Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24898717›Full record

ArticlePaediatric drugs2014

Comparison between paediatric and adult suspected adverse drug reactions reported to the European medicines agency: implications for pharmacovigilance.

Kevin V Blake, Cosimo Zaccaria, Francois Domergue, Edith La Mache, Agnes Saint-Raymond, Ana Hidalgo-Simon

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Paediatric drugs, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
8.1field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 59 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Safety Concerns of Traditional Chinese Medicine Injections Used in Chinese Children.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2019
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Kevin V BlakeEuropean Medicines Agency, 7 Westferry Circus, Canary Wharf, London, E14 4HB, UK, kevin.blake@ema.europa.eu.
Cosimo Zaccaria
Francois Domergue
Edith La Mache
Agnes Saint-Raymond
Ana Hidalgo-Simon
European Medicines Agency · NLEnvironment Agency · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDatabases systematically collecting reports of suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are a cornerstone of pharmacovigilance in that they provide on-going large-scale surveillance in the 'real-world' setting. Several studies have provided data on ADRs in children reported to national databases. EudraVigilance (EV) is the European Medicines Agency's (EMA) web-based system for reporting and evaluating suspected ADRs. Due to requirements on pharmaceutical companies to report ADRs that originate both inside and outside Europe, the data in EudraVigilance are global in nature. As such, it is potentially a rich source of information for paediatric pharmacovigilance.

aimThe present study sought to provide a descriptive overview comparing ADRs involving children and adolescents aged less than 18 years with those involving adults reported to EudraVigilance across national boundaries. The results will serve as a baseline to explore whether lessons can be learned for paediatric pharmacovigilance.

methodsAll ADR reports received in EudraVigilance up to 13 June 2013 were analysed for overall numbers, age, gender, and geographic origin. Accurate age was determined when reported in valid format or calculated from the interval between date of birth and the reaction start date. The nature of the ADRs and the most frequently reported drug substances and drug event combinations were evaluated using Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) 'preferred terms' (PTs) and 'system organ classes' (SOCs). The distribution over time of reported paediatric ADRs was also analysed.

resultsAs of 13 June 2013, EudraVigilance contained 3,291,593 spontaneous reports, for 75.9 % of which accurate age was determined; 11.2 % of these were paediatric reports. Paediatric ADRs were more common than those in adults under the MedDRA SOCs 'general and administration site', 'nervous system', 'skin and subcutaneous' and 'infections and infestations'. For children, the three most frequently reported MedDRA PTs, i.e. pyrexia, vomiting and convulsion (13, 6 and 4 % of reports, respectively), accounted for a greater proportion of reports than the corresponding top three in adults, i.e. nausea, dyspnoea and pyrexia (4, 4 and 3 % of reports, respectively). The 20 most reported active substances (12 of which are vaccines) together accounted for 52 % of paediatric reports as compared with 28 % of adult reports.

conclusionsThe present study applied a first-time approach to one of the largest databases worldwide of reported ADRs. It confirmed that reports of reactions in children were different to those in adults, not only in terms of reactions and drugs involved but also more concentrated around limited sets of reaction types and drugs. The possible causal association between a medicine or vaccine and the suspected ADR was not formally assessed in this study since the study analysed the characteristics of reported ADRs that were suspected and therefore not proven. However, the findings may help to identify pharmacovigilance activities that should be strengthened to reduce the burden of ADRs in children.

Indexed as

PharmacovigilanceAdultChildDatabases, FactualDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsEuropeHumans

Identifiers

PMID24898717
OpenAlexW2045288514

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.