PubMed · 15550366
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Lesley Jones, Paul Coe. 2004. Extravasation.. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejon.2003.10.003
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.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
PURPOSE: To assess the effect of a small economic inducement on the rate of spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and the attitudes of general practitioners and physicians towards reporting of ADRs. METHOD: One intervention and one control county were selected for the study. Written information about the main purpose of spontaneous reporting of ADRs was personally addressed to all physicians in the two counties. The information was identical, except for the addition that during a period of 6 months two lottery tickets would be given to the receivers in the intervention area with the standard personal feedback to the reporter of the ADR. After the 6-month study period, the actual number of reported ADRs and the seriousness of the reported ADRs were assessed. To investigate the attitude towards this stimulation of reporting, a questionnaire was addressed to all physicians within the intervention area (IA). RESULTS: From the IA a total number of 57 ADR reports were received containing 62 suspected ADRs, 40% of which were assessed as serious reactions. From the control area (CA), 49 reports containing 50 suspected ADRs were received, 32% of which were assessed as serious reactions. The increase of ADR reports from the IA compared to the same time period the previous year was 59% as compared to an unchanged reporting from the CA. Of those responding to the questionnaire, 80% did not believe that a small economic bonus would be a useful tool to improve the reporting rate. CONCLUSION: A small economic inducement is associated with an increase in the reporting of suspected ADRs.