IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/drugsa/v41y2018i11d10.1007_s40264-018-0690-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

MOdified NARanjo Causality Scale for ICSRs (MONARCSi): A Decision Support Tool for Safety Scientists

Author

Listed:
  • Shaun Comfort

    (Genentech, Inc-A Member of the Roche Group)

  • Darren Dorrell

    (Genentech, Inc-A Member of the Roche Group)

  • Shawman Meireis

    (Genentech, Inc-A Member of the Roche Group)

  • Jennifer Fine

    (Genentech, Inc-A Member of the Roche Group)

Abstract

Introduction Within the field of Pharmacovigilance, the most common approaches for assessing causality between a report of a drug and a corresponding adverse event are clinical judgment, probabilistic methods and algorithms. Although multiple methods using these three approaches have been proposed, there is currently no universally accepted method for assessing drug-event causality in ICSRs and variability in drug-event causality assessments is well documented. Objective This study describes the development and validation of an Individual Case Safety Report (ICSR) Causality Decision Support Tool to assist Safety Professionals (SPs) performing causality assessments. Methods Roche developed this model with nine drug-event pair features capturing important aspects of Naranjo’s scoring system, selected Bradford–Hill criteria, and internal Roche safety practices. Each of the features was weighted based on individual safety professional (n = 65) assessments of the importance of that feature when assessing causality, using an ordinal weighting scale (0 = no importance, 4 = very high importance). The mean and associated standard deviation for each feature weight was calculated and were used as inputs to a fitted logistic equation, which calculated the probability of a causal relationship between the drug and adverse event. Model training, validation, and testing were conducted by comparing MONARCSi causality classifications to previous company causality assessments for 978 randomly selected, clinical trial drug-event pairs based on their respective features and weights. Results The final model test, a two-by-two comparison of the results, showed substantial agreement (Gwet Kappa = 0.77) between MONARCSi and Roche safety professionals’ assessments of causality, using global introspection. The model exhibited moderate sensitivity (65%) and high specificity (93%), high positive and negative predictive values (79 and 88%, respectively), and an F1 score of 71%. Conclusion Analysis suggests that the MONARCSi model could potentially be a useful decision support tool to assist pharmacovigilance safety professionals when evaluating drug-event causality in a consistent and documentable manner.

Suggested Citation

  • Shaun Comfort & Darren Dorrell & Shawman Meireis & Jennifer Fine, 2018. "MOdified NARanjo Causality Scale for ICSRs (MONARCSi): A Decision Support Tool for Safety Scientists," Drug Safety, Springer, vol. 41(11), pages 1073-1085, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:drugsa:v:41:y:2018:i:11:d:10.1007_s40264-018-0690-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s40264-018-0690-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40264-018-0690-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40264-018-0690-y?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yiqing Zhao & Yue Yu & Hanyin Wang & Yikuan Li & Yu Deng & Guoqian Jiang & Yuan Luo, 2022. "Machine Learning in Causal Inference: Application in Pharmacovigilance," Drug Safety, Springer, vol. 45(5), pages 459-476, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:drugsa:v:41:y:2018:i:11:d:10.1007_s40264-018-0690-y. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40264 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.