Skip to main content
Log in

Using MedDRA

Implications for Risk Management

  • Leading Article
  • Published:
Drug Safety Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The introduction of MedDRA, the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities, as a standardised terminology may have a major impact on the performance of risk management. Thus, MedDRA is likely to have an important effect on the analysis of clinical trial safety data. Review of the most commonly used terms in clinical trial tables from the labelling of ten products indicated that each adverse event could be represented by many MedDRA preferred terms; this might theoretically lead to failure to identify differences in adverse event incidence between treatment arms. Possible solutions are proposed. The use of MedDRA in spontaneous reporting systems is a regulatory requirement in some countries. Variability in modes of implementation and use of the terminology are discussed; these may impose additional limitations on any use of spontaneous data for comparative purposes. There are important differences in the ways that safety databases interface with MedDRA and uncertainty about the most appropriate way to manage version changes. The characteristics of MedDRA must be taken into account when establishing methods for signal detection and its use will affect the retrieval of similar cases as required for signal evaluation. The use of MedDRA in the periodic safety update report is discussed. The possible use of MedDRA in pharmacoepidemiology is highly relevant to risk management, and some issues are briefly outlined. With regard to communication of risk, if MedDRA is introduced into existing product labelling, care must be taken that the change itself does not cause misunderstanding; the most appropriate use of MedDRA in this regard remains to be determined. There is a need for careful evaluation of MedDRA in fulfilling its various functions in pharmacovigilance, followed by definitive regulatory guidance on its use.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Table I
Table II
Table III

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. MedDRA is a registered trade mark owned by the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Associations.

References

  1. Wood KL. The Medical Dictionary for Drug Regulatory Affairs (MEDDRA) Project. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 1994; 3: 7–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Brown EG, Wood KL, Wood SM. The medical dictionary for regulatory activities (MedDRA). Drug Saf 1999; 20(2): 109–17

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Maintenance and Support Services Organization. Medical dictionary for regulatory activities (MedDRA®) introductory guide, MedDRA Version 6.1, 2003

  4. European Commission. The rules governing medicinal products in the European Union, Vol. 9. Pharmacovigilance. European Commission, Dec 2001

  5. Tawaragi T. Updates of regulatory requirements in Japan. 6th International Conference on Harmonisation; 2003 Nov 12; Osaka, Japan [online]. Available from URL: http://www.meddramsso.com/newweb2003/docs [Accessed 2004 Apr 11]

  6. Food and Drugs Administration. 21 CFR Parts 310, 312, etc. Safety reporting requirements for human drug and biological products; proposed rule. Fed Regist 2003 Mar 14, 12405–97

    Google Scholar 

  7. ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline. The common technical document for the registration of pharmaceuticals for human use: efficacy -M4e [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ich.org [Accessed 2004 Apr 11]

  8. International Conference on Harmonisation. Draft consensus guideline. Pharmacovigilance Planning (PvP) E2E. 2003 Nov 11

  9. Brown DR, Brown EG, Moulvad TB. A comparison of two medical terminologies in coding and analysing clinical trial safety data. Int J Pharm Med 1997; 11: 85–9

    Google Scholar 

  10. Tremell LT, Scarpone L. Using MedDRA for adverse events in cancer trials: experience, caveats and advice. Drug Inf J 2001; 35: 845–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Rawlins MD, Mann RD. Monitoring adverse events and reactions. In: Mann RD, Rawlins MD, Auty RM, editors. A textbook of pharmaceutical medicine. Carnforth: The Parthenon Publishing Group, 1993

    Google Scholar 

  12. Physicians Desk Reference, 2003. Accessed via MICROMEDEX® Healthcare Series Vol. 118, http://micromedex.prioinfo.se

  13. Brown EG. Effects of coding dictionary on signal generation: a consideration of use of MedDRA compared with WHO-ART. Drug Saf 2002; 25(6): 445–52

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. MedDRA Term Selection: points to consider release 3.2. 2003 Nov 10. Available from URL: http://www.meddramsso.com [Accessed 2004 Apr 11]

  15. Brown EG. Points to consider about MedDRA. Int J Pharm Med 2000; 14: 200

    Google Scholar 

  16. International Conference On Harmonisation. Harmonised tripartite guideline: clinical safety data management. periodic safety update reports for marketed drugs. 1996 Nov

  17. Brown EG. Methods and pitfalls in searching drug safety databases utilising the medical dictionary for regulatory activities (MedDRA). Drug Saf 2003; 26(3): 145–58

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Edwards R, Lindquist M, Wiholm BE. Quality criteria for early signals of possible adverse drug reactions. Lancet 1990; 336: 156–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Szarfman A, Machado SG, O’Neill RT. Use of screening algorithms and computer systems to efficiently signal higher-than-expected combinations of drugs and events in the US FDA’s spontaneous reports database. Drug Saf 2002; 25(6): 381–92

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Bate A, Lindquist M, Edwards IR, et al. A data mining approach for signal detection. Drug Saf 2002; 25(6): 393–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Evans SJW, Waller PC, Davis S. Use of proportional reporting ratios (PRRs) for signal generation from spontaneous adverse drug reaction reports. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2001; 10: 483–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Fescharek R, Dechert G, Reichert D, et al. Overall analysis of spontaneously reported adverse events: a worthwhile exercise or flogging a dead horse? Pharmaceut Med 1996; 10: 71–86

    Google Scholar 

  23. Goldman SA. Adverse event reporting and standardizing medical terminologies: strengths and limitations. Drug Inf J 2002; 36: 439–44

    Google Scholar 

  24. Brown EG, Douglas S. Tabulation and analysis of pharmacovigilance data using the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2000, 89

    Google Scholar 

  25. Brown EG, Clark E. Evaluation of MEDDRA in representing medicinal product data sheet information. Pharmaceut Med 1996; 10: 1–8

    Google Scholar 

  26. White C. A preliminary assessment of the impact of MEDDRA on adverse event reports and product labelling. Drug Inf J 1998; 32: 347–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Notice to Applicants. Vol. 2. A guideline on summary of products characteristics. European Commission, 1999 Dec

Download references

Acknowledgements

No funding was obtained from any source for the preparation of this paper. The author participated in the process of creating MedDRA, was a member of the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences working group on standardised MedDRA searches, and has acted as consultant to companies and regulatory authorities on MedDRA.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elliot G. Brown.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Brown, E.G. Using MedDRA. Drug-Safety 27, 591–602 (2004). https://doi.org/10.2165/00002018-200427080-00010

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00002018-200427080-00010

Keywords

Navigation