Two issues that are commonly debated with respect to adverse event data collection and reporting are: 1. the definitions of expected/labeled versus unexpected/unlabeled adverse events, and 2. whether to solicit and record adverse event diagnoses, signs and symptoms, or both during a clinical trial. This paper provides a viewpoint on how these issues can be addressed. Examples are provided to illustrate the author's philosophy.
International Conference on Harmonization.Clinical safety data management: definitions and standards for expedited reporting, a step 4 paper, ICH-2 EWG E2. February 22, 1994.
2.
International Reporting of Adverse Drug Reactions. Final report of the CIOMS Working Group. 1990.
3.
International Reporting of Periodic Drug Safety Update Summaries. Final Report of the CIOMS Working Group II. 1992.
4.
21 CFR 201.56 (a).
5.
GrahamGK. Labeling: what should it say, and how should it say it?Drug Inf J.1991;25:211–216.
6.
Federal Registerv. 44. No. 124, 6/26/79, p. 37436.
7.
Federal Registerv. 44. No. 124, 6/26/79, p. 37441.
8.
LittlejohnJKLucasDOBatson-FowlerGEdwardsS.Adverse experience collection: perspective from a biological development program. Drug Inf J.1991;25:175–180.
9.
GuarinoRA. Clinical study conduct/procedures. Drug Inf J.1994;28:481–488.
