PubMed · 11769271
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
H Lewis, S J Wallace. 2001. Vigabatrin.. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0012162201001517
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Pharmacovigilance, the monitoring of adverse events (AEs), is an integral part in the clinical evaluation of a new drug. Until recently, attempts to relate the incidence of AEs to putative causes have been restricted to the evaluation of simple demographic and environmental factors. The advent of large-scale genotyping, however, provides an opportunity to look for associations between AEs and genetic markers, such as single nucleotides polymorphisms (SNPs). It is envisaged that a very large number of SNPs, possibly over 500,000, will be used in pharmacovigilance in an attempt to identify any genetic difference between patients who have experienced an AE and those who have not. We propose a sequential genome-wide association test for analysing AEs as they arise, allowing evidence-based decision-making at the earliest opportunity. This gives us the capability of quickly establishing whether there is a group of patients at high-risk of an AE based upon their DNA. Our method provides a valid test which takes account of linkage disequilibrium and allows for the sequential nature of the procedure. The method is more powerful than using a correction, such as Sidák, that assumes that the tests are independent.
Bias from funding sources of trials would threaten their validity. Meta-analyses of high quality acute pain and migraine trials were used to explore the hypothesis that industry funding of clinical trials produced more favourable results than non-profit sponsorship. Analyses were planned to evaluate whether industry-sponsored trials had different results from trials funded by academic or other non-profit sources, but of 176 trials, only two were supported by non-profit sources, while 31 provided no statement of support. An alternative method is proposed within industry-sponsored trials, looking at conflicting industry interests for the same drug, used either as test or comparator treatment. Fifty-three trials used an analgesic as test and 90 as comparator, allowing comparisons to be made for aspirin 600/650 mg, ibuprofen 400 mg, paracetamol (acetaminophen) 1000 mg, rofecoxib 50 mg and sumatriptan 50 and 100 mg. Only for sumatriptan 50 and 100 mg, with the outcome of headache response at 2 h, was there any significant difference between the drug used as a test or as a comparator. The direction was for higher (worse) NNTs with sumatriptan as comparator. Investigating potential industry bias through the funding source of trials is unlikely to be adequate because of a dearth of trials funded by non-profit organisations. We propose a method based on potential conflict of interest within industry-sponsored trials. Using this method, established clinical trial results in acute pain and migraine appear to be unbiased.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.