IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/drugsa/v45y2022i12d10.1007_s40264-022-01245-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of the MOdified NARanjo Causality Scale (MONARCSi) for Individual Case Safety Reports vs. a Reference Standard

Author

Listed:
  • Shaun M. Comfort

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

  • Bruce Donzanti

    (Donzanti PV Services, LLC.)

  • Darren Dorrell

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

  • Sunita Dhar

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

  • Chris Eden

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

  • Francis Donaldson

    (Roche-Genentech, Inc.)

Abstract

Introduction In 2018, we published the MONARCSi algorithmic decision support tool showing high inter-rater agreement, moderate sensitivity, and high specificity compared with drug-event pairs (DEPs) previously reviewed using current, industry-established approaches. Following publication, MONARCSi was implemented as a prototype system to facilitate medical review of individual case safety reports (ICSRs). This paper presents subsequent evaluation of MONARCSi-supported causality assessments against an independent, best achievable reference standard. Objective This paper describes the development of an independent reference standard (i.e., reference comparator) using a sample of DEPs evaluated by Roche subject matter experts (SMEs) and subsequent performance analysis for both the reference standard and MONARCSi. Methods Roche collected a random sample of 131 DEPs evaluated by an external vendor using the MONARCSi prototype during 2020, and collectively referred to as the VMON (Vendor using the MONARCSi system for medical review) dataset. An internal group of causality SMEs (aka CAUSMET) were recruited and trained to assess the same DEPs independently using the MONARCSi structure with Global Introspection to determine their individual assessments of causality. The CAUSMET final causality was determined using a majority voting rule. Results Binary comparison of the aggregate results showed substantial agreement (Gwet kappa = 0.81) between the VMON and reference standard CAUSMET assessments. Bayesian latent class modeling showed that both the reference standard and VMON assessments exhibited similar high posterior mean sensitivity and specificity (CAUSMET: 89 and 93%, respectively; VMON: 87 and 94%, respectively). Finally, comparison of the sensitivity and specificity suggested no obvious difference across groups. Conclusion Analysis of causality results from the assessments by independent internal SMEs using MONARCSi shows there is no obvious difference in performance between the aggregate CAUSMET and VMON assessments based on the comparison of specificity and sensitivity. These results further support use of MONARCSi as a decision support tool for evaluating drug-event causality in a consistent and documentable manner.

Suggested Citation

  • Shaun M. Comfort & Bruce Donzanti & Darren Dorrell & Sunita Dhar & Chris Eden & Francis Donaldson, 2022. "Comparison of the MOdified NARanjo Causality Scale (MONARCSi) for Individual Case Safety Reports vs. a Reference Standard," Drug Safety, Springer, vol. 45(12), pages 1529-1538, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:drugsa:v:45:y:2022:i:12:d:10.1007_s40264-022-01245-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s40264-022-01245-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40264-022-01245-5
    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/s40264-022-01245-5?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.

    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:45:y:2022:i:12:d:10.1007_s40264-022-01245-5. 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.