Drug Safety· 2026Q1
Toward a Framework for Case Identification in Pharmacovigilance: Not All Reports are Created Equal
- 0citations
- Q1SCImago
- 2026year
Short summary
A new framework systematically distinguishes clinically meaningful adverse event cases from candidate reports retrieved via coded drug-event co-occurrence, showing nonrelevant reports were ~20-40% for drugs with uncertain causality vs. 4% for established causal roles.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Key points
- Developed a framework to distinguish clinically meaningful adverse event cases from candidate reports in pharmacovigilance.
- Nonrelevant reports were more frequent for drugs with uncertain or no established evidence (~20-40%) than for drugs with established causal roles (4%).
- The framework assesses relevance across exposure, event, drug-event relationship, and setting/population.
- In one case study, 69% of reports were classified as nonrelevant and 17% as nonassessable using the framework.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Abstract
Retrieval of adverse event reports based on coded drug–event co-occurrence enables large-scale pharmacovigilance analyses but yields candidate reports rather than clinically adjudicated cases. Without explicit case identification, heterogeneous reports may be combined within the same case series and misinterpreted in downstream analyses. The aim of the study was to develop a structured framework for distinguishing clinically meaningful cases from candidate reports retrieved through coded drug–event co-occurrence, and to illustrate its application across information-rich and routine-review conditions. We conducted a sequential framework-development study using two case studies. Drug-induced impulsivity was used to iteratively develop and refine the framework under information-rich conditions. Drug-induced suicidality was used to examine its application under routine-review conditions with variable information availability and explicit classification of nonassessability. In case 1, nonrelevant reports were more frequent for drugs with uncertain or no established evidence (~ 20–40%) than for drugs with established causal roles (4%). The framework assessed relevance across exposure, event, the drug–event relationship, and setting/population. Reports retained as relevant were further characterized by reporter suspicion and evidentiary qualifiers supporting or weakening suspicion. Reports with explicit suspicion more often contained supportive qualifiers. In case 2, application of the framework classified 69% of reports as nonrelevant and 17% as nonassessable. In pharmacovigilance, retrieval is not equivalent to case identification. Relevance depends on whether exposure, event, their relationship, and context correspond to the clinical question being investigated. Explicit case definitions and transparent adjudication make this distinction systematic and auditable. Independent evaluation of the framework is needed to establish its reproducibility and transferability across pharmacovigilance questions.
The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Drug Safety, 2026 · DOI ↗
Continue with a free account
Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.
Continue free on the webSign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.
On your phone:
ToxicologyPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics