The estimation of the probability that a drug caused an adverse clinical event is usually based on clinical judgment. Lack of a method for establishing causality generates large between‐raters and within‐raters variability in assessment. Using the conventional categories and definitions of definite, probable, possible, and doubtful adverse drug reactions (ADRs), the between‐raters agreement of two physicians and four pharmacists who independently assessed 63 randomly selected alleged ADRs was 38% to 63%, kappa (k, a chance‐corrected index of agreement) varied from 0.21 to 0.40, and the intraclass correlation coefficient of reliability (R[est]) was 0.49. Six (testing) and 22 wk (retesting) later the same observers independently reanalyzed the 63 cases by assigning a weighted score (ADR probability scale) to each of the components that must be considered in establishing causal associations between drug(s) and adverse events (e.g., temporal sequence). The cases were randomized to minimize the influence of learning. The event was assigned a probability category from the total score. The between‐raters reliability (range: percent agreement = 83% to 92%; κ = 0.69 to 0.86; r = 0.91 to 0.95; R(est) = 0.92) and within‐raters reliability (range: percent agreement = 80% to 97%; κ = 0.64 to 0.95; r = 0.91 to 0.98) improved (p < 0.001). The between‐raters reliability was maintained on retesting (range: r = 0.84 to 0.94; R(est) = 0.87). The between‐raters reliability of three attending physicians who independently assessed 28 other prospectively collected cases of alleged ADRs was very high (range: r = 0.76 to 0.87; R(est) = 0.80). It was also shown that the ADR probability scale has consensual, content, and concurrent validity. This systematic method offers a sensitive way to monitor ADRs and may be applicable to postmarketing drug surveillance. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics (1981) 30, 239–245; doi:

Objectives To quantify and compare potential benefits (subjective reports of sleep variables) and risks (adverse events and morning-after psychomotor impairment) of short term treatment with sedative hypnotics in older people with insomnia. Data sources Medline, Embase, the Cochrane clinical trials database, PubMed, and PsychLit, 1966 to 2003; bibliographies of published reviews and meta-analyses; manufacturers of newer sedative hypnotics (zaleplon, zolpidem, zopiclone) regarding unpublished studies. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials of any pharmacological treatment for insomnia for at least five consecutive nights in people aged 60 or over with insomnia and otherwise free of psychiatric or psychological disorders. Results 24 studies (involving 2417 participants) with extractable data met inclusion and exclusion criteria. Sleep quality improved (effect size 0.14, P < 0.05), total sleep time increased (mean 25.2 minutes, P < 0.001), and the number of night time awakenings decreased (0.63, P < 0.001) with sedative use compared with placebo. Adverse events were more common with sedatives than with placebo: adverse cognitive events were 4.78 times more common (95% confidence interval 1.47 to 15.47, P < 0.01); adverse psychomotor events were 2.61 times more common (1.12 to 6.09, P > 0.05), and reports of daytime fatigue were 3.82 times more common (1.88 to 7.80, P < 0.001) in people using any sedative compared with placebo. Conclusions Improvements in sleep with sedative use are statistically significant, but the magnitude of effect is small. The increased risk of adverse events is statistically significant and potentially clinically relevant in older people at risk of falls and cognitive impairment. In people over 60, the benefits of these drugs may not justify the increased risk, particularly if the patient has additional risk factors for cognitive or psychomotor adverse events.

Dopamine-related neuroanatomical substrates are involved in altered reward processing in MDD, shedding light on the neurobiology of the anhedonic symptoms in MDD and suggesting these substrates as future therapeutic targets.

No abstract