Skip to main content
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology logoLink to British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
. 1987 Jan;23(1):73–79. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.1987.tb03011.x

Conclusiveness of rechallenge in the interpretation of adverse drug reactions.

M Girard
PMCID: PMC1386142  PMID: 3814464

Abstract

We here consider the extent to which the presumed correlation between an adverse event and the administration of a particular drug can be reinforced by rechallenge. At first question of terminology is: what is a rechallenge? Rechallenge is often accepted too readily as proof of a causal relationship and clinical examples give illustrations of common misinterpretations. Definitions are proposed to characterize: the outcome of rechallenge; the conditions under which rechallenge is performed. In discussing causality, a sharp distinction is drawn between the outcome per se and the establishment of a causal relationship. Finally, the simple concepts proposed here should permit to establish a typology of rechallenge and to assess, by further experimental or retrospective research, the conclusiveness of rechallenge in interpreting adverse drug reactions.

Full text

PDF
73

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Feinstein A. R. Clinical biostatistics. II. Statistics versus science in design of experiments. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1970 Mar-Apr;11(2):282–292. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Felix R. H., Ive F. A., Dahl M. G. Cutaneous and ocular reactions to practolol. Br Med J. 1974 Nov 9;4(5940):321–324. doi: 10.1136/bmj.4.5940.321. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Kauppinen K., Niemi K. M., Salo O. P. Cutaneous reactions to practolol. Clinical and histopathological study. Ann Clin Res. 1976 Aug;8(4):232–240. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Kramer M. S., Leventhal J. M., Hutchinson T. A., Feinstein A. R. An algorithm for the operational assessment of adverse drug reactions. I. Background, description, and instructions for use. JAMA. 1979 Aug 17;242(7):623–632. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Loupi E., Ponchon A. C., Ventre J. J., Descotes J., Evreux J. C. Le rechallenge est-il nécessaire à une imputabilité maximale? Valeur comparée dans sept méthodes d'imputabilité. Therapie. 1984 Sep-Oct;39(5):461–466. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Reidenberg M. M., Lowenthal D. T. Adverse nondrug reactions. N Engl J Med. 1968 Sep 26;279(13):678–679. doi: 10.1056/NEJM196809262791304. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Rowland M. G., Stevenson C. J. Exfoliative dermatitis and practolol. Lancet. 1972 May 20;1(7760):1130–1130. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(72)91482-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Sondergaard J., Wadskov S., Jensen H. A., Mikkelsen H. I. Aggravation of psoriasis and occurrence of psoriasiform cutaneous eruptions induced by practolol (Eraldin). Acta Derm Venereol. 1976;56(3):239–243. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Stephens M. Deliberate drug rechallenge. Hum Toxicol. 1983 Oct;2(4):573–577. doi: 10.1177/096032718300200401. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Wasson J. H., Sox H. C., Neff R. K., Goldman L. Clinical prediction rules. Applications and methodological standards. N Engl J Med. 1985 Sep 26;313(13):793–799. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198509263131306. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology are provided here courtesy of British Pharmacological Society

RESOURCES