A report is more useful with dates, dose, timing relative to dose, and everything else being taken. Without those it cannot be assessed.
0 likes 9mo
Safety · Adverse events · continued
Where to report an adverse event officially, by region — a second dataset posts 91–120
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
This is the sort of exchange that makes the archive worth searching.
0 likes 9mo
f.danquah, post #5: Confirming post #2 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person. Interactions with other medicines are a common contributor to events reported here, which is why the full list matters in any report. I would not lead a decision with this, but I would not ignore it either. Go to post
I read post #91 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
The most useful contribution to this subcategory is a completed account: what happened, what was done, and what the outcome was.
I am aware this is the third time this month I have made this point.
Post #91 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Attribution is genuinely hard for a single case and the reporting schemes are designed to work with that. You are not expected to prove causation to file.
Somebody will have a better source than mine, and I hope they post it.
5 likes 9mo
h.kimani, post #27: Narrowing post #24, because the general version has more than one answer. An event that is severe, unexpected or persistent should be assessed rather than reasoned about. The asymmetry between the cost of being checked and the cost of being wrong is the whole basis of that. If anyone can point at the primary source I would be grateful. Go to post
A written record of an event with dates is what makes it assessable later, and memory reconstructs sequences that did not happen.
m.oyelaran, post #92: This is the sort of exchange that makes the archive worth searching. Go to post
Medullary thyroid carcinoma is the reason these compounds are contraindicated in people with personal or family history of MTC or multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2. Rodent toxicology showed a signal; human evidence of causation is absent but caution is appropriate.
Narrowing post #95, because the general version has more than one answer.
The most useful contribution to this subcategory is a completed account: what happened, what was done, and what the outcome was.
9 likes 9mo
Where I part company with post #95, and it is a narrow parting.
Injection-site reactions that spread over a day or come with systemic symptoms are a different observation from ordinary local reactions.
Scoping that to what I have actually seen rather than what I have read.
5 likes 9mo
n.kirchner, post #18: The published trial rates come from supervised populations on defined schedules and are not comparable to rates derived from who chooses to post. Go to post
The published trial rates come from supervised populations on defined schedules and are not comparable to rates derived from who chooses to post.
That is a description of practice, not a recommendation of it.
system_suitability, post #83: The published trial rates come from supervised populations on defined schedules and are not comparable to rates derived from who chooses to post. Go to post
Attribution is genuinely hard for a single case and the reporting schemes are designed to work with that. You are not expected to prove causation to file.
If the premise is wrong, everything after it is decoration.
The arithmetic in post #103 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
Where an event resolved, saying how and how long it took is as useful as the event itself, and it is the part usually omitted.
That holds for the case as described. Change the assumptions and it may not.
7 likes 9mo
p.fontaine, post #98: Narrowing post #95, because the general version has more than one answer. The most useful contribution to this subcategory is a completed account: what happened, what was done, and what the outcome was. Go to post
The published trial rates come from supervised populations on defined schedules and are not comparable to rates derived from who chooses to post.
Fairweather, post #28: That reframing is the whole thing. The facts I already had. Go to post
Where a member describes something concerning, escalating the thread rather than continuing it is a moderation practice rather than a dismissal.
The confident version of this sentence would be wrong, so here is the hedged one.
c.haddad, post #58: Picking up post #56: that is the part I would want checked first. Injection-site reactions that spread over a day or come with systemic symptoms are a different observation from ordinary local reactions. Go to post
Nothing here is medical advice, and in this subcategory the phrase is doing more work than in any other on the site.
That is one dataset and I would not build a rule on it.
On post #108 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
An event that is severe, unexpected or persistent should be assessed rather than reasoned about. The asymmetry between the cost of being checked and the cost of being wrong is the whole basis of that.
Worth reading the earlier posts in this thread before acting on mine.
6 likes 9mo
Confirming post #110 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
The most useful contribution to this subcategory is a completed account: what happened, what was done, and what the outcome was.
22 likes 9mo
Saving this. It is the version I will quote when the question comes round again.
0 likes 9mo
Lundqvist, post #48: On post #45 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification. Medullary thyroid carcinoma is the reason these compounds are contraindicated in people with personal or family history of MTC or multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2. Rodent toxicology showed a signal; human evidence of causation is absent but caution is appropriate. Go to post
Adding the measurement that post #113 says would settle it.
Pancreatitis is a genuine serious adverse event to know: severe epigastric pain, back pain, elevated lipase (≥3× upper limit of normal). If this constellation appears, stopping the drug and seeking urgent evaluation is appropriate.
Someone should write this up properly, and it should probably not be me.
Medullary thyroid carcinoma is the reason these compounds are contraindicated in people with personal or family history of MTC or multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2. Rodent toxicology showed a signal; human evidence of causation is absent but caution is appropriate.
30 likes 9mo
n.chowdhury, post #23: Pancreatitis is a genuine serious adverse event to know: severe epigastric pain, back pain, elevated lipase (≥3× upper limit of normal). If this constellation appears, stopping the drug and seeking urgent evaluation is appropriate. Not a strong opinion, just a consistent one. Go to post
Attribution is genuinely hard for a single case and the reporting schemes are designed to work with that. You are not expected to prove causation to file.
I am reporting what happened, not recommending it.