QPPV.COM KNOWLEDGE ASSESSMENT

GVP Module VI: Causality Assessment and Clinical Evaluation of ICSRs

Test your understanding of the concepts covered by GVP Module VI: Causality Assessment and Clinical Evaluation of ICSRs.

Question 1 of 10Pass mark: 80%

Question 1 of 10 What is a key limitation of an algorithmic causality tool?

It cannot be used for any individual case Its numerical or categorical output may be mistaken for independent clinical judgement if its assumptions and limitations are not understood It is automatically invalid whenever alternative causes exist It can assess only expectedness and not causality

Question 2 of 10 Which statement best reflects the relationship between causality and expectedness?

An unexpected event cannot be causally related An expected event is automatically causally related Expectedness and causality answer different questions and should not be collapsed into one classification Expectedness is determined by the strength of the temporal relationship

Question 3 of 10 What should a robust organisational causality process be able to demonstrate during an inspection?

That every reviewer reaches the same conclusion regardless of the evidence A reproducible methodology, trained personnel, appropriate escalation, documented reasoning and auditability of material assessments That reporter assessments are always accepted without review That causality categories are assigned without considering concomitant medicines

Question 4 of 10 Which example best represents objective evidence that may inform causality assessment?

The reviewer feels that the product is commonly suspected by reporters A documented laboratory result or imaging finding obtained at a clinically relevant time The fact that the case was submitted within the expected reporting timeframe The seriousness classification assigned to the event

Question 5 of 10 Why may pregnancy exposure reports require longitudinal follow-up?

Pregnancy exposure automatically proves maternal causality There may initially be no clinical outcome against which conventional causality can be assessed Pregnancy exposure is assessed only through expectedness Follow-up is unnecessary unless the exposure involved an overdose

Question 6 of 10 What is the appropriate role of pharmacological plausibility in individual case assessment?

It replaces the need to assess the patient's actual chronology and clinical findings It can inform clinical reasoning through mechanisms, pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics and class effects It establishes causality whenever the event is biologically possible It is relevant only when a positive rechallenge has occurred

Question 7 of 10 Which statement best describes a positive dechallenge?

The event recurs after the medicinal product is administered again The event improves after the suspected product is discontinued or reduced The event occurs before exposure to the medicinal product The event is included in the reference safety information

Question 8 of 10 How should concomitant medicines be handled during causality assessment?

Every concomitant medicine should be treated as an equally likely competing cause Only the newest medicine should be considered as a possible cause Relevant concomitant medicines should be evaluated for plausible effects, interactions and chronology without presuming causality Concomitant medicines should be excluded from the clinical narrative to avoid bias

Question 9 of 10 Which case-level conclusion is most consistent with the article's distinction between individual cases and signals?

A single strongly suspected case establishes a population-level causal relationship Individually uncertain cases can still contribute to a signal when considered collectively Only cases classified as certain can be used for signal detection Signal assessment and individual case assessment are interchangeable activities

Question 10 of 10 A follow-up report provides a new diagnosis that offers a more plausible explanation for the event. What is the appropriate pharmacovigilance response?

Leave the original assessment unchanged because causality is determined only at initial receipt Reassess the causality because material new evidence may change the balance of explanations Reclassify the case as serious regardless of the new diagnosis Remove the original case from safety surveillance

QPPV.com

GVP Module VI: Causality Assessment and Clinical Evaluation of ICSRs

Cookie Settings