Novel Dissemination Efforts for Hematology-Related Serious Adverse Drug Reactions (sADRs): Findings from the Research on Adverse Drug Events and Reports Project (RADAR)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract The Research on Adverse Drug Events and Reports project (RADAR) is one of only a few independent pharmacovigilance programs funded entirely by peer-reviewed grants. It is the only such program that focuses on serious adverse drug reactions (sADRs) related to hematology and oncology. RADAR leverages the resources of a comprehensive cancer center, an academic hematology/oncology program, and a global network of physicians. Since its inception in 1998, RADAR has identified 33 unique sADRs. Information about these sADRs are traditionally disseminated in peer-reviewed manuscripts (21 sADRs), warnings or black box warnings in FDA-approved package inserts or manufacturer warnings (12 sADRs), or Dear Doctor letters (8 sADRs). In the absence of formal collaborations between the FDA, drug manufacturers, and independent pharmacovigilance programs, RADAR has expanded its dissemination efforts to non-traditional strategies, such as face-to-face meetings with drug manufacturers (22 sADRs), which lead to further actions by regulatory agencies and stakeholders (Table). These actions have included revised clinical guidelines from NCCN, ASCO, ASH, and the American College of Radiology, FDA advisory hearings focusing on safety, the first ever drug safety focused citizen’s petition filed by a state attorney general, and safety statements from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Moving forward, RADAR is developing novel strategies for dissemination by partnering with Consumer Reports, the internet-based Medpedia Project, and monthly safety columns published in Community Oncology and Oncology News International. Table. Hematology-related sADRs identified by RADAR and novel dissemination efforts. Drug sADR Peer-reviewed Publications (Year) FDA or Manufacturer Warnings (Year) Face-to-face meeting with drug manufacturer Actions by Regulatory Agencies or Stakeholders Ticlopidine Thrombotic Thrombocytopenic purpura Ann Intern Med (1998); Lancet (1998); Arch Intern Med (1999); JAMA (1999) Dear Doctor letter (1998); Boxed Warning (1999) Yes Drug sales diminished to minimal level due to safety concerns (even though generic drug); FDA presentation Clopidogrel Thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura NEJM (2000); Transplantation (2002); Stroke (2004) Warnings (2000, 2006) Yes Patient message in direct-to-consumer advertisements Epoetin/darbepoetin Venous thromboembolism; mortality JAMA (2008) FDA Alerts (2006, 2007), Black box warning (2007) Yes FDA hearing; CMS policy change; EMEA guidelines change; NCCN guidelines change Epoetin Pure red-cell aplasia NEJM (2004); Blood (2005) Boxed warning (2002); Dear Doctor letter (2005) Yes Manufacturer changes; Canada Health; EMEA statements; FDA presentation Thalidomide/lenalidomide Venous thromboembolism JAMA (2006) Black box warning(2006) Yes Citizen’s petition by attorney general of Connecticut (upheld) Gemtuzumab Sinusoidal obstructive syndrome Leukemia Research (2006) Boxed warning (2001) Yes FDA-mandated postmarketing registry Rituximab Progressive multifocal leuko-encephalopathy ASH (2007); ASCO (2008) Black box warning (2006) Yes Under consideration G-CSF/GM-CSF Acute myeloid leukemia; myelodisplatic syndrome JNCI (2007) None Yes Reconsideration of G-CSF administration to pediatric donors in Japan PEG-rHuMGDF Lymphoproliferative disorder British J of Haematology (2006) None No Drug development discontinued because of safety concerns Zoledronate Osteonecrosis of the jaw Lancet Oncology (2008) Dear Doctor letter (2004) Yes Guidelines from radiology, dentistry, hematology, oncology Nevirapine Stevens-Johnson syndrome; hepatotoxicity J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr (2004) Boxed warning (1998); Warning (1999); Dear Doctor letters (2000, 2004) Yes Drug no longer. used for post-needle stick exposure to HIV by healthcare workers
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,141 | 0,318 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,008 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,011 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».