Article

Causality methods in Cosmetovigilance: Comparison of Colipa and PLM versus global introspection

Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb, Goudsbloemvallei 7, 5237 MH 's-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands.
Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology (Impact Factor: 2.13). 05/2012; 63(3):409-17. DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2012.05.005
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The European Cosmetics Regulation requires a post-marketing system for detection of undesirable effects on human health of cosmetic products. Colipa, the European Cosmetic, toiletry and perfumery association, provided guidelines for causality assessment of these effects. In addition another causality method originally designed for causality rating in Post Launch Monitoring (PLM) of novel foods has been employed to assess causality of cosmetic products. In this study these two causality schemes for consumer cosmetic products were validated against clinical assessment, using the method of global introspection (GI) in 100 reported cases. Causality assessments were performed by three experienced assessors in pharmacovigilance. In the event of discordance between the assessors, an adapted Delphi method was used. The overall Spearman correlation coefficient was 0.74 for comparison of Colipa versus GI, whereas this was 0.50 for PLM versus GI. According to current guidelines, the sensitivity was 0.95 for both the Colipa and PLM method, specificity was 0.84 for Colipa and 0.40 for PLM. From these results it can be concluded the performance of the Colipa causality method yielded better correlation to GI than PLM causality method. The factor identified from comparison of these two schemes as having greatest impact was the course of the reaction.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
124 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To compare the results of causality assessments of reported adverse drug reactions (ADR's) obtained from decisional algorithms with those obtained from an expert panel using the WHO global introspection method (GI) and to further evaluate the influence of confounding variables on algorithms ability in assessing causality. Two hundred sequentially reported ADR's were included in this study. An independent researcher used algorithms, while an expert panel assessed the same reports using the GI, both aimed at evaluating causality. Reports were divided into three groups according to the presence, absence or lack of information on confounding variables. For the total sample, observed agreements between decisional algorithms compared with GI varied from 21% to 56%, average of 47%. When confounding variables were taken into account, agreements varied between 41% and 69%, average of 58%; 8% and 65%, average of 46% and 15% and 53%, average of 42% accordingly to the absence, lack of information or presence of confounding variables, respectively. The extend of reproducibility beyond chance was low for the total sample (average Kappa = 0.26) and within the groups considered. The overall observed agreement between algorithm and GI was moderate although poorly different from chance, confounding variables being a shortcoming of algorithms ability in assessing causality.
    Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety 01/2006; 14(12):885-90. DOI:10.1002/pds.1138 · 3.17 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Post Launch Monitoring (PLM) is one of the new approaches that are used in assessing the safety of novel foods or ingredients. It shares a close resemblance with procedures applied in the field of medicines, where Post Marketing Surveillance (PMS) has been carried out since the beginning of the 1960s. For this reason, Unilever and the Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb, maintaining the national reporting scheme in the Netherlands for adverse drug reactions, have been working together to optimize the Unilever's Post Launch Monitoring service. As a result of this cooperation a practical model for conducting PLM for food products has been developed. This model is also applicable for consumer products in general. The system allows for coding and assessing reports and the early detection of 'signals' of unintended health reactions. The methodological issues surrounding reporting of possible health reactions and practical issues surrounding coding and assessment of the reports that were encountered in the first period of this partnership are discussed. In addition, similarities and differences concerning PMS and PLM are described.
    Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 04/2007; 47(2):213-20. DOI:10.1016/j.yrtph.2006.10.007 · 2.14 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Currently, cosmetics and toiletries are very popular and their use continues to increase because consumers consider physical appearance important and, at the same time, these products are considered to be safe. However, in spite of their safety and tolerability, during recent decades, we have become aware that adverse effects can occur. The number of adverse effects known so far is very low indeed. This is partly because such adverse effects are underestimated as a result of self-diagnosis and self-medication, which are common behaviours in the presence of mild-to-moderate reactions, as in the case of cosmetics. Moreover, such effects are underestimated because of the absence of formal and reliable monitoring systems ('cosmetovigilance'). This requires the creation of a standard reporting form, as well as resolution concerning professional categories authorized to report and the subsequent validation/evaluation of the collected forms. All these items are of great importance, not only to investigate but also to prevent risks caused by cosmetic use. A pilot project was undertaken to test the effectiveness of a notification system by the validation of either a reporting form or the role of dermatologists and community pharmacists as reporting categories. Collection of reporting forms began in July 2006 and it is still in progress; the preliminary data reported here refer to the period July 2006-June 2007 and mainly concern the recording and validation of the collected reporting forms. During this period, we have received 40 reporting forms (32 by dermatologists and 8 by pharmacists). The validation process of the recorded forms revealed several drawbacks, such as incompleteness (19 forms), inadequacy of the description of the suspected undesirable effect and its location (2), illegible handwriting (6) and mistaken statements (3). Six forms reported a misuse of a cosmetic product: four of these were related to the site of application while two were related to time. In one case, instructions for use were not followed. In conclusion, our experience regarding the notification of adverse effects of cosmetics, although limited to a restricted geographical area, suggests that for an efficient and reliable monitoring system to be in place, which includes all the necessary measures to protect public health, an education and training programme for all stakeholders (health professionals, consumers and appropriate authorities) is required.
    Drug Safety 02/2008; 31(5):433-6. DOI:10.2165/00002018-200831050-00010 · 2.62 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
17 Downloads
Available from
Jun 10, 2014