Suppr超能文献

整合药品安全与临床数据库。

Unifying drug safety and clinical databases.

作者信息

Burnstead Barry, Furlan Giovanni

机构信息

HelsinnBirex, Dublin, Ireland.

出版信息

Curr Drug Saf. 2013 Feb;8(1):56-62. doi: 10.2174/1574886311308010008.

Abstract

Clinical and drugs safety organisations run their operation independently and use separate databases designed to comply with different data standards. This separation is neither efficient nor effective since investigators need to report serious adverse events both to the clinical and drug safety departments, causing the respective databases to contain partially overlapping data sets containing common elements that need to be reconciled. Electronic data capture provides the opportunity to avoid duplicate storage and obviate reconciliation. It also introduces the risk of non-compliance due to late submission of unexpected serious adverse reactions to competent authorities. This raises the potential for a clinical department to receive a case that the drug safety department is unaware of. However, the most significant inefficiency probably lies in the preparation of aggregate reports and regulatory documents that need to be prepared using data originating from both databases. In a resource-constrained world, unnecessary activities and associated costs are unwelcome, particularly when they are avoidable. The Clinical Data Interchange Consortium (CDISC) has set the standards for clinical trial data, while the International Conference of Harmonization (ICH) dictates drug safety ones. CDISC is expanding its Clinical Data Acquisition Standards Harmonisation (CDASH) model to capture adverse event data associated with ICH E2B. All common data items have two labels that have been mapped. This exercise is showing that there is no scientific justification for data segregation. The differences between these two standards can be attributed to conventions or arise from new technology that renders unnecessary the keying in of certain context information (dates, times and recorder ID). Once this mapping is completed then a common data acquisition process will become feasible. This is the prerequisite to ultimately unifying the two databases and to implementing more efficient processes. The Authors also propose a new workflow to provide safety with the array of benefits that technology and process harmonisation offers and ultimately unifying the clinical drug safety processes.

摘要

临床组织和药品安全组织各自独立运作,并使用为符合不同数据标准而设计的单独数据库。这种分离既无效率也无效果,因为研究人员需要向临床部门和药品安全部门同时报告严重不良事件,导致各自的数据库包含部分重叠的数据集,其中包含需要核对的共同元素。电子数据采集提供了避免重复存储和消除核对工作的机会。但它也带来了因未及时向主管当局提交意外严重不良反应而导致不合规的风险。这增加了临床部门收到药品安全部门不知情病例的可能性。然而,最显著的低效率可能在于编制汇总报告和监管文件,而这些工作需要使用来自两个数据库的数据来完成。在资源有限的情况下,不必要的活动和相关成本是不受欢迎的,尤其是当它们是可以避免的时候。临床数据交换协会(CDISC)制定了临床试验数据标准,而国际协调会议(ICH)规定了药品安全标准。CDISC正在扩展其临床数据采集标准协调(CDASH)模型,以获取与ICH E2B相关的不良事件数据。所有通用数据项都有两个已映射的标签。这项工作表明,数据分离没有科学依据。这两个标准之间的差异可归因于惯例或源于新技术,新技术使得某些上下文信息(日期、时间和记录器ID)无需键入。一旦完成这种映射,通用的数据采集过程将变得可行。这是最终统一两个数据库并实施更高效流程的先决条件。作者还提出了一种新的工作流程,以使安全性受益于技术和流程协调所带来的一系列好处,并最终统一临床药品安全流程。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验