Review of safety assessment methods used in pediatric psychopharmacology.

OBJECTIVE: Elicitation is an essential and critical step in ascertaining adverse events (AEs). This report reviews elicitation methods used in published clinical trials of psychopharmacological agents in children. METHOD: Pediatric psychopharmacology reports were reviewed for safety methods in the Medline database. Studies were included if they were published 1980 or later, provided data on AEs, and described the ascertainment methodology used for determining them. RESULTS: A review of 196 pediatric psychopharmacology articles depicting safety assessments in clinical studies over the past 22 years revealed that there was no common method used for eliciting or reporting AE data. CONCLUSION: The current inconsistency in safety data ascertainment is a major limitation that likely impairs the ability to promptly and accurately identify drug-induced AEs. Research on how best to standardize safety methods should be considered a priority in pediatric psychopharmacology.

How can we improve the assessment of safety in child and adolescent psychopharmacology?

OBJECTIVE: To identify approaches to improving methods for assessing tolerability and safety of psychotropic medications in children and adolescents. METHOD: Strengths and limitations of current methodology were reviewed and possible alternatives examined. RESULTS: Research on the validity of safety evaluation has been extremely limited. No evidence-based "gold standard" exists. Clinical trials remain the best design to establish causality, but sample size limitations prevent the detection of infrequent, though serious, adverse events. Other designs, such as cohort and case-control studies, and approaches, such as mining of large databases, must be considered. CONCLUSION: The current lack of methodological standardization across studies prevents generalizations and meta-analyses. Because the issues relevant to drug safety are diverse, a variety of methodological approaches and instruments are needed. It is, however, possible to adopt standard basic definitions of adverse events, degree of severity, ascertainment methods, and recording procedures, as a common "core," to which more specific assessment instruments can be added. Systematic empirical testing and validation of safety methodology is needed.

Developing methodologies for monitoring long-term safety of psychotropic medications in children: report on the NIMH conference, September 25, 2000.

OBJECTIVE: To improve the methods for long-term assessment of drug-associated side effects and advance knowledge of the safety profile of psychotropic medications in children and adolescents. METHOD: A multidisciplinary, interactive workshop was hosted by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) and the Research Units on Pediatric Psychopharmacology network. Participants were experts in child and adolescent psychiatry, psychopharmacology, pharmacoepidemiology, and statistics from academia, the pharmaceutical industry, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the NIMH. Evaluation of drug safety was examined from five perspectives: research design and methods, industry, regulatory requirements, bioethics, and practice settings. For each of these areas, special emphasis was placed on identifying barriers and generating solutions. RESULTS: A major obstacle is the lack of standardization of the methods used for collecting safety data. The limitations of both randomized clinical trials and passive postmarketing surveillance in assessing long-term safety were recognized. The need to consider alternative approaches, such as registries and trend analysis of population-based databases, was highlighted. Recommendations were proposed together with possible approaches to implementation. CONCLUSIONS: A concerted effort by academic researchers, industry, FDA, practitioners, and NIMH is needed to standardize methods and lay the foundations for systematic research on the long-term safety of psychotropic medications in children.