0
Original Investigation |

Evaluation of Serious Adverse Drug Reactions:  A Proactive Pharmacovigilance Program (RADAR) vs Safety Activities Conducted by the Food and Drug Administration and Pharmaceutical Manufacturers FREE

Charles L. Bennett, MD, PhD, MPP; Jonathan R. Nebeker, MD, MS; Paul R. Yarnold, PhD; Cara C. Tigue, BA; David A. Dorr, MD, MS; June M. McKoy, MD, MPH, JD; Beatrice J. Edwards, MD; John F. Hurdle, MD, PhD; Dennis P. West, PhD; Denys T. Lau, PhD; Cara Angelotta, BA; Sigmund A. Weitzman, MD; Steven M. Belknap, MD; Benjamin Djulbegovic, MD, PhD; Martin S. Tallman, MD; Timothy M. Kuzel, MD; Al B. Benson, MD; Andrew Evens, DO; Steven M. Trifilio, RPh; D. Mark Courtney, MD; Dennis W. Raisch, RPh, PhD
[+] Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Division of Hematology/Oncology (Drs Bennett, Weitzman, Tallman, Kuzel, Benson, and Evens, Mss Tigue and Angelotta, and Mr Trifilio), Department of Dermatology (Dr West), Buehler Center on Aging (Dr Lau), Division of General Internal Medicine (Dr Belknap), Division of Geriatrics (Drs McKoy and Edwards), and Department of Emergency Medicine (Drs Yarnold and Courtney), Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, and the Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center (Drs Bennett, McKoy, Belknap, and Benson), Chicago, Ill; the Jesse Brown Veterans Affairs Medical Center and the Veterans Affairs Center for Management of Complex Chronic Care, Chicago (Dr Bennett and Mss Tigue and Angelotta); Veterans Affairs Salt Lake City Geriatric Research, Education and Clinical Center and Informatics Decision Enhancement and Surveillance Center (Dr Nebeker), and University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City (Drs Nebeker and Hurdle); Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland (Dr Dorr); H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute at the University of South Florida, Tampa (Dr Djulbegovic); and Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program, Clinical Research Pharmacy Coordinating Center, Albuquerque, NM (Dr Raisch).


Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(10):1041-1049. doi:10.1001/archinte.167.10.1041.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Background  The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and pharmaceutical manufacturers conduct most postmarketing pharmaceutical safety investigations. These efforts are frequently based on data mining of databases. In 1998, investigators initiated the Research on Adverse Drug events And Reports (RADAR) project to investigate reports of serious adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and prospectively obtain information on these cases. We compare safety efforts for evaluating serious ADRs conducted by the FDA and pharmaceutical manufacturers vs the RADAR project.

Methods  We evaluated the completeness of serious ADR descriptions in the FDA and RADAR databases and the comprehensiveness of notifications disseminated by pharmaceutical manufacturers and the RADAR investigators. A serious ADR was defined as an event that led to death or required intensive therapies to reverse.

Results  The RADAR investigators evaluated 16 serious ADRs. Compared with descriptions of these ADRs in FDA databases (2296 reports), reports in RADAR databases (472 reports) had a 2-fold higher rate of including information on history and physical examination (92% vs 45%; P<.001) and a 9-fold higher rate of including basic science findings (34% vs 4%; P = .08). Safety notifications were disseminated earlier by pharmaceutical suppliers (2 vs 4 years after approval, respectively), although notifications were less likely to include information on incidence (46% vs 93%; P = .02), outcomes (8% vs 100%; P<.001), treatment or prophylaxis (25% vs 93%; P<.001), or references (8% vs 80%; P<.001).

Conclusion  Proactive safety efforts conducted by the RADAR investigators are more comprehensive than those conducted by the FDA and pharmaceutical manufacturers, but dissemination of related safety notifications is less timely.

Figures in this Article

Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) result in health care costs of $3.6 billion annually and are among the top 10 leading causes of death.13 After product recalls for rofecoxib and cerivastatin, concern exists over the ability of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and pharmaceutical manufacturers to identify serious adverse events and to notify physicians about these findings.48 Serious ADRs can go unrecognized if initial safety signals are unclear.2 New approaches to identifying unexpected pharmaceutical toxic effects are needed.9,10

One concern is that current pharmacovigilance efforts are hindered by low reporting rates, and when ADRs are reported the information is of variable quality.11 When pharmaceutical manufacturers and the FDA become convinced that an event represents a serious ADR, safety notifications are disseminated.2,12 Physicians may not be aware of serious ADRs if dissemination of these notifications is delayed, the safety notification is not comprehensive, or they do not read the notifications.

Academic researchers and nonprofit organizations have developed systems to identify and evaluate serious ADRs.1316 As noted previously, surveillance efforts conducted by these groups differ from those of the FDA: the organizations focus on serious ADRs, and additional reports are obtained after queries to health care professionals who provide care for patients with the relevant toxic effects.17 The deputy director of the FDA proposed that adverse event reports obtained by proactive pharmacovigilance should be transmitted to the FDA and would augment existing pharmacovigilance systems.18 However, before augmentation can occur, comparisons of these pharmacovigilance efforts are needed. Herein, we evaluate 2 questions that can inform this comparison: how complete are adverse event reports included in databases obtained by these systems, and how timely and complete are safety notifications disseminated by these programs? We limit these comparisons to recent safety evaluations conducted by one of the largest nonprofit pharmacovigilance programs, the Research on Adverse Drug events And Reports (RADAR) project.14

The RADAR project is a pharmacovigilance program that focuses on identification, evaluation, and dissemination of information describing serious ADRs, such as those resulting in death or severe organ failure or precipitating major therapeutic interventions. The RADAR project is funded by grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Pharmaceutical manufacturers do not provide support, although they are asked to provide relevant clinical information on each serious ADR.

The RADAR project is led by a hematologist-oncologist and health services researcher (C.L.B.) and consists of 25 investigators with training in internal medicine and the medical subspecialties of clinical pharmacology, epidemiology, statistics, and pharmacy. An investigation is initiated when a clinical event that represents a possible occurrence of a serious ADR is seen by a RADAR coinvestigator or reported by unaffiliated physicians. Senior members of the RADAR team review the indicator event, as well as associated literature and package inserts, to determine if the event represents an ADR. If further investigation of the ADR is meritorious, queries for additional case reports are submitted to the FDA and institutional review board approval is requested at collaborating institutions. The FDA reports are subject to a preliminary review to inform hypothesis generation and refine data collection tools. The case forms include demographics, source of information (eg, clinical trial or physician queries), medication history, event description (eg, date of the event, time elapsed between exposure and ADR event, event duration, other relevant history, physical findings, and study results), organ-specific history, and treatments. World Health Organization criteria are used to score causal associations between the suspect drug and the event. The RADAR investigators refine hypotheses about pathophysiologic features. Data elements and coding accommodate the range of data available in the FDA databases and address underlying causality hypotheses. Coding of the case classification form is designed to facilitate algorithmic analysis of case findings (Figure).14

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure.

Flowchart of Research on Adverse Drug events And Reports (RADAR) investigations. Reprinted with permission from JAMA. 2005;293:2131-2140. ADR indicates adverse drug reaction; FDA, Food and Drug Administration; and IRB, institutional review board.

Graphic Jump Location
DATA SOURCES

Initial sources for RADAR investigations are descriptions of single events of serious ADRs identified by a RADAR investigator, often originating with queries from health care workers, attorneys, or patients. The RADAR data sources for obtaining additional information include communications with clinical trialists or referral centers that treat large numbers of individuals with the given toxic effect. The FDA data sources for obtaining follow-up reports include spontaneous adverse event reports contained in MedWatch19 (for drugs) and the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience Database (MAUDE)20 (for drug-coated devices). Dissemination of RADAR findings occurs via published abstracts or articles. Dissemination of FDA and pharmaceutical supplier findings is made via “Dear Doctor” letters and package insert revisions.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Safety elements were abstracted onto syndrome-specific forms.2132 These forms are based on the ADR systems of the World Health Organization33 and Naranjo et al.34,35 Data elements included history and physical examination, laboratory,radiologic, and basic science findings; age and sex; clinical diagnosis for which the drug was being prescribed; duration and dose of the drug administered; use of concomitant drugs; relevant clinical and laboratory findings that supported the diagnosis of the adverse event; duration of clinical abnormalities; exposure-adjusted incidence rates; treatments and prophylaxis; diagnosis date; date of reporting to the FDA or RADAR investigators; rechallenge and dechallenge; and outcome.

Data elements in the summary safety notification analysis included date of publication (for manuscripts and abstracts) or distribution (for package insert revisions or Dear Doctor letters); descriptions of clinical findings, exposure-adjusted incidence rates, and treatment and prophylaxis regimens; and references to relevant peer-reviewed articles. For each of the safety evaluations, completeness percentages were derived for individual case descriptions contained in the respective safety databases.2132 Specific categories included history and physical examination findings, laboratory and radiologic test results, and basic science correlative studies. For each summary safety notification published as a peer-reviewed publication, Dear Doctor letter, or package insert revision, mean percentages were derived for frequency of inclusion in these reports of relevant clinical findings, estimated reporting and exposure-adjusted incidence rates, treatment and prophylaxis recommendations, and references to relevant peer-reviewed articles. A time to initial publication was derived for each summary notification, operationally defined as the time from FDA approval to publication (for RADAR notifications) or ADR notification via a Dear Doctors letter (for FDA or pharmaceutical supplier notification) or revised package inserts (for pharmaceutical supplier notifications).

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Overall unweighted mean percentages of completeness for inclusion of information from history and physical examinations, laboratory and radiologic tests, and basic science correlative studies were derived for clinical adverse event reports included in the FDA and RADAR safety databases. Statistical comparisons were made of completeness percentages for these individual data elements in FDA vs RADAR databases. With respect to dissemination, we reported mean completeness percentages for inclusion of relevant safety information in notifications from RADAR and the pharmaceutical manufacturers, as well as median time to publication of RADAR notification vs safety notifications from pharmaceutical manufacturers and/or the FDA.3647 Statistical analyses were conducted using optimal discriminant analysis, a nonparametric exact statistic.48 The project received institutional review board approval from Northwestern University.

Between 1998 and 2006, the RADAR investigators published safety notifications for 12 unique serious ADRs associated with 14 drugs and 2 devices.2132 The safety investigations were initiated after identification and reporting of a small number of serious individual clinical events by physicians conducting early-phase clinical trials (thalidomide- and lenalidomide-associated venous thromboembolism, gemtuzumab ozogamicin–associated sinusoidal obstructive syndrome, and gemcitabine hydrochloride–associated pneumonitis) or specialists who reviewed clinical and laboratory findings for individuals who experienced a likely drug- or device-related toxic effect (drug-eluting cardiac stent–associated hypersensitivity and erythropoietin-associated pure red blood cell aplasia) or provided care for individuals who experienced a probable drug-related toxic effect (ticlopidine hydrochloride– and clopidogrel bisulfate–associated thrombocytopenic purpura, vardenafil hydrochloride– and tadalafil-associated optic neuritis, nevirapine-associated hepatoxicity among health care workers not infected with human immunodeficiency virus [HIV], enoxaparin sodium–associated hemorrhage after cardiac angioplasty procedure, and bisphosphonate-associated jaw osteonecrosis; Table 1).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Completeness of Reports Contained in RADAR Databases vs Completeness of Individual Case Reports Contained in FDA Data

These clinical events required primarily intensive interventions, and occasionally patients died of the toxic effect. For each ADR, descriptions of additional detailed case information were obtained from health care professionals who conducted early-phase clinical trials, had referral practices that evaluated or treated patients with the relevant toxic effect, or directed specialty centers such as blood banks or leukemia referral centers. The number of individual event reports associated with each of the ADRs ranged from 3 to 1348. Overall, RADAR databases included 472 individual reports and FDA databases included 2296 reports.

Individual case descriptions were more complete in RADAR vs FDA databases (Table 1). The RADAR database had significantly higher mean rates of inclusion of history and physical examination information (92% vs 45%; P<.001) and a trend toward higher mean inclusion rates of basic science laboratory studies (34% vs 4%; P = .08). For laboratory and radiologic findings, reporting comprehensiveness rates were comparable (54% vs 46%; P = .61). Items frequently found in RADAR but not in FDA reports included physical examination findings, radiologic reports (venogram, computed tomogram, or magnetic resonance imaging findings), laboratory studies (hemoglobin level, creatinine level, and platelet count), pathologic findings (bone marrow aspirate, liver biopsy, bone biopsy, and autopsy findings), and antibody assay results.

Timing and completeness of safety notifications disseminated by pharmaceutical manufacturers and RADAR investigators differed (Table 2). Safety notifications were disseminated earlier by pharmaceutical manufacturers, usually as package inserts or Dear Doctor letters (median of 2 vs 4 years after FDA approval). For 4 ADRs (thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura associated with clopidogrel, venous thromboembolism associated with thalidomide and lenalidomide, nevirapine-associated hepatotoxicity, and bisphosphonate-associated osteonecrosis of the jaw), RADAR safety notifications were the primary sources of summary safety information for the RADAR project, as well as for the related Dear Doctor letters and package insert notifications disseminated by pharmaceutical manufacturers.22,31 For 2 ADRs (fulminant hepatic failure with nevirapine that contained post–HIV-exposure prophylaxis regimens and enoxaparin-associated severe hemorrhages after invasive cardiologic procedures), safety notifications were made via RADAR publications but are not described in materials distributed by the pharmaceutical manufacturer because these toxic effects occurred in off-label settings.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Completeness of ADR Reports Disseminated by RADAR vs Pharmaceutical Manufacturers

Compared with notifications disseminated as pharmaceutical package insert revisions or Dear Doctor letters, RADAR notifications were more likely to include reporting rates or exposure-adjusted incidence rates (93% vs 46%; P = .02), outcomes (100% vs 8%; P<.001), treatment and prophylaxis recommendations (93% vs 25%; P<.001), and peer-reviewed references (80% vs 8%; P<.001). Of note, for drug-eluting cardiac stents, a Dear Doctor letter issued on October 29, 2003, described rare instances of hypersensitivity when drug-eluting stents were placed in coronary arteries.52 One month later, a follow-up notification from the FDA indicated that these cases were most likely related to hypersensitivity to concomitantly administered drugs, primarily clopidogrel.53 In 2004, a RADAR notification indicated that some instances of hypersensitivity appeared to be caused by the stents, since autopsies revealed eosinophilic infiltrates at the stent site for 4 patients and information in FDA notifications rarely supported clopidogrel as the cause.27,54

In this review of pharmacovigilance efforts associated with 16 serious ADRs, we found that clinical information obtained by the proactive RADAR program was of higher quality, but lower quantity, than that contained in the combination of spontaneous adverse event reports submitted to the FDA and adverse event reports submitted to the FDA by pharmaceutical manufacturers. Also, safety notifications from the RADAR investigators were more complete than those from pharmaceutical manufacturers or the FDA, although they were less timely. Our findings highlight differences between proactive pharmacovigilance efforts conducted by the RADAR group vs pharmacovigilance efforts conducted by the FDA and pharmaceutical manufacturers.55 In interpreting our findings, several factors should be considered.

Pharmacovigilance efforts of the FDA or the pharmaceutical supplier did not result in the initiation of investigations of any of the serious ADRs described herein. Indeed, none of the 5 ADRs for which more than 200 individual case descriptions resided in the FDA safety databases were investigated before the initial reports of serious clinical events associated with these ADRs were published (Table 1). In contrast, each of the RADAR investigations was initiated when a serious clinical event that represented a potential serious ADR was identified by a RADAR investigator. As noted by others, despite having a large number of ADR reports in FDA databases, it is a difficult task to clearly identify a “signal” that suggests a new ADR has occurred vs “noise” associated with complex clinical settings.10

With respect to follow-up evaluations, the FDA receives more than 400 000 reports of serious and nonserious ADRs annually.56 It is impractical for the FDA to request follow-up information on most of these cases. However, in rare instances in which follow-up clinical information for an individual case report has been requested by pharmaceutical manufacturers or the FDA, health care professionals rarely comply with these requests.10 In contrast, health care professionals almost universally responded to follow-up queries from RADAR investigators. Although not paid for these efforts, participating physicians have subsequently contributed as coauthors to the summary RADAR publications that are disseminated in peer-reviewed medical journals.11 The end result is that large numbers of incomplete ADR reports are submitted by many health care professionals to the FDA and pharmaceutical manufacturers, whereas a small number of health care professionals submit fewer but more completely described safety reports to the RADAR program. It is the quality, not the quantity, of the case report information that primarily supports successful pharmacovigilance efforts. For 8 serious ADRs, RADAR summary reports were based on comprehensive review of a median of only 20 case reports for the individual toxic effect. Causality assessments, the most difficult and one of the most important aspects of pharmacovigilance studies, were included in several RADAR investigations, such as biopsy or autopsy findings or antibody test results for a small number of patients, but not in the pharmaceutical or FDA summary safety reports.

The RADAR notifications were disseminated a median of 2 vs 4 years after FDA approval. These notifications were disseminated primarily as peer-reviewed manuscripts, although some of the more urgent notifications were rapidly distributed as electronic preprints (clopidogrel-associated thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura) or research letters (lenalidomide-associated thromboembolism) within 1 year of FDA approval of the relevant drug. The RADAR notifications, but not the FDA or pharmaceutical supplier safety notifications, included information on expected clinical outcomes, recommendations for treatment and prevention, and common strategies for diagnosis of the ADR. The recently released report from the Institute of Medicine's Committee on Assessment of the US Drug Safety System proposed changes that would improve the timing and comprehensiveness of safety notifications disseminated by the FDA.57

For several RADAR investigations, resultant RADAR safety notifications were followed by actions that had a direct impact on the safety of pharmaceuticals in the postmarketing setting (Table 3). These actions were facilitated by market-related factors (clopidogrel rapidly replaced ticlopidine, in part for safety reasons related to lower rates of thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura as outlined by the RADAR project), support from the Connecticut attorney general (for thalidomide-associated venous thromboembolism), and support from national health authorities (mandating intravenous epoetin alfa administration to patients with chronic kidney disease or contraindicating nevirapine-containing post–HIV-exposure prophylaxis regimens). The Institute of Medicine's Committee on Assessment of the US Drug Safety System recommended that the FDA be granted regulatory authority to affect the manner in which drugs are used or marketed when safety concerns are identified.57

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Safety-Related Actions Resulting Directly From RADAR Investigations

After publication of the recent Institute of Medicine report on drug safety, experts proposed funding a consortium of nonprofit pharmacovigilance centers, such as the Centers for Education and Research on Therapeutics.10,56,58 Collaborations could build on the unique strengths of these centers. For example, the FDA may initially identify a weak safety signal by data-mining efforts and then issue a request for proposal to FDA-approved independent pharmacovigilance centers that have cooperative agreements. These centers might competitively bid on the proposed project, and the selected centers would then conduct proactive pharmacovigilance, identify additional reports of the serious adverse event, and obtain detailed case information on these individuals. The FDA and the selected pharmacovigilance centers would ultimately share safety information. Alternatively, the pharmacovigilance centers might identify signals of serious ADRs and present these findings to FDA officials at regularly scheduled meetings, similar to those that occur between the FDA and the Centers for Education and Research on Therapeutics. In addition, FDA data-mining efforts (application of statistical techniques to spontaneous ADR reports to identify potential associations between drug exposures and outcomes) would look for additional cases. Concise safety summaries may be prepared by pharmaceutical manufacturers with input from the FDA and the proactive safety centers, and dissemination may occur as revised package inserts and/or Dear Doctor letters. Academic investigators could prepare articles for submission to peer-reviewed journals that summarize reporting rates, outcomes, treatment, prophylaxis, and clinical and basic science findings. By tapping into the interests and expertise of safety centers while still maintaining control and focus, the FDA could highlight its strengths (sending rapid, nationwide feedback about new ADRs) while reducing bureaucratic burden.

Our study has limitations. First, additional sources of safety reports exist in databases maintained by institutional review boards, cooperative clinical trial groups, and insurance companies.59 Second, physicians frequently do not respond to Dear Doctor letters or black-box advisories.12,6063 Third, the RADAR project focused primarily on ADRs related to drugs or drug-related devices (drug-eluting stents). In 2002, the Office of Devices and Radiologic Health of the FDA initiated the Medical Product Surveillance Network, a collaboration that resembles the proposed FDA-RADAR collaboration. However, the RADAR project, unlike the Medical Product Surveillance Network, benefits from institutional support of multidisciplinary researchers at a National Cancer Institute–designated comprehensive cancer center. As such, the RADAR effort would be difficult to replicate within the FDA. The RADAR project focuses on obtaining a small number of comprehensive safety reports from select centers and provides extensive review and analysis of the individual ADR reports to distinguish signal from noise. Finally, similar assessments of other nonprofit pharmacovigilance efforts, such as the Drug-Induced Liver Injury Network64 and the National Registry of Drug-Induced Ocular Side Effects, should be reported.65

In conclusion, our study identified differences in data quality for safety reports contained in databases obtained by proactive pharmacovigilance efforts conducted by the RADAR project vs the FDA, as well as in the completeness and timing of dissemination of safety notifications. Moving forward, collaborations could be developed that build on the strengths of independent nonprofit organizations that proactively conduct pharmacovigilance efforts and of safety efforts of the FDA and pharmaceutical manufacturers.

Correspondence: Charles L. Bennett, MD, PhD, MPP, 303 E Chicago Ave, Olson Pavilion, Suite 8-250, Chicago, IL 60611 (cbenne@northwestern.edu).

Accepted for Publication: September 20, 2006.

Author Contributions: Dr Bennett had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Study concept and design: Bennett, Nebeker, Yarnold, Angelotta, and Belknap. Acquisition of data: Bennett, Edwards, Angelotta, Weitzman, Tallman, and Raisch. Analysis and interpretation of data: Bennett, Nebeker, Yarnold, Tigue, Dorr, McKoy, Edwards, Hurdle, West, Lau, Angelotta, Weitzman, Belknap, Djulbegovic, Tallman, Kuzel, Benson, Evens, Trifilio, Courtney, and Raisch. Drafting of the manuscript: Bennett, Nebeker, Yarnold, Dorr, Edwards, Angelotta, Belknap, Trifilio, and Courtney. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Bennett, Nebeker, Yarnold, Tigue, McKoy, Edwards, Hurdle, West, Lau, Angelotta, Weitzman, Belknap, Djulbegovic, Tallman, Kuzel, Benson, Evens, Trifilio, Courtney, and Raisch. Statistical analysis: Yarnold and Trifilio. Obtained funding: Bennett and Belknap. Administrative, technical, and material support: Tigue, Dorr, Hurdle, and Angelotta. Study supervision: Bennett, McKoy, Edwards, Angelotta, Belknap, and Evens.

Financial Disclosure: None reported.

Funding/Support: Funding for this project was provided by grants 1 R01 CA102713-01 from the National Cancer Institute (principal investigator: Dr Bennett), 3 R01 CA102713-02S from the National Cancer Institute (principal investigator: Dr Bennett), HL69717-01A1 from the National Institutes of Health (principal investigator: Dr Bennett), 05-215-01-CPPB from the American Cancer Society (principal investigator: Dr Belknap), P30 CA60553 from the National Cancer Institute (Dr McKoy), RCD-02-176, TRP-02-147 from the Veterans Administration Health Services Research and Development (Dr Nebeker), K22 LM 8427-01 from the National Library of Medicine (Dr Dorr), and 5K23HL077404-02 from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (Dr Courtney).

Acknowledgment: We thank Matthew Fisher and Mark Mai for helpful comments and contributions to early drafts of the manuscript.

Fontanarosa  PBRennie  DDeAngelis  CD Postmarketing surveillance–lack of vigilance, lack of trust. JAMA 2004;2922647- 2650
PubMed
Lasser  KEAllen  PDWoolhandler  SJHimmelstein  DUWolfe  SMBor  DH Timing of new black box warnings and withdrawals for prescription medications. JAMA 2002;2872215- 2220
PubMed
Lazarou  JPomeranz  BHCorey  PN Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. JAMA 1998;2791200- 1205
PubMed
Baciu  AStratton  KBurke  SCommittee on the Assessment of the US Drug Safety System, The Future of Drug Safety: Promoting and Protecting the Health of the Public.  Washington, DC National Academies Press2006;http://www.iom.edu/CMS/3793/26341/37329.aspx. Accessed October 5, 2006
Nebeker  JRBarach  PSamore  MH Clarifying adverse drug events: a clinician's guide to terminology, documentation, and reporting. Ann Intern Med 2004;140795- 801
PubMed
Psaty  BMFurberg  CD COX-2 inhibitors—lessons in drug safety. N Engl J Med 2005;3521133- 1135
PubMed
Drazen  JM COX-2 inhibitors—a lesson in unexpected problems. N Engl J Med 2005;3521131- 1132
PubMed
Topol  EJ Failing the public health–rofecoxib, Merck, and the FDA. N Engl J Med 2004;3511707- 1709
PubMed
Wood  AJ Thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura and clopidogrel–a need for new approaches to drug safety. N Engl J Med 2000;3421824- 1826
PubMed
Furberg  CDLevin  AAGross  PAShapiro  RSStrom  BL The FDA and drug safety: a proposal for sweeping changes. Arch Intern Med 2006;1661938- 1942
PubMed
Zakarija  ABandarenko  NPandey  DK  et al.  Clopidogrel-associated TTP: an update of pharmacovigilance efforts conducted by independent researchers, pharmaceutical suppliers, and the Food and Drug Administration. Stroke 2004;35533- 537
PubMed
Lasser  KESeger  DLYu  DT  et al.  Adherence to black box warnings for prescription medications in outpatients. Arch Intern Med 2006;166338- 344
PubMed
Fraunfelder  FW Ocular adverse drug reactions and the National Registry of Drug-Induced Ocular Side Effects. Insight 2004;297- 11
PubMed
Bennett  CLNebeker  JRLyons  EA  et al.  The Research on Adverse Drug Events and Reports (RADAR) project. JAMA 2005;2932131- 2140
PubMed
Larson  AMPolson  JFontana  RJ  et al.  Acetaminophen-induced acute liver failure: results of a United States multicenter, prospective study. Hepatology 2005;421364- 1372
PubMed
Wolfe  SM Dangers of rosuvastatin identified before and after FDA approval. Lancet 2004;3632189- 2190
PubMed
Trontell  AE Expecting the unexpected–drug safety, pharmacovigilance, and the prepared mind. N Engl J Med 2004;3511385- 1387
PubMed
Trontell  AE The RADAR project and the FDA. JAMA 2005;2941206- 1207
PubMed
US Food and Drug Administration, MedWatch Web site. http://www.fda.gov/medwatch. Accessed March 2, 2007
US Food and Drug Administration, Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience Database (MAUDE) Web site. http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/maude.html. Accessed March 2, 2007
McKoy  JMAngelotta  CBennett  CL  et al.  Gemtuzumab ozogamicin–associated sinusoidal obstructive syndrome (SOS): an overview from the research on adverse drug events and reports (RADAR) project. Leuk Res. http://www.sciencedirect.com/. Accessed March 30, 2007. [published online ahead of print September 7, 2006]
PubMed
Bennett  CLConnors  JMCarwile  JM  et al.  Thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura associated with clopidogrel. N Engl J Med 2000;3421773- 1777
PubMed
Bennett  CLWeinberg  PDRozenberg-Ben-Dror  KYarnold  PRKwaan  HCGreen  D Thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura associated with ticlopidine: a review of 60 cases. Ann Intern Med 1998;128541- 544
PubMed
Johnson  LNPassman  RSBennett  CL Amiodarone-Associated Optic Neuropathy: A Review of 294 Cases From the Research on Adverse Drug Events and Reports (RADAR) Project.  Fort Lauderdale, Fla Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology2006;
Johnson  SChan  JBennett  CL Hepatotoxicity after prophylaxis with a nevirapine-containing antiretroviral regimen. Ann Intern Med 2002;137146- 147
PubMed
MacDonald  LAMeyers  SBennett  CL  et al.  Post-cardiac catheterization access site complications and low-molecular-weight heparin following cardiac catheterization. J Invasive Cardiol 2003;1560- 62
PubMed
Nebeker  JRVirmani  RBennett  CL  et al.  Hypersensitivity cases associated with drug-eluting coronary stents: a review of available cases from the Research on Adverse Drug Events and Reports (RADAR) project. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;47175- 181
PubMed
Patel  SMJohnson  SBelknap  SMChan  JSha  BEBennett  C Serious adverse cutaneous and hepatic toxicities associated with nevirapine use by non-HIV-infected individuals. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2004;35120- 125
PubMed
Pomeranz  HAngelotta  CRaisch  DW Sildenafil- and Tadalafil-Associated Optic Neuropathy: An Overview From the Research on Adverse Events and Reports (RADAR) Project.  Fort Lauderdale, Fla Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology2006;
Bennett  CLLuminari  SNissenson  AR  et al.  Pure red-cell aplasia and epoetin therapy. N Engl J Med 2004;3511403- 1408
PubMed
Johnson  SBaraboutis  JG Adverse effects associated with use of nevirapine in HIV postexposure prophylaxis for 2 health care workers. JAMA 2000;2842722- 2723
PubMed
Belknap  SMKuzel  TMYarnold  PR  et al.  Clinical features and correlates of gemcitabine-associated lung injury: findings from the RADAR project. Cancer 2006;1062051- 2057
PubMed
Edwards  IRAronson  JK Adverse drug reactions: definitions, diagnosis, and management. Lancet 2000;3561255- 1259
PubMed
Naranjo  CABusto  USellers  EM  et al.  A method for estimating the probability of adverse drug reactions. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1981;30239- 245
PubMed
Lanctôt  KLNaranjo  CA Comparison of the Bayesian approach and a simple algorithm for assessment of adverse drug events. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1995;58692- 698
PubMed
 Cialis [package insert]. US Food and Drug Administration Web site. Indianapolis, Ind Lilly ICOS2005;http://www.fda.gov/cder/foi/label/2005/021368s006lbl.pdf. Accessed February 16, 2006
 Cordarone [package insert]. US Food and Drug Administration Web site. Philadelphia, Pa Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc2004;http://www.fda.gov/medwatch/SAFETY/2004/dec_PI/Cordarone_PI.pdf. Accessed February 17, 2006
 CYPHER Sirolimus-eluting Coronary Stent [package insert]. US Food and Drug Administration Web site. Miami, Fla Cordis Corp2003;http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/PDF2/p020026c.pdf. Accessed February 17, 2006
 Epogen [package insert]. US Food and Drug Administration Web site. Thousand Oaks, Calif Amgen, Inc2005;http://www.fda.gov/medwatch/safety/2005/Oct_PI/Epogen_PI.pdf. Accessed February 17, 2006
 Gemzar [package insert]. US Food and Drug Administration Web site. Indianapolis, Ind Eli Lilly and Company1998;http://www.fda.gov/cder/foi/label/1998/20509lbl.pdf. Accessed February 17, 2006
 Myolotarg [package insert]. US Food and Drug Administration Web site. Philadelphia, Pa Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc2005;http://www.fda.gov/medwatch/safety/2005/Oct_PI/Mylotarg_PI.pdf. Accessed February 17, 2006
 Plavix [package insert]. Sanofi Web site. New York, NY Bristol-Myers Squibb/Sanofi Pharmaceuticals Partnership2006;http://products.sanofi-aventis.us/plavix/plavix.pdf. Accessed February 17, 2006
 Taxus [package insert]. US Food and Drug Administration Web site. Natick, Mass Boston Scientific Corp2004;http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/pdf3/P030025c.pdf. Accessed February 17, 2006
 Thalomid [package insert]. Celgene Web site. Summit, NJ Celgene Corp2006;http://www.celgene.com/PDF/ThalomidPI.pdf. Accessed February 23, 2006
 Ticlid [package insert]. US Food and Drug Administration Web site. Nutley, NJ Roche Pharmaceuticals2001;http://www.fda.gov/cder/foi/label/2001/19979s18lbl.PDF. Accessed February 17, 2006
 Viagra [package insert]. Pfizer Web site. New York, NY Pfizer, Inc2006;http://www.pfizer.com/pfizer/download/uspi_viagra.pdf. Accessed March 10, 2006
 Viramune [package insert]. US Food and Drug Administration Web site. Ridgefield, Conn Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc2005;http://www.fda.gov/cder/foi/label/2005/20636s025,20933s014lbl.pdf. Accessed March 10, 2006
Yarnold  PRSoltysik  RC Optimal Data Analysis: A Guidebook With Software for Windows.  Washington, DC APA Books2004;
Bennett  CLSchumock  GTDesai  AA  et al.  Thalidomide-associated deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. Am J Med 2002;113603- 606
PubMed
Bennett  CLAngelotta  CYarnold  PR  et al.  Thalidomide- and lenalomide-associated venous thromboembolism among patients with cancer. JAMA 2006;2962558- 2560
Bennett  CLEvens  AMAndritsos  LA  et al.  Hematologic malignancies developing in previously healthy individuals who received hematopoietic growth factors: report from the Research on Adverse Drug Events and Reports (RADAR) project. Br J Haematol 2006;135642- 650
PubMed
US Food and Drug Administration, Information for physicians on sub-acute thromboses (SAT) and hypersensitivity reactions with use of the Cordis CYPHER coronary stent [public health Web notification]. 2003.;http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/safety/cypher.html. Accessed March 10, 2006
US Food and Drug Administration, Updated information for physicians on sub-acute thromboses (SAT) and hypersensitivity reactions with use of the Cordis CYPHER sirolimus-eluting coronary stent. http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/safety/cypher2.html. Accessed March 10, 2006
Davidson  CJNebeker  JRKlinge  SA Report on 141 hypersensitivity cases associated with the CYPHER sirolimus eluting cardiac stent. Circ Res 2004;110527
US Food and Drug Administration;, Office of Surveillance and Epidemiology Web site. http://www.fda.gov/cder/Offices/ODS/default.htm. Accessed March 10, 2006
Strom  BL How the US drug safety system should be changed. JAMA 2006;2952072- 2075
PubMed
Institute of Medicine, The Future of Drug Safety: Promoting and Protecting the Health of the Public: Report of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) of the National Academies.  Washington, DC Institute of Medicine September25 2006;
Psaty  BMBurke  SP Protecting the health of the public–Institute of Medicine recommendations on drug safety. N Engl J Med 2006;3551753- 1755
PubMed
Park-Wyllie  LYJuurlink  DNKopp  A  et al.  Outpatient gatifloxacin therapy and dysglycemia in older adults. N Engl J Med 2006;3541352- 1361
PubMed
Smalley  WShatin  DWysowski  DK  et al.  Contraindicated use of cisapride: impact of food and drug administration regulatory action. JAMA 2000;2843036- 3039
PubMed
Gurwitz  JH Serious adverse drug effects: seeing the trees through the forest. N Engl J Med 2006;3541413- 1415
PubMed
Mazor  KMAndrade  SEAuger  JFish  LGurwitz  JH Communicating safety information to physicians: an examination of dear doctor letters. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2005;14869- 875
PubMed
Ray  WA Population-based studies of adverse drug effects. N Engl J Med 2003;3491592- 1594
PubMed
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Drug-Induced Liver Injury Network (DILIN) Web site. http://dilin.dcri.duke.edu/ Accessed January 8, 2007
Fraunfelder  FTMeyer  SM The national registry of drug-induced ocular side effects. Aust J Ophthalmol 1984;12129- 131
PubMed

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure.

Flowchart of Research on Adverse Drug events And Reports (RADAR) investigations. Reprinted with permission from JAMA. 2005;293:2131-2140. ADR indicates adverse drug reaction; FDA, Food and Drug Administration; and IRB, institutional review board.

Graphic Jump Location

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Completeness of Reports Contained in RADAR Databases vs Completeness of Individual Case Reports Contained in FDA Data
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Completeness of ADR Reports Disseminated by RADAR vs Pharmaceutical Manufacturers
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Safety-Related Actions Resulting Directly From RADAR Investigations

References

Fontanarosa  PBRennie  DDeAngelis  CD Postmarketing surveillance–lack of vigilance, lack of trust. JAMA 2004;2922647- 2650
PubMed
Lasser  KEAllen  PDWoolhandler  SJHimmelstein  DUWolfe  SMBor  DH Timing of new black box warnings and withdrawals for prescription medications. JAMA 2002;2872215- 2220
PubMed
Lazarou  JPomeranz  BHCorey  PN Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. JAMA 1998;2791200- 1205
PubMed
Baciu  AStratton  KBurke  SCommittee on the Assessment of the US Drug Safety System, The Future of Drug Safety: Promoting and Protecting the Health of the Public.  Washington, DC National Academies Press2006;http://www.iom.edu/CMS/3793/26341/37329.aspx. Accessed October 5, 2006
Nebeker  JRBarach  PSamore  MH Clarifying adverse drug events: a clinician's guide to terminology, documentation, and reporting. Ann Intern Med 2004;140795- 801
PubMed
Psaty  BMFurberg  CD COX-2 inhibitors—lessons in drug safety. N Engl J Med 2005;3521133- 1135
PubMed
Drazen  JM COX-2 inhibitors—a lesson in unexpected problems. N Engl J Med 2005;3521131- 1132
PubMed
Topol  EJ Failing the public health–rofecoxib, Merck, and the FDA. N Engl J Med 2004;3511707- 1709
PubMed
Wood  AJ Thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura and clopidogrel–a need for new approaches to drug safety. N Engl J Med 2000;3421824- 1826
PubMed
Furberg  CDLevin  AAGross  PAShapiro  RSStrom  BL The FDA and drug safety: a proposal for sweeping changes. Arch Intern Med 2006;1661938- 1942
PubMed
Zakarija  ABandarenko  NPandey  DK  et al.  Clopidogrel-associated TTP: an update of pharmacovigilance efforts conducted by independent researchers, pharmaceutical suppliers, and the Food and Drug Administration. Stroke 2004;35533- 537
PubMed
Lasser  KESeger  DLYu  DT  et al.  Adherence to black box warnings for prescription medications in outpatients. Arch Intern Med 2006;166338- 344
PubMed
Fraunfelder  FW Ocular adverse drug reactions and the National Registry of Drug-Induced Ocular Side Effects. Insight 2004;297- 11
PubMed
Bennett  CLNebeker  JRLyons  EA  et al.  The Research on Adverse Drug Events and Reports (RADAR) project. JAMA 2005;2932131- 2140
PubMed
Larson  AMPolson  JFontana  RJ  et al.  Acetaminophen-induced acute liver failure: results of a United States multicenter, prospective study. Hepatology 2005;421364- 1372
PubMed
Wolfe  SM Dangers of rosuvastatin identified before and after FDA approval. Lancet 2004;3632189- 2190
PubMed
Trontell  AE Expecting the unexpected–drug safety, pharmacovigilance, and the prepared mind. N Engl J Med 2004;3511385- 1387
PubMed
Trontell  AE The RADAR project and the FDA. JAMA 2005;2941206- 1207
PubMed
US Food and Drug Administration, MedWatch Web site. http://www.fda.gov/medwatch. Accessed March 2, 2007
US Food and Drug Administration, Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience Database (MAUDE) Web site. http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/maude.html. Accessed March 2, 2007
McKoy  JMAngelotta  CBennett  CL  et al.  Gemtuzumab ozogamicin–associated sinusoidal obstructive syndrome (SOS): an overview from the research on adverse drug events and reports (RADAR) project. Leuk Res. http://www.sciencedirect.com/. Accessed March 30, 2007. [published online ahead of print September 7, 2006]
PubMed
Bennett  CLConnors  JMCarwile  JM  et al.  Thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura associated with clopidogrel. N Engl J Med 2000;3421773- 1777
PubMed
Bennett  CLWeinberg  PDRozenberg-Ben-Dror  KYarnold  PRKwaan  HCGreen  D Thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura associated with ticlopidine: a review of 60 cases. Ann Intern Med 1998;128541- 544
PubMed
Johnson  LNPassman  RSBennett  CL Amiodarone-Associated Optic Neuropathy: A Review of 294 Cases From the Research on Adverse Drug Events and Reports (RADAR) Project.  Fort Lauderdale, Fla Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology2006;
Johnson  SChan  JBennett  CL Hepatotoxicity after prophylaxis with a nevirapine-containing antiretroviral regimen. Ann Intern Med 2002;137146- 147
PubMed
MacDonald  LAMeyers  SBennett  CL  et al.  Post-cardiac catheterization access site complications and low-molecular-weight heparin following cardiac catheterization. J Invasive Cardiol 2003;1560- 62
PubMed
Nebeker  JRVirmani  RBennett  CL  et al.  Hypersensitivity cases associated with drug-eluting coronary stents: a review of available cases from the Research on Adverse Drug Events and Reports (RADAR) project. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;47175- 181
PubMed
Patel  SMJohnson  SBelknap  SMChan  JSha  BEBennett  C Serious adverse cutaneous and hepatic toxicities associated with nevirapine use by non-HIV-infected individuals. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2004;35120- 125
PubMed
Pomeranz  HAngelotta  CRaisch  DW Sildenafil- and Tadalafil-Associated Optic Neuropathy: An Overview From the Research on Adverse Events and Reports (RADAR) Project.  Fort Lauderdale, Fla Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology2006;
Bennett  CLLuminari  SNissenson  AR  et al.  Pure red-cell aplasia and epoetin therapy. N Engl J Med 2004;3511403- 1408
PubMed
Johnson  SBaraboutis  JG Adverse effects associated with use of nevirapine in HIV postexposure prophylaxis for 2 health care workers. JAMA 2000;2842722- 2723
PubMed
Belknap  SMKuzel  TMYarnold  PR  et al.  Clinical features and correlates of gemcitabine-associated lung injury: findings from the RADAR project. Cancer 2006;1062051- 2057
PubMed
Edwards  IRAronson  JK Adverse drug reactions: definitions, diagnosis, and management. Lancet 2000;3561255- 1259
PubMed
Naranjo  CABusto  USellers  EM  et al.  A method for estimating the probability of adverse drug reactions. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1981;30239- 245
PubMed
Lanctôt  KLNaranjo  CA Comparison of the Bayesian approach and a simple algorithm for assessment of adverse drug events. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1995;58692- 698
PubMed
 Cialis [package insert]. US Food and Drug Administration Web site. Indianapolis, Ind Lilly ICOS2005;http://www.fda.gov/cder/foi/label/2005/021368s006lbl.pdf. Accessed February 16, 2006
 Cordarone [package insert]. US Food and Drug Administration Web site. Philadelphia, Pa Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc2004;http://www.fda.gov/medwatch/SAFETY/2004/dec_PI/Cordarone_PI.pdf. Accessed February 17, 2006
 CYPHER Sirolimus-eluting Coronary Stent [package insert]. US Food and Drug Administration Web site. Miami, Fla Cordis Corp2003;http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/PDF2/p020026c.pdf. Accessed February 17, 2006
 Epogen [package insert]. US Food and Drug Administration Web site. Thousand Oaks, Calif Amgen, Inc2005;http://www.fda.gov/medwatch/safety/2005/Oct_PI/Epogen_PI.pdf. Accessed February 17, 2006
 Gemzar [package insert]. US Food and Drug Administration Web site. Indianapolis, Ind Eli Lilly and Company1998;http://www.fda.gov/cder/foi/label/1998/20509lbl.pdf. Accessed February 17, 2006
 Myolotarg [package insert]. US Food and Drug Administration Web site. Philadelphia, Pa Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc2005;http://www.fda.gov/medwatch/safety/2005/Oct_PI/Mylotarg_PI.pdf. Accessed February 17, 2006
 Plavix [package insert]. Sanofi Web site. New York, NY Bristol-Myers Squibb/Sanofi Pharmaceuticals Partnership2006;http://products.sanofi-aventis.us/plavix/plavix.pdf. Accessed February 17, 2006
 Taxus [package insert]. US Food and Drug Administration Web site. Natick, Mass Boston Scientific Corp2004;http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/pdf3/P030025c.pdf. Accessed February 17, 2006
 Thalomid [package insert]. Celgene Web site. Summit, NJ Celgene Corp2006;http://www.celgene.com/PDF/ThalomidPI.pdf. Accessed February 23, 2006
 Ticlid [package insert]. US Food and Drug Administration Web site. Nutley, NJ Roche Pharmaceuticals2001;http://www.fda.gov/cder/foi/label/2001/19979s18lbl.PDF. Accessed February 17, 2006
 Viagra [package insert]. Pfizer Web site. New York, NY Pfizer, Inc2006;http://www.pfizer.com/pfizer/download/uspi_viagra.pdf. Accessed March 10, 2006
 Viramune [package insert]. US Food and Drug Administration Web site. Ridgefield, Conn Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc2005;http://www.fda.gov/cder/foi/label/2005/20636s025,20933s014lbl.pdf. Accessed March 10, 2006
Yarnold  PRSoltysik  RC Optimal Data Analysis: A Guidebook With Software for Windows.  Washington, DC APA Books2004;
Bennett  CLSchumock  GTDesai  AA  et al.  Thalidomide-associated deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. Am J Med 2002;113603- 606
PubMed
Bennett  CLAngelotta  CYarnold  PR  et al.  Thalidomide- and lenalomide-associated venous thromboembolism among patients with cancer. JAMA 2006;2962558- 2560
Bennett  CLEvens  AMAndritsos  LA  et al.  Hematologic malignancies developing in previously healthy individuals who received hematopoietic growth factors: report from the Research on Adverse Drug Events and Reports (RADAR) project. Br J Haematol 2006;135642- 650
PubMed
US Food and Drug Administration, Information for physicians on sub-acute thromboses (SAT) and hypersensitivity reactions with use of the Cordis CYPHER coronary stent [public health Web notification]. 2003.;http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/safety/cypher.html. Accessed March 10, 2006
US Food and Drug Administration, Updated information for physicians on sub-acute thromboses (SAT) and hypersensitivity reactions with use of the Cordis CYPHER sirolimus-eluting coronary stent. http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/safety/cypher2.html. Accessed March 10, 2006
Davidson  CJNebeker  JRKlinge  SA Report on 141 hypersensitivity cases associated with the CYPHER sirolimus eluting cardiac stent. Circ Res 2004;110527
US Food and Drug Administration;, Office of Surveillance and Epidemiology Web site. http://www.fda.gov/cder/Offices/ODS/default.htm. Accessed March 10, 2006
Strom  BL How the US drug safety system should be changed. JAMA 2006;2952072- 2075
PubMed
Institute of Medicine, The Future of Drug Safety: Promoting and Protecting the Health of the Public: Report of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) of the National Academies.  Washington, DC Institute of Medicine September25 2006;
Psaty  BMBurke  SP Protecting the health of the public–Institute of Medicine recommendations on drug safety. N Engl J Med 2006;3551753- 1755
PubMed
Park-Wyllie  LYJuurlink  DNKopp  A  et al.  Outpatient gatifloxacin therapy and dysglycemia in older adults. N Engl J Med 2006;3541352- 1361
PubMed
Smalley  WShatin  DWysowski  DK  et al.  Contraindicated use of cisapride: impact of food and drug administration regulatory action. JAMA 2000;2843036- 3039
PubMed
Gurwitz  JH Serious adverse drug effects: seeing the trees through the forest. N Engl J Med 2006;3541413- 1415
PubMed
Mazor  KMAndrade  SEAuger  JFish  LGurwitz  JH Communicating safety information to physicians: an examination of dear doctor letters. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2005;14869- 875
PubMed
Ray  WA Population-based studies of adverse drug effects. N Engl J Med 2003;3491592- 1594
PubMed
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Drug-Induced Liver Injury Network (DILIN) Web site. http://dilin.dcri.duke.edu/ Accessed January 8, 2007
Fraunfelder  FTMeyer  SM The national registry of drug-induced ocular side effects. Aust J Ophthalmol 1984;12129- 131
PubMed

Correspondence

CME
Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 24

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Topics
PubMed Articles