Document complet  |  Dérouler chapitre  |  Etendre sommaire  |  Version HTML imprimable
Safety Monitoring of Medicinal Products: Guidelines for Setting Up and Running a Pharmacovigilance Centre
(2000; 28 pages) [French]
Table des matières
Afficher le documentINTRODUCTION
Afficher le document1. WHY PHARMACOVIGILANCE?
Afficher le document2. DEFINITION AND AIMS
Ouvrir ce répertoire et afficher son contenu3. HOW TO START A PHARMACOVIGILANCE CENTRE
Ouvrir ce répertoire et afficher son contenu4. REPORTING OF ADVERSE DRUG REACTIONS
Ouvrir ce répertoire et afficher son contenu5. SPECIAL ISSUES IN REPORTING
Ouvrir ce répertoire et afficher son contenu6. PRACTICALITIES IN THE ORGANISATION OF A PHARMACOVIGILANCE CENTRE
Ouvrir ce répertoire et afficher son contenu7. ASSESSMENT OF CASE REPORTS
Ouvrir ce répertoire et afficher son contenu8. USE OF THE DATA
Ouvrir ce répertoire et afficher son contenu9. RELATIONS WITH OTHER PARTIES
Afficher le document10. OTHER SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Afficher le document11. FUNDING
Afficher le documentREFERENCES
Afficher le documentGLOSSARY
Afficher le documentCAUSALITY CATEGORIES
Afficher le documentWHO CONTACTS
 

CAUSALITY CATEGORIES

The causality categories described by the Uppsala Monitoring Centre are as follows:

1. Certain: a clinical event, including laboratory test abnormality, occurring in a plausible time relationship to drug administration, and which cannot be explained by concurrent disease or other drugs or chemicals. The response to withdrawal of the drug (dechallenge) should be clinically plausible. The event must be definitive pharmacologically or phenomenologically, using a satisfactory rechallenge procedure if necessary.

2. Probable/Likely: a clinical event, including laboratory test abnormality, with a reasonable time sequence to administration of the drug, unlikely to be attributed to concurrent disease or other drugs or chemicals, and which follows a clinically reasonable response on withdrawal (dechallenge). Rechallenge information is not required to fulfil this definition.

3. Possible: a clinical event, including laboratory test abnormality, with a reasonable time sequence to administrations of the drug, but which could also be explained by concurrent disease or other drugs or chemicals. Information on drug withdrawal may be lacking or unclear.

4. Unlikely: a clinical event, including laboratory test abnormality, with a temporal relationship to drug administration which makes a causal relationship improbable, and in which other drugs, chemicals or underlying disease provide plausible explanations.

5. Conditional/Unclassified: a clinical event, including laboratory test abnormality, reported as an adverse reaction, about which more data is essential for a proper assessment, or the additional data is under examination.

6. Unassessable/Unclassifiable: a report suggesting an adverse reaction which cannot be judged because information is insufficient or contradictory, and which cannot be supplemented or verified.

As a step towards harmonisation in drug regulation in the countries of the European Union, the EU pharmacovigilance working parties proposed the following three causality categories:

Category A: ‘Reports including good reasons and sufficient documentation to assume a causal relationship, in the sense of plausible, conceivable, likely, but not necessarily highly probable’.

CategoryB: ‘Reports containing sufficient information to accept the possibility of a causal relationship, in the sense of not impossible and not unlikely, although the connection is uncertain and may be even doubtful, e.g. because of missing data, insufficient evidence or the possibility of another explanation’.

CategoryO: ‘Reports where causality is, for one or another reason, not assessable, e.g. because of missing or conflicting data’.

Sources

Edwards IR, Biriell C. Harmonisation in pharmacovigilance.
Drug Safety 1994,10:93-102.

Bégaud B, Evreux JC, Jouglard J, Lagier G. Unexpected or toxic drug reaction assessment (imputation). Actualisation of the method used in France.
Thérapie 1985;40:111-8.

Meyboom RHB, Hekster YA, Egberts ACG, Gribnau FWJ, Edwards IR.
Causal or casual? The role of causality assessment in pharmacovigilance.
Drug Safety 1997,16:374-389.

Meyboom RHB, Egberts ACG, Edwards IR, Hekster YA, De Koning FHP, Gribnau FWJ. Principles of signal detection in pharmacovigilance.
Drug Safety 1997; 16:355-365.

vers la section précédente
vers la section suivante
 
 
Le Portail d'information - Médicaments essentiels et produits de santé a été conçu et est maintenu par l'ONG Human Info. Dernière mise à jour: le 29 octobre 2018