Sins and Risks in Underreporting Suspected Adverse Drug Reactions
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5195/pom.2024.181Keywords:
Pharmacovigilance, Underreporting, Epistemic risk, Adverse drug reactions, Side effectsAbstract
The underreporting of suspected adverse drug reactions remains a primary issue for contemporary post-market drug surveillance or pharmacovigilance. Pharmacovigilance pioneer W.H.W. Inman argued that “deadly sins” committed by clinicians are to blame for underreporting. Of these “sins,” ignorance and lethargy are the most obvious and impactful in causing underreporting. However, recent analyses show that diffidence, insecurity, and indifference additionally play a major role. I aim to augment our understanding of diffidence, insecurity, and indifference by arguing that these sins are underwritten by value judgments arising via epistemic risk. I contend that “evidence-based” medicine codifies these sins.References
Anjum, Rani Lill, Samantha Copeland, and Elena Rocca. 2020. “Medical Scientists and Philosophers Worldwide Appeal to EBM to Expand the Notion of ‘Evidence’.” BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine 25, no. 1: 6–8. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2018-111092.
Aronson, Jeffrey K. and Manfred Hauben. 2006. “Anecdotes That Provide Definite Evidence.” British Medical Journal 333, no. 7581: 1267–1269. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39036.666389.94.
Ballentine, Carol. 1981. “Sulfanilamide Disaster.” FDA Consumer Magazine, June. https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/histories-product-regulation/sulfanilamide-disaster.
Betz, Gregor. 2013. “In Defense of the Value-Free Ideal.” European Journal for Philosophy of Science 3, no. 2: 207–220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-012-0062-x.
Biddle, Justin. 2007. “Lessons from the Vioxx Debacle: What the Privatization of Science Can Teach Us about Social Epistemology.” Social Epistemology 21, no. 1: 21–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691720601125472.
———. 2013. “Institutionalizing Dissent: A Proposal for an Adversarial System of Pharmaceutical Research.” Kennedy Institute Ethics Journal 23, no. 4: 325–353. https://doi.org/10.1353/ken.2013.0013.
———. 2016. “Inductive Risk, Epistemic Risk, and Overdiagnosis of Disease.” Perspectives on Science 24, no. 2: 192–205. https://doi.org/10.1162/POSC_a_00200.
Biddle, Justin and Rebecca Kukla. 2017. “The Geography of Epistemic Risk.” In Exploring Inductive Risk: Case Studies of Values in Science, edited by Kevin C. Elliott and Ted Richards, 215–238. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190467715.003.0011.
Bluhm, Robyn. 2005. “From Hierarchy to Network: A Richer View of Evidence for Evidence-Based Medicine.” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 48, no. 4: 535–547. https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.2005.0082.
Bluhm, Robyn and K. Borgerson. 2018. “An Epistemic Argument for Research-Practice Integration in Medicine.” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 43, no. 4: 469–484. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/jhy009.
Blunt, Christopher. 2015. “Hierarchies of Evidence in Evidence-Based Medicine.” PhD diss., London School of Economics and Political Science. http://etheses.lse.ac.uk/3284/.
Brockmann, Rouen, Joanna Nixon, Bryan L. Love, and Ismaeel Yunusa. 2023. “Impacts of FDA Approval and Medicare Restriction on Antiamyloid Therapies for Alzheimer’s Disease: Patient Outcomes, Healthcare Costs, and Drug Development.” The Lancet Regional Health—Americas, article 100467. https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.lana.2023.100467.
Carpenter, Daniel. 2010. Reputation and Power: Organization Image and Pharmaceutical Regulation at the FDA. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Cartwright, Nancy. 2007. “Are RCTs the Gold Standard?” Biosocieties 2, no. 1: 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1745855207005029.
Douglas, Heather. 2000. “Inductive Risk and Values in Science.” Philosophy of Science 67, no. 4: 559–579. https://doi.org/10.1086/392855.
Due, Austin. 2022. “Are ‘Phase IV’ Trials Exploratory or Confirmatory Experiments?” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 95, 126–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2022.07.006.
———. 2023. “What Are Side Effects?” European Journal for Philosophy of Science 13, article 16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-023-00519-8.
———. Forthcoming. “Is There a ‘Best’ Way for Patients to Participate in Pharmacovigilance?” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy.
Enkin, M.W. and A.R. Jadad. 1998. “Using Anecdotal Information in Evidence-Based Health Care: Heresy or Necessity?” Annals of Oncology 9, no. 9: 963–966. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008495101125.
García-Abeijon, Patricia, Caterina Costa, Margarita Taracido, Maria Teresa Herdeiro, Carla Torre, and Adolfo Figuerias. 2023. “Factors Associated with Underreporting of Adverse Drug Reactions by Health Care Professionals: A Systematic Review Update.” Drug Safety 46, no. 7: 625–636. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-023-01302-7.
Goldenberg, Maya J. 2009. “Iconoclast or Creed? Objectivism, Pragmatism, and the Hierarchy of Evidence.” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 52, no. 2: 168–187. https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.0.0080.
Guyatt, Gordon, Drummond Rennie, Maureen O. Meade, and Deborah J. Cooke, eds. 2015. Users’ Guides to the Medical Literature: A Manual for Evidence-Based Clinical Practice. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw Hill. https://jamaevidence.mhmedical.com/Book.aspx?bookId=847.
Hazell, Lorna and Saad A.W. Shakir. 2006. “Under-Reporting of Adverse Drug Reactions: A Systematic Review.” Drug Safety 29, no. 5: 385–396. https://doi.org/10.2165/00002018-200629050-00003.
Hempel, Carl G. 1965. “Science and Human Values.” In Aspects of Scientific Explanation and Other Essays in the Philosophy of Science, 81–96. New York: The Free Press.
Herbst, A.L., H. Ulfelder, and D.C. Poskanzer. 1971. “Adenocarcinoma of the Vagina: Association of Maternal Stilbestrol Therapy with Tumor Appearance in Young Women.” New England Journal of Medicine 284, no. 15: 878–881. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm197104222841604.
Hicks, Daniel J. 2014. “A New Direction for Science and Values.” Synthese 191: 3271–3295. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-014-0447-9.
Hohl, Corinne M., Serena S. Small, David Peddie, Katherin Badke, Chantelle Bailey, and Ellen Balka. 2018. “Why Clinicians Don’t Report Adverse Drug Events: Qualitative Study.” JMIR Public Health and Surveillance 4, no. 1, e21. https://doi.org/10.2196/publichealth.9282.
Holman, Bennett and Torsten Wilholt. 2022. “The New Demarcation Problem.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 91, 211–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2021.11.011.
Howick, Jeremy. 2011. “Exposing the Vanities—and a Qualified Defense—of Mechanistic Reasoning in Health Care Decision Making.” Philosophy of Science 78, no. 5: 926–940. https://doi.org/10.1086/662561.
Inman, W.H.W. 1976. “Assessment of Drug Safety Problems.” In Epidemiological Issues in Reported Drug-Induced Illnesses, edited by M. Gent and I. Shigmatsu, 17–24. Honolulu: McMaster University Library Press.
Inman, W.H.W. and J.C.T. Weber. 1986. “The United Kingdom.” In Monitoring for Drug Safety, edited by W.H.W. Inman, 13–47. 2nd edition. Lancaster: MTP Press.
Kidd, Ian James. 2018. “Deep Epistemic Vices.” Journal of Philosophical Research 43: 43–67. https://doi.org/10.5840/jpr2018431.
Kim, James H. and Anthony R. Scialli. 2011. “Thalidomide: The Tragedy of Birth Defects and the Effective Treatment of Disease.” Toxicological Sciences 122, no. 1: 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfr088.
Light, Donald W., Joel Lexchin, and Jonathan J. Darrow. 2013. “Institutional Corruption of Pharmaceuticals and the Myth of Safe and Effective Drugs.” Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics 41, no. 3: 590–600. https://doi.org/10.1111/jlme.12068.
Longino, Helen E. 1996. “Cognitive and Non-cognitive Values in Science: Rethinking the Dichotomy.” In Feminism, Science, and the Philosophy of Science, edited by Lynn Hankinson Nelson and Jack Nelson, 39–58. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Lopez-Gonzalez, Elena, Maria T. Herdeiro, and Adolfo Figuerias. 2009. “Determinants of Under-Reporting of Adverse Drug Reactions: A Systematic Review.” Drug Safety 32, no. 1: 19–31. https://doi.org/10.2165/00002018-200932010-00002.
Merton, Robert K. 1938. “Science and the Social Order.” Philosophy of Science 5, no. 3: 321–337. https://doi.org/10.1086/286513.
Mercuri, Mathew. Brian S. Baigrie, and Amiram Gafni. 2021. “Patient Participation in the Clinical Encounter and Clinical Practice Guidelines: The Case of Patients’ Participation in a GRADEd World.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 85: 192–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2020.10.008.
Moore, Nicholas. 2014. “An Historical Perspective of the Future of Pharmacovigilance.” In Mann’s Pharmacovigilance, edited by Elizabeth B. Andrews and Nicholas Moore, 807–817. 3rd edition. New York: Wiley & Sons.
Naina-Mohamed, Isa. 2014. “Pharmacovigilance and Reporting Adverse Drug Reactions.” Med & Health 9, no. 2: 92–102. https://journalarticle.ukm.my/8260/1/02-Editorial_%2892-102%29.pdf.
Onakpoya, Igho J., Carl J. Heneghan, and Jeffrey K. Aronson. 2016. “Post-marketing Withdrawal of 462 Medicinal Products because of Adverse Drug Reactions: A Systematic Review of the World Literature.” BMC Medicine 14, article 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-016-0553-2.
Osimani, Barbara. 2014. “Hunting Side Effects and Explaining Them: Should We Reverse Evidence Hierarchies Upside Down?” Topoi 33: 295–312. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-013-9194-7.
Palleria, Caterina, Christian Leporini, Serafina Chimirri, Giuseppina Marrazzo, Sabrina Sacchetta, Lucrezia Bruno, Rosaria M. Lista, et al. 2013. “Limitations and Obstacles of the Spontaneous Adverse Drugs Reactions Reporting: Two ‘Challenging’ Case Reports.” Journal of Pharmacology & Pharmacotherapeutics 4, suppl. 1: S66–S72. https://doi.org/10.4103%2F0976-500X.120955.
Rudner, Richard. 1953. “The Scientist Qua Scientist Makes Value Judgements.” Philosophy of Science 20, no. 1: 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1086/287231.
SAHPRA (South African Health Products Regulatory Authority). 2022. Post-marketing Reporting of Adverse Drug Reactions to Human Medicines in South Africa. https://www.sahpra.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/SAHPGL-CEM-PV-04_Post-Marketing-Reporting-of-ADRs-to-Human-Medicines-in-SA_Version-9.1_June20223.pdf.
Steel, Daniel. 2017. “Qualified Epistemic Priority: Comparing Two Approaches to Values in Science.” In Current Controversies in Values and Science, edited by Kevin C. Elliott and Daniel Steel, 49–63. New York: Routledge.
Stegenga, Jacob. 2011. “Is Meta-analysis the Platinum Standard of Evidence?” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biology and Biomedical Sciences 42, no. 4: 497–507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2011.07.003.
———. 2016. “Hollow Hunt for Harms.” Perspectives on Science 24, no. 5: 481–504. https://doi.org/10.1162/POSC_a_00220.
Upshur, Ross E.G., Elizabeth G. VanDenKerkhof, and Vivek Goel. 2001. “An Inclusive Model of Evidence in Health Care.” Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 7, no. 2: 91–96. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2753.2001.00279.x.
Van Zee, Art. 2009. “The Promotion and Marketing of OxyContin: Commercial Triumph, Public Health Tragedy.” American Journal of Public Health 99, no. 2: 221–227. https://doi.org/10.2105%2FAJPH.2007.131714.
Viljoen, M. and G.I. Muntingh. 2022. “Adverse Drug Reactions: To Report, or Not to Report?” South African General Practitioner 3, no. 2. https://doi.org/10.36303/SAGP.2022.3.2.0118.
Wadman, Meredith. 2005. “Journal Grows Suspicious of Vioxx Data.” Nature 438, no. 770, article 899. https://doi.org/10.1038/438899b.
Wilholt, Torsten. 2009. “Bias and Values in Scientific Research.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 40, no. 1: 92–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2008.12.005.
Worrall, John. 2008. “Evidence and Ethics in Medicine.” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 51, no. 3: 418–431. https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.0.0040.
Wysowski, Diane K. and Lynette Swartz. 2005. “Adverse Drug Event Surveillance and Drug Withdrawals in the United States, 1969–2002: The Importance of Reporting Suspected Reactions.” Archives of Internal Medicine 165, no. 12: 1363–1369. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.165.12.1363.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Austin Due
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.
- Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.
- The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:
- Attribution—other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;
- The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a prepublication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work. Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.
- Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.
- The Author represents and warrants that:
- the Work is the Author’s original work;
- the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;
- the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;
- the Work has not previously been published;
- the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and
- the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.
- The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.
- The Author agrees to digitally sign the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work.
