Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Global trends in pharmacovigilance-related events: a 30-year analysis from the 2019 global burden of disease study

  • Research Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Establishing effective pharmacovigilance systems globally is challenging due to the need for comprehensive epidemiological data on pharmacovigilance-related events, particularly in countries at different stages of development.

Aim

This study aimed to determine magnitude and drivers of change in the global and regional burden of pharmacovigilance-related events from 1990 to 2019, analyzing variations between age groups and sex, providing data support for policymakers to adjust their pharmacovigilance policies.

Method

Pharmacovigilance-related events were defined as Adverse Effects of Medical Treatment (AEMT) and Drug Use Disorders (DUD) in the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2019. Time trend analysis utilized joinpoint regression, age-period-cohort model, and decomposition method. Disease burden was measured in incidence, deaths, and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs).

Results

The global burden of pharmacovigilance-related events remained high, driven predominantly by population growth. Children and older adults were identified as particularly susceptible groups. Across various regions and periods of the socio-demographic index (SDI), the risk of death from AEMT showed a decreasing trend. In contrast, the incidence of AEMT and both the incidence and death rates from DUD showed a stable or worsening trend. Significant regional disparities in the burden of these diseases were noted between different SDI levels.

Conclusion

The study underscores the critical need for robust pharmacovigilance systems worldwide. The observed trends in the burden of pharmacovigilance-related events offer a clear direction for countries to refine and strengthen their pharmacovigilance policies and practices.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Garashi HY, Steinke DT, Schafheutle EI. A systematic review of pharmacovigilance systems in developing countries using the WHO pharmacovigilance indicators. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2022;56(5):717–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43441-022-00415-y.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Elshafie S, Roberti AM, Zaghloul I. Pharmacovigilance in developing countries (part II): a path forward. Int J Clin Pharm. 2018;40(4):764–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-017-0588-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Marcus KA, Sorbello A, Truffa M, et al. Current advances in pharmacovigilance in the USA and Europe: meeting the challenges of safety monitoring in HIV. Curr Opin HIV AIDS. 2012;7(4):292–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/COH.0b013e328354dcac.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Donaldson LJ, Kelley ET, Dhingra-Kumar N, et al. Medication without harm: WHO’s third global patient safety challenge. The Lancet. 2017;389(10080):1680–1. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31047-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Radecka A, Loughlin L, Foy M, et al. Enhancing pharmacovigilance capabilities in the EU regulatory network: the SCOPE joint action. Drug Saf. 2018;41(12):1285–302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-018-0708-5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Fossouo Tagne J, Yakob RA, Dang TH, et al. Reporting, monitoring, and handling of adverse drug reactions in Australia: scoping review. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2023;9:e40080. https://doi.org/10.2196/40080.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Drug Overdose Death Rates. National Institute on Drug Abuse. https://nida.nih.gov/research-topics/trends-statistics/overdose-death-rates. Accessed 8 March 2024.

  8. Vos T, Lim SS, Abbafati C, et al. Global burden of 369 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. The Lancet. 2020;396(10258):1204–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30925-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Paulson KR, Kamath AM, Alam T, et al. Global, regional, and national progress towards Sustainable Development Goal 3.2 for neonatal and child health: all-cause and cause-specific mortality findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet. 2021;398(10303):870–905. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)01207-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Stevens GA, Alkema L, Black RE, et al. Guidelines for accurate and transparent health estimates reporting: the GATHER statement. Lancet. 2016;388(10062):e19–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30388-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. GBD Results. Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME). https://vizhub.healthdata.org/gbd-results/. Accessed 8 March 2024.

  12. Kim HJ, Fay MP, Feuer EJ, et al. Permutation tests for joinpoint regression with applications to cancer rates. Stat Med. 2000;19(3):335–51. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(20000215)19:3%3c335::AID-SIM336%3e3.0.CO;2-Z.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Clegg LX, Hankey BF, Tiwari R, et al. Estimating average annual per cent change in trend analysis. Stat Med. 2009;28(29):3670–82. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.3733.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Bell A. Age period cohort analysis: a review of what we should and shouldn’t do. Ann Hum Biol. 2020;47(2):208–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/03014460.2019.1707872.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Age Period Cohort Web Tool. National Cancer Institute Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics. https://analysistools.cancer.gov/apc/. Accessed 8 March 2024.

  16. Rosenberg PS, Check DP, Anderson WF. A web tool for age–period–cohort analysis of cancer incidence and mortality rates. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2014;23(11):2296–302. https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-14-0300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Cheng X, Yang Y, Schwebel DC, et al. Population ageing and mortality during 1990–2017: A global decomposition analysis. Basu S, ed. PLoS Med. 2020;17(6):e1003138. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003138.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Shen J, Hua G, Li C, et al. Prevalence, incidence, deaths, and disability-adjusted life-years of drug use disorders for 204 countries and territories during the past 30 years. Asian J Psychiatr. 2023;86:103677. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajp.2023.103677.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Murray CJL, Aravkin AY, Zheng P, et al. Global burden of 87 risk factors in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet. 2020;396(10258):1223–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30752-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Pelkonen O. Metabolism and pharmacokinetics in children and the elderly. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol. 2007;3(2):147–8. https://doi.org/10.1517/17425255.3.2.147.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Han BH, Funk-White M, Ko R, et al. Decreasing perceived risk associated with regular cannabis use among older adults in the United States from 2015 to 2019. J American Geriatrics Society. 2021;69(9):2591–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.17213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Fletcher CV, Acosta EP, Strykowski JM. Gender differences in human pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. J Adolesc Health. 1994;15(8):619–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1054-139x(94)90628-9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Pirmohamed M, Atuah KN, Dodoo ANO, et al. Pharmacovigilance in developing countries. BMJ. 2007;335(7618):462–462. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39323.586123.BE.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Dally A. Thalidomide: Was the tragedy preventable? Lancet. 1998;351(9110):1197–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(97)09038-7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Basile AO, Yahi A, Tatonetti NP. Artificial intelligence for drug toxicity and safety. Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2019;40(9):624–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tips.2019.07.005.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Garashi HY, Steinke DT, Schafheutle EI. A qualitative exploration of pharmacovigilance policy implementation in Jordan, Oman, and Kuwait using Matland’s ambiguity-conflict model. Global Health. 2021;17(1):97. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-021-00751-y.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Olsson S, Pal SN, Stergachis A, et al. Pharmacovigilance activities in 55 low- and middle-income countries: a questionnaire-based analysis. Drug Saf. 2010;33(8):689–703. https://doi.org/10.2165/11536390-000000000-00000.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Alshammari TM, Mendi N, Alenzi KA, et al. Pharmacovigilance systems in Arab countries: overview of 22 Arab countries. Drug Saf. 2019;42(7):849–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-019-00807-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Preston C, Freitas Dias M, Peña J, et al. Addressing the challenges of regulatory systems strengthening in small states. BMJ Glob Health. 2020;5(2):e001912. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2019-001912.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Agustí A, Cereza G, De Abajo FJ, et al. Clinical pharmacology facing the real-world setting: pharmacovigilance, pharmacoepidemiology and the economic evaluation of drugs. Pharmacol Res. 2023;197:106967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phrs.2023.106967.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Chongqing Runchi Translation Company for English language editing and review services.

Funding

This study was supported by the Project of the National Social Science Foundation of China Grant Number (No. 18XGL019) and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (Xi’an Jiaotong University: xzy022024030).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Department of Pharmacy Administration, School of Pharmacy, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, Shaanxi, China

    Shuzhi Lin, Shuang Lei, Wei Liu, Xiaoying Zhu, Lin Yin, Qian Liu & Bianling Feng

  2. The Center for Drug Safety and Policy Research, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, Shaanxi, China

    Shuzhi Lin, Shuang Lei, Wei Liu, Xiaoying Zhu, Lin Yin, Qian Liu & Bianling Feng

Authors
  1. Shuzhi Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shuang Lei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Wei Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Xiaoying Zhu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Lin Yin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Qian Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Bianling Feng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bianling Feng.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

11096_2024_1738_MOESM1_ESM.tif

Supplementary Figure 1. Trends and joinpoints in the burden of DUD disease from 1990 to 2019 in Global region and SDI quintiles. A Incidence; B Deaths (TIF 25519 KB)

11096_2024_1738_MOESM2_ESM.tif

Supplementary Figure 2. Age-period-cohort analysis of AEMT deaths in the global region and SDI quintiles. Sex = both, male, female. A Age effects. B Periods effects. C Cohort effects. (TIF 25519 KB)

11096_2024_1738_MOESM3_ESM.tif

Supplementary Figure 3. Age-period-cohort analysis of DUD incidence in the global region and SDI quintiles. Sex = both, male, female. A Age effects. B Periods effects. C Cohort effects. (TIF 25519 KB)

11096_2024_1738_MOESM4_ESM.tif

Supplementary Figure 4. Age-period-cohort analysis of DUD deaths in the global region and SDI quintiles. Sex = both, male, female. A Age effects in global, high SDI, high-middle SDI regions. B Age effects in the middle, low-middle, and low SDI regions. C Periods effects. D Cohort effects. (TIF 25519 KB)

11096_2024_1738_MOESM5_ESM.tif

Supplementary Figure 5. From 1990 to 2019, the change in incidence/deaths/DALYs of DUD due to Aging, Population, and Epidemiological change. Location: in the global region and SDI quintiles. The black dots imply the overall difference in numbers from 2019 to 1990. A Incidence; B Deaths; C DALYs. (TIF 17135 KB)

Supplementary file6 (DOCX 20 KB)

Supplementary file7 (DOCX 148 KB)

Supplementary file8 (DOCX 154 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lin, S., Lei, S., Liu, W. et al. Global trends in pharmacovigilance-related events: a 30-year analysis from the 2019 global burden of disease study. Int J Clin Pharm (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-024-01738-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-024-01738-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation