Misra Saurav, Kaur Manmeet, Deb Tirthankar, Kaushik Amit, Vohra Abhimanyu, Sindhwani Kashish, Saranjhna Ashish K
Department of Pharmacology, Kalpana Chawla Government Medical College and Hospital, Karnal, Haryana, India.
Department of Pharmacology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Kalyani, West Bengal, India.
J Family Med Prim Care. 2025 Apr;14(4):1252-1258. doi: 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_1148_24. Epub 2025 Apr 25.
To develop a structured and harmonized causality assessment method has been a holy grail in pharmacovigilance. The Pharmacovigilance Programme of India (PvPI) recommends the use of the World Health Organization-Uppsala Monitoring Centre (WHO-UMC) scale, whereas many clinicians prefer the Naranjo algorithm for its simplicity. There is no universally accepted method for the causality grading of ADRs. In the present study, we assessed agreement and correlation between the two widely used causality assessment scales, that is, the WHO-UMC criteria and the Naranjo algorithm.
In this study, 313 individual case safety reports were analyzed from April 1, 2020, to March 31, 2023, reported at the Adverse Drug Reaction Monitoring Center (AMC) at Kalpana Chawla Government Medical College, Karnal. Two well-trained independent groups performed a causality assessment. One group performed a causality assessment of 313 ADRs using the WHO-UMC criteria and the other group performed the same using the Naranjo algorithm. The agreement between two ADR causality scales was assessed using the weighted kappa (κ) test. Spearman's correlation was also used to find the correlation between the two scales.
Cohen's kappa coefficient (κ) statistical test was applied between the two scales (WHO-UMC scale and Naranjo algorithm) to find out the agreement between these two scales. A weak agreement was found between the two scales (Kappa statistics with 95% confidence interval = 0.463, [ < 0.001]). Spearman's correlation coefficient was found to be 0.506.
The assessment of causality for adverse drug reactions (ADRs) is challenging, and none of the different methods available for assessing ADR causality is accepted as the gold standard. In our study, we found weak agreement between the WHO-UMC criteria and the Naranjo algorithm. It is essential to standardize the causality assessment tool to create a universally acceptable method for assessing causality. Further research is needed to establish a gold standard method for assessing the causality of adverse drug reactions.
开发一种结构化且统一的因果关系评估方法一直是药物警戒领域的圣杯。印度药物警戒计划(PvPI)推荐使用世界卫生组织 - 乌普萨拉监测中心(WHO - UMC)量表,而许多临床医生因其简单性更喜欢使用纳朗霍算法。对于药物不良反应的因果关系分级,尚无普遍接受的方法。在本研究中,我们评估了两种广泛使用的因果关系评估量表,即WHO - UMC标准和纳朗霍算法之间的一致性和相关性。
在本研究中,分析了2020年4月1日至2023年3月31日期间在卡尔纳勒的卡尔帕娜·乔拉政府医学院药物不良反应监测中心(AMC)报告的313份个体病例安全报告。两个训练有素的独立小组进行了因果关系评估。一组使用WHO - UMC标准对313例药物不良反应进行因果关系评估,另一组使用纳朗霍算法进行同样的评估。使用加权kappa(κ)检验评估两种药物不良反应因果关系量表之间的一致性。还使用斯皮尔曼相关性来找出两种量表之间的相关性。
在两种量表(WHO - UMC量表和纳朗霍算法)之间应用了科恩kappa系数(κ)统计检验,以找出这两种量表之间的一致性。发现两种量表之间存在弱一致性(kappa统计量,95%置信区间 = 0.463,[<0.001])。斯皮尔曼相关系数为0.506。
药物不良反应(ADR)的因果关系评估具有挑战性,现有的用于评估ADR因果关系的不同方法均未被接受为金标准。在我们的研究中,我们发现WHO - UMC标准和纳朗霍算法之间存在弱一致性。标准化因果关系评估工具以创建一种普遍可接受的因果关系评估方法至关重要。需要进一步研究以建立评估药物不良反应因果关系的金标准方法。