl 2 76S–83SCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Inman, WHWPostmarketing surveillance of adverse drug reactions in general practice I. Search for new methods BMJ 1981; 282: 1131–113210.1136/bmj.282.6270.1131CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Inman, WHWPostmarketing surveillance of adverse drug reactions in general practice II. Prescription event monitoring at the University of Southampton BMJ 1981; 282: 1216–1217CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Isacsson, G, Holmgren, P, Wasserman, D, Bergman, UUse of antidepressants among people committing suicide in Sweden BMJ 1994; 308: 506–509CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Isacsson, G, Redfors, I, Wasserman, D, Bergman, UChoice of antidepressants: questionnaire survey of psychiatrists and general practitioners in two areas of Sweden BMJ 1994; 309: 1546–1549CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Laux, G, Philipp, M, Kohnen, RHypertension with moclobemide Lancet 1996; 347: 1330CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Laux, G, Baier, DQuality-monitoring of psychotropic drug therapy in post-marketing surveillance. Results of a drug utilisation observation (DUO) study on moclobemide Pharmacopsychiat 1997; 30: 21–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leiper, JM, Lawson, DHWhy do doctors not report adverse drug reactions? Neth J Med 1985; 28: 546–550Google Scholar
Linden, M, Osterheider, M, Schaaf, B, Fleckenstein, G, Weber, HJFluoxetin in der Anwendung durch niedergelassene Nervenärzte Münch Med Wschr 1992; 50: 836–840Google Scholar
Moll, E, Neumann, N, Schmid-Burgk, W, Stabl, M, Amrein, RSafety and efficacy during long-term treatment with moclobemide Clin Neuropharmacol 1994; 17: S74–S87CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nickelsen, T, Linden, M, Osterheider, M, Schaaf, BTherapie von Depressionen. Fluoxetin in der Allgemeinpraxis: eine Anwendungsbeobachtung ZAllg Med 1993; 69: 780–785Google Scholar
Partonen, T, Sihvo, S, Lönnqvist, JKPatients excluded from an antidepressant efficacy trial J Clin Psychiatry 1996; 57: 572–575CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Philipp, , et al.Moclobemid bei Depression. Ergebnisse einer Anwendungsbeobachtung bei Psychiatern und Neurologen TW Neurologie Psychiatrie 1995; 9: 4–7Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.