A STUDY OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHO-UPPSALA MONITORING CENTRE CRITERIA, NARANJO ALGORITHM, AND LIVERPOOL ALGORITHM FOR CAUSALITY ASSESSMENT OF ADVERSE DRUG REACTIONS

Authors

  • MESSALINE SUNITHA Department of Pharmacology, Sree Gokulam Medical College and Research Foundation, Trivandrum, Kerala
  • SHOBHA PARVATHY Department of Pharmacology, Sree Gokulam Medical College and Research Foundation, Trivandrum, Kerala

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22159/ijpps.2021v13i1.39800

Keywords:

ADR Causality Assessment, WHO-UMC criteria, Naranjo algorithm, Liverpool algorithm

Abstract

Objective: A standard causality assessment tool of an adverse drug reaction (ADR) is essential to compute the risk-benefit assessment of the medication taken by the patient and categorize its relationship likelihood. It should be reproducible and should not differ with the background and experience of the evaluator. Though there are a large number of causality assessment tools, none is unanimously accepted worldwide. So, this study was done to assess the agreement between three frequently used methods of causality assessment, the World Health Organisation-Uppsala Monitoring Centre (WHO-UMC) system, the Naranjo’s algorithm, and the Liverpool algorithm.

Methods: 172 ADR forms from the pharmacovigilance unit were randomly selected for the study. Causality assessment was done using three different methods, the WHO-UMC system, Naranjo’s algorithm, and the Liver pool algorithm. Cohen’s Kappa statistics was applied to look for agreement between the causality assessment methods.

Results: The agreement between the WHO-UMC criteria and Naranjo’s algorithm was the highest (136), with a Kappa value of 0.511, suggesting a moderate level of agreement. A maximum number of disagreements were noted between the WHO-UMC system and the Liverpool algorithm method (110).

Conclusion: A moderate agreement exists between the WHO-UMC system and the Naranjo algorithm. There is poor agreement between the Liverpool algorithm and the other two scales. Therefore, it is recommended that both the WHO-UMC system and the Naranjo algorithm be used for causality assessment of ADRs.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

World Health Organisation (WHO), Uppsala monitoring center. The use of the WHO-UMC system for standardized case causality assessment. Available from: https://www.who.int/medicines/ areas/quality_safety/safety_efficacy/WHOcausality_assessment.pdf [Last accessed on10 Aug 2020].

Wester K, Jonsson AK, Spigset O, Druid H, Hagg S. Incidence of fatal adverse drug reactions: a population-based study. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2008;65:573‐9.

Davies EC, Rowe PH, James S. An investigation of disagreement in causality assessment of adverse drug reactions. Pharm Med 2011;25:17–24.

Kulkarni GP, Patil LV. Analysis of adverse drug reactions spontaneously reported to adverse drug monitoring centre of a tertiary care hospital prospective study. Int J Curr Pharm Sci 2018;10:23-5.

Mudigubba MK, Murthy MK, Swaroop AM, MN Dahiya S. A systematic review of risk factors of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients. Asian J Pharm Clin Res 2018.;11:25-9.

Du W, Lehr VT, Lieh Lai M. An algorithm to detect adverse drug reactions in the neonatal intensive care unit. J Clin Pharmacol 2013;53:87‐95.

Sharma S, Gupta AK, Reddy GJ. Inter-rater and intra-rater agreement in causality assessment of adverse drug reactions: a comparative study of WHO-UMC versus naranjo scale. Int J Res Med Sci 2017;5:4389-94.

Martin J Doherty. Algorithms for assessing the probability of an adverse drug reaction. Respiratory Med 2009;2:63-7.

Khan LM, Al-Harthi SE, Osman AM, Sattar MA, Ali AS. Dilemmas of the causality assessment tools in the diagnosis of adverse drug reactions. Saudi Pharm J 2016;24:485‐93.

Gallagher RM, Mason JR, Bird KA. Adverse drug reactions causing admission to a pediatric hospital. PLoS One 2012;7:e50127.

Acharya TA, Trivedi MD, Joshi KJ, Chhaiya SB, Mehta DS. A study of agreement between WHO-UMC causality assessment system and the naranjo algorithm for causality assessment of adverse drug reactions observed in medical ICU of a tertiary care teaching hospital. Biomed Pharmacol J 2020;13:79-83.

Roy D, Purkayastha A, Tigga R. Analysis of adverse drug reaction in a tertiary care hospital: a retrospective study. Asian J Pharm Clin Res 2017;10:347-9.

Mittal N, Gupta MC. Comparison of agreement and rational uses of the WHO and Naranjo adverse event causality assessment tools. J Pharmacol Pharmacother 2015;6:91-3.

Belhekar MN, Taur SR, Munshi RP. A study of agreement between the naranjo algorithm and WHO-UMC criteria for causality assessment of adverse drug reactions. Indian J Pharmacol 2014;46:117‐20.

Lei HS, Rahman AF, Haq AS. Adverse drug reaction reports in Malaysia: comparison of causality assessments. Malays J Pharm Sci 2007;5:7–17.

Theophile H, Andre M, Miremont Salame G, Arimone Y, Begaud B. Comparison of three methods (an updated logistic probabilistic method, the naranjo and liverpool algorithms) for the evaluation of routine pharmacovigilance case reports using consensual expert judgment as reference. Drug Saf 2013;36:1033‐44.

Thaker SJ, Sinha RS, Gogtay NJ, Thatte UM. Evaluation of inter-rater agreement between three causality assessment methods used in pharmacovigilance. J Pharmacol Pharmacother 2016;7:31-3.

Rehan HS, Chopra D, Kakkar AK. Causality assessment of spontaneously reported adverse drug events: comparison of WHO-UMC criteria and naranjo probability scale. Int J Risk Saf Med 2007;19:223-7.

Rana DA, Bhadiyadara SN, Shah HJ, Malhotra SD, Patel VJ. Consistency between causality assessments obtained with various scales and their agreement for adverse drug events reported in the pediatric population. J Young Pharm 2015;7:89-95.

Published

2021-01-01

How to Cite

SUNITHA, M., and S. PARVATHY. “A STUDY OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHO-UPPSALA MONITORING CENTRE CRITERIA, NARANJO ALGORITHM, AND LIVERPOOL ALGORITHM FOR CAUSALITY ASSESSMENT OF ADVERSE DRUG REACTIONS”. International Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, vol. 13, no. 1, Jan. 2021, pp. 20-22, doi:10.22159/ijpps.2021v13i1.39800.

Issue

Section

Original Article(s)