Confidence and accuracy in identification of adverse drug reactions reported by outpatients
- 128 Downloads
Background Patient reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) could supplement the existing reporting system and contribute to early detection of ADRs. The confidence in ADR identification and their attribution of ADRs were limited to outpatients. Objective To determine the type and frequency of ADRs reported by outpatients, to evaluate confidence and accuracy in ADR identification as well as contributing factors. Setting University hospital in northeastern Thailand Method Cross-sectional study using questionnaires distributed to 500 outpatients who claimed to have experienced an ADR. Confidence in identifying ADRs was measured by visual analogue score (VAS), while accuracy of reported ADRs was determined using Naranjo algorithm and WHO criteria. Main outcome measure Number and type of ADRs, confidence rating and accuracy category. Results In total, 390 outpatients completed the questionnaire (response rate = 78.0%). Rash (19.0%), nausea/vomiting (7.4%), and dizziness (5.8%) were the top three reported ADRs. Sixty-one percent of respondents rated their level of confidence in identifying ADRs as high (VAS 9.2 ± 0.95), which was associated with having underlying diseases (OR 1.93), low number of reported symptoms (OR 0.38) and severe ADRs (OR 1.33). Causality assessment was classified as true ADRs in 90.0% and 88.9% of cases, using Naranjo algorithm and WHO criteria, respectively. Respondents with low number of reported symptoms (OR 0.27) and high level of confidence had greater accuracy in ADR identification (OR 1.11). Conclusion The outpatients reported a high proportion of potential ADRs with high confidence and accuracy. Patient reporting of ADRs has potential to support the pharmacovigilance system.
KeywordsAccuracy Adverse drug reactions Confidence Patient reporting Related factors Thailand
The authors thank the patients for their participation and the staff at Srinagarind Hospital for their assistance.
This study received financial support from Graduate School, Khon Kaen University (Grant Number 59121109). The funding organization had no role in the design or conducting of the study.
Conflicts of interest
None of authors declared any conflict of interest.
- 7.McLernon DJ, Bond CM, Hannaford PC, Watson MC, Lee AJ, Hazell L. Yellow Card Collaboration. Adverse drug reaction reporting in the UK: a retrospective observational comparison of yellow card reports submitted by patients and healthcare professionals. Drug Saf. 2010;33:775–88.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 9.Gäwert L, Hierse F, Zink A, Strangfeld A. How well do patient reports reflect adverse drug reactions reported by rheumatologists? Agreement of physician- and patient-reported adverse events in patients with rheumatoid arthritis observed in the German biologics register. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2011;50:152–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.The Uppsala Monitoring Centre. The use of the WHO-UMC system for standardizes case causality assessment. https://www.who-umc.org/media/2768/standardised-case-causality-assessment.pdf. Accessed 20 Mar 2018.
- 24.Chaipichit N, Jarernsiripornkul N, Uchaipichit V, Pratiparnwat T, Krska J. Patients’ attitude towards self-reporting of adverse drug reactions. Srinagarind Med J. 2014;29:461–8.Google Scholar
- 29.Center Health Product Vigilance. Adverse drug reactions reporting 2015. Thai Food and Drug Administration, Ministry of Public Health. 2015. http://thaihpvc.fda.moph.go.th/thaihvc/Public/News/uploads/hpvc_1_3_4_100718.pdf. Accessed 20 Mar 2018.