Abstractmedical products that include herbal and complementary medicines, vaccines, and other biologicals and devices is important for postmarketing surveillance. Publication lends credence to important signals raised in these adverse event reports. Unfortunately, deficiencies in vital information in published cases can often limit the value of such reports by failing to provide enough details for either (i) a differential diagnosis or provisional assessment of cause-effect association, or (ii) a reasonable pharmacological or biological explanation. Properly described, a published report of one or more adverse events can provide a useful signal of possible risks associated with the use of a drug or medical product which might warrant further exploration. A review conducted by the Task Force authors found that many major journals have minimal requirements for publishing adverse event reports, and some have none at all. Based on a literature review and our collective experience in reviewing adverse event case reports in regulatory, academic, and industry settings, we have identified information that we propose should always be considered for inclusion in a report submitted for publication. These guidelines have been endorsed by the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE) and the International Society of Pharmacovigilance (ISoP) and are freely available on the societies' websites. Their widespread distribution is encouraged. ISPE and ISoP urge biomedical journals to adopt these guidelines and apply them to case reports submitted for publication. They also encourage schools of medicine, pharmacy, and nursing to incorporate them into the relevant curricula that address the detection, evaluation, and reporting of suspected drug or other medical product adverse events.

Publication of case reports describing suspected adverse effects of drugs and medical products that include herbal and complementary medicines, vaccines, and other biologicals and devices is important for postmarketing surveillance. Publication lends credence to important signals raised in these adverse event reports. Unfortunately, deficiencies in vital information in published cases can often limit the value of such reports by failing to provide sufficient details for either (i) a differential diagnosis or provisional assessment of cause‐effect association, or (ii) a reasonable pharmacological or biological explanation. Properly described, a published report of one or more adverse events can provide a useful signal of possible risks associated with the use of a drug or medical product which might warrant further exploration. A review conducted by the Task Force authors found that many major journals have minimal requirements for publishing adverse event reports, and some have none at all. Based on a literature review and our collective experience in reviewing adverse event case reports in regulatory, academic, and industry settings, we have identified information that we propose should always be considered for inclusion in a report submitted for publication. These guidelines have been endorsed by the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE) and the International Society of Pharmacovigilance (ISoP) and are freely available on the societies' web sites. Their widespread distribution is encouraged. ISPE and ISoP urge biomedical journals to adopt these guidelines and apply them to case reports submitted for publication. They also encourage schools of medicine, pharmacy, and nursing to incorporate them into the relevant curricula that address the detection, evaluation, and reporting of suspected drug or other medical product adverse events. Copyright © 2007 Kelly et al. Reproduced with permission by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

These EHDs provide potential value to post-marketing drug safety surveillance and pharmacoepidemiology in China. Future research is warranted to assess the quality and completeness of these EHDs or additional data sources in China.

No abstract

Cigarette smoke is a risk factor for colon cancer, but the importance of dose and interaction with genetic susceptibility remain poorly understood. We used data from a population-based case control study, to examine the association between cigarette smoking and colon cancer in African Americans and whites, and colon cancer and polymorphisms in GSTM1 and GSTT1. A total of 554 cases of primary colon cancer and 874 controls were included in this analysis. We found no association between cigarette smoking (ever versus never) and colon cancer in African Americans (odds ratio (OR)=0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.65-1.33). In contrast, there was an increased risk of cigarette smoking in whites (OR=1.43, CI=1.05-1.94). There was a small increased risk of colon cancer for individuals with GSTM1 null (African Americans, OR=1.43, CI, 0.98-2.09; whites, OR=1.19, CI, 0.90-1.58) and a decreased risk of colon cancer for individuals with GSTT1 null (African Americans, OR=0.59, CI: 0.40-0.86; whites, OR=0.72, CI: 0.53-1.00). There were weak interactions between GSTT1 null and cigarette smoking in whites, and GSTM1 null genotype and cigarette smoking in African Americans. GSTT1 and GSTM1 polymorphisms may be weakly related to colon cancer risk and there may be racial differences in gene-smoking interactions.