ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2020
Reporting rates of adverse reactions to specialty care medicines exhibit a direct positive correlation with patient exposure: A lack of evidence for the Weber effect.
Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor-Associated Immune-Mediated Nephropathy: A Real-World Pharmacovigilance Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- National Poison Center Trends in GLP-1 Receptor Agonist Exposures Following FDA Approval for Weight Loss.Journal of medical toxicology : official journal of the American College of Medical Toxicology · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Intracranial Hemorrhage Following Anticoagulant Treatment in Denmark: Spontaneous Adverse Drug Reaction Reports Versus Real-World Data.Drug safety · 2022Observational
- Status and strategies of college English teaching using adaptive deep learning from the perspective of multiculturalism.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- Reporting rates of adverse reactions to specialty care medicines exhibit a direct positive correlation with patient exposure: A lack of evidence for the Weber effect.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsThe classical Weber effect describes an increase in adverse reaction (AR) reports after medicinal product authorisation, with a peak in AR reporting at the end of the second year followed by a decline, despite increasing patient exposure. The present study aimed to evaluate the validity of the Weber effect in the context of authorised medicines in a specialty care setting.
methodsUsing 6-monthly sales data as a proxy for exposure, the exposure-adjusted reporting rates for AR reports for 10 selected specialty care medicines were plotted against time. These data were also evaluated based on the source of report (solicited or unsolicited) and the nature of the AR contained within the reports (listed or unlisted). Unsolicited reports were analysed against sales volumes. Goodness of fit (R
resultsStudy data comprised a total of 1 222 852 AR reports for 10 specialty care medicines. Amongst all of the products evaluated, none of the associated data represented reporting patterns entirely consistent with the classical Weber effect (see Figure 1). The results, however, showed a systemic direct correlation between AR reporting and sales volumes, especially throughout the first 5 years post-authorisation.
conclusionThe study not only presents evidence of the absence of the Weber effect with specialty care medicines but also provides a substantial evidence of linear AR reporting correlating with sales volumes, especially during the first 5 years after marketing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.