Pharmacovigilance as Scientific Discovery: An Argument for Trans-Disciplinarity
Pharmacovigilance currently faces several unsolved challenges. Of particular importance are issues concerning how to ascertain, collect, confirm, and communicate the best evidence to assist the clinical choice for individual patients. Here, we propose that these practical challenges partially stem from deeper fundamental issues concerning the epistemology of pharmacovigilance. After reviewing some of the persistent challenges, recent measures, and suggestions in the current pharmacovigilance literature, we support the argument that the detection of potential adverse drug reactions ought to be seen as a serendipitous scientific discovery. We further take up recent innovations from the multidisciplinary field of serendipity research about the importance of networks, diversity of expertise, and plurality of methodological perspectives for cultivating serendipitous discovery. Following this discussion, we explore how pharmacovigilance could be systematized in a way that optimizes serendipitous discoveries of untargeted drug effects, emerging from the clinical application. Specifically, we argue for the promotion of a trans-disciplinary responsive network of scientists and stakeholders. Trans-disciplinarity includes extending the involvement of stakeholders beyond the regulatory community, integrating diverse methods and sources of evidence, and enhancing the ability of diverse groups to raise signals of harms that ought to be followed up by the network. Consequently, promoting a trans-disciplinary approach to pharmacovigilance is a long-term effort that requires structural changes in medical education, research, and enterprise. We suggest a number of such changes, discuss to what extent they are already in process, and indicate the advantages from both epistemological and ethical perspectives.
We thank four anonymous reviewers for constructive feedback on a previous draft of this paper.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
Elena Rocca, Samantha Copeland, and I. Ralph Edwards have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this article.
This research was funded by the Norwegian Research Council (Grant no. 240073).
- 14.Carleton B. What is the future of pharmacovigilance and how can we make it as good as possible? In: Edwards R, Lindquist M, editors. Pharmacovigilance critiques and ways forward. Berlin: Springer International Publishing; 2017. p. 21–30.Google Scholar
- 19.Houyez F. Connecting regulators and patient organisations. Uppsala Rep. 2018;79:17–8.Google Scholar
- 20.Bowdler J. The Erice declaration: on communicating drug safety information. Prescrire Int. 1998;7:191.Google Scholar
- 21.Caduff-Janosa P. Lost in regulation. In: Edwards R, Lindquist M, editors. Pharmacovigilance critiques and ways forward. Berlin: Springer International Publishing; 2017. p. 9–19.Google Scholar
- 22.Walpole H. Letter to Mann, 28 January 1754. In: Lewis WS, editor. The Yale edition of Horace Walpole’s correspondence, vol. 20. New Haven: Yale University Press; 1960. p. 407–11.Google Scholar
- 24.McBirnie A. Chapter 5.1. Serendipity in a connected world. In: Race TM, Stephann M, editors. Accidental information discovery: cultivating serendipity in the digital age. Amsterdam: Chandos Publishing; 2016. p. 83–91.Google Scholar
- 30.Laroche M-L, Batz A, Geniaux H, Fechant C, Merle L, Maison P. Pharmacovigilance in Europe: place of the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) in organisation and decisional processes. Pharmacovigilance. 2016;71:161–9.Google Scholar
- 31.Polanyi M. The logic of liberty. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press; 1951.Google Scholar
- 39.Schardein J. Chemically induced birth defects. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.; 1985.Google Scholar
- 43.Choi B, Pak A. Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in health research, services, education and policy: 1. Definitions, objectives, and evidence of effectiveness. Clin Investig Med. 2006;29:351–64.Google Scholar