Advertisement

Drug Safety

, Volume 37, Issue 6, pp 409–419 | Cite as

Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting by Patients: An Overview of Fifty Countries

  • Florence Margraff
  • Delphine BertramEmail author
Original Research Article

Abstract

Background

The modalities and contributions to drug safety of patient adverse drug reaction reporting systems in 50 countries have been reviewed and analysed.

Methods

The means made available by National Health Competent Authorities (NCAs) for patients to report drug side effects were compared through literature review and questionnaire.

Results

Among the 50 countries included in this study, we found that direct patient reporting systems exist in 44 countries and represent 9 % of total reports, the rest coming from healthcare professionals. Australia was the first, in 1964, and the United States has the system in which patients are the most involved. A total of 27 countries have a patient-specific reporting form, and 31 countries provide a form to complete online. In order to help patients, four countries constrain the description of the reaction and 12 constrain the choice of drug on the reporting form. Most of the surveyed countries request the patient’s medical history (30 countries) and concomitant therapies (41 countries). The total number of fields per form ranges from 6 to 59, with a mean of 36 items.

Conclusions

Most of the surveyed countries have implemented a patient adverse drug reaction reporting system. From this study, it seems that an online reporting form increases the rate of reporting. Currently, many different forms exist worldwide; these should be harmonized by considering the strengths and weaknesses of all existing forms. But above all, to increase the number of reports, each country should promote NCA-initiated adverse drug reactions reporting systems.

Keywords

Healthcare Professional Adverse Drug Reaction Varenicline Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting International Drug Monitoring 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Funding and conflicts of interest

No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this study. Florence Margraff and Delphine Bertram have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this study.

Supplementary material

40264_2014_162_MOESM1_ESM.doc (26 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 26 kb)
40264_2014_162_MOESM2_ESM.xls (38 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (XLS 38 kb)
40264_2014_162_MOESM3_ESM.xls (39 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (XLS 39 kb)
40264_2014_162_MOESM4_ESM.xls (38 kb)
Supplementary material 4 (XLS 38 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    REGULATION (EU) No 1235/2010 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 15 December 2010 amending, as regards pharmacovigilance of medicinal products for human use, Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency, and Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007 on advanced therapy medicinal products; 2010. http://ec.europa.eu/health/files/eudralex/vol-1/reg_2010_1235/reg_2010_1235_en.pdf. Accessed 21 Oct 2013.
  2. 2.
    DIRECTIVE 2010/84/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 15 December 2010 amending, as regards pharmacovigilance, Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use; 2010. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:348:0074:0099:EN:PDF. Accessed 21 Oct 2013.
  3. 3.
    Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the community code relating to medicinal products for human use—article 107a. Official Journal L. 2004;311:67–128.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    World Health Organization website. http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/fr/d/Jh1465e/4.html. Accessed 20 Sept 2013.
  5. 5.
    Egberts TC, Smulders M, de Koning FH, Meyboom RH, Leufkens HG. Can adverse drug reactions be detected earlier? A comparison of reports by patients and professionals. BMJ. 1996;313(7056):530–1.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    De Langen J, Van Hunsel F, Passier A, De Jong-Van den Berg L, Van Grootheest K. Adverse drug reaction reporting by patients in the Netherlands: three years of experience. Drug Saf. 2008;31(6):515–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Blenkinsopp A, Wilkie P, Wang M, Routledge PA. Patient reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions: a review of published literature and international experience. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2007;63(2):148–56.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Herxheimer A, Crombag R, Alves TL. Direct patient reporting of adverse drug reactions: a fifteen-country survey and literature review. Health Action International Europe; 2010. http://www.haiweb.org/10052010/10_May_2010_Report_Direct_Patient_Reporting_of_ADRs.pdf. Accessed 20 Jun 2013.
  9. 9.
    Cumber SL, Heffer SJ, Gandhi S, Avery AJ. The Yellow Card Scheme: experience of patient reporting of adverse drug reactions 5 years since launch. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2010;19:S321.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Van Hunsel F, Härmark L, Pal S, Olsson S, Van Grotheest K. Experiences with adverse drug reaction reporting by patients: an 11-country survey. Drug Saf. 2012;35(1):45–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Basch E. The missing voice of patients in drug-safety reporting. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(10):865–9.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Van Hunsel F, Talsma A, Van Puijenbroek E, De Jong-Van den Berg L, Van Grootheest K. The proportion of patient reports of suspected ADRs to signal detection in the Netherlands: case–control study. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2011;20(3):286–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hazell L, Cornelius V, Shakir S, Avery AJ. Patient reporting of adverse drug reactions in the UK: potential signals generated by patients compared to healthcare professionals [poster abstract no. 227]. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2010;19(Suppl. 1):S97–8.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hazell L, Cornelius V, Hannaford P, Shakir S, Avery AJ. How do patients contribute to signal detection? Drug Saf. 2013;36(3):199–206.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    White RW, Tatonetti NP, Shah NH, Altman RB, Horvitz E. Web-scale pharmacovigilance: listening to signals from the crowd. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2013;20(3):404–8.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Banerjee AK, Okun S, Edwards IR, Wicks P, Smith M, Mayall S, Flamion B, Cleland C, Basch E. Patient-reported outcome measures in safety event reporting—PROSPER consortium guidance. Drug Saf. 2013;36:1129–49.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Van Hunsel F, Van der Welle C, Passier A, Van Puijenbroek E, Van Grootheest K. Motives for reporting adverse drug reactions by patient-reporters in the Netherlands. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2010;66(11):1143–50.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Van Hunsel F, Ten Berge EA, Borgsteede SD, Van Grootheest K. What motivates patients to report an adverse drug reaction? Ann Pharmacother. 2010;44(5):936–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Anderson C, Krska J, Murphy E, Avery A. The importance of direct patient reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions: a patient perspective. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2011;72(5):806–22.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
  21. 21.
    Hoffmann E, Fouretier A, Vergne C, Bertram D. Pharmacovigilance regulatory requirements in Latin America. Pharm Med. 2012;26:1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Isah AO, Pal SN, Olsson S, Dodoo A, Bencheikh RS. Specific features of medicines safety and pharmacovigilance in Africa. Ther Adv Drug Saf. 2012;3(1):25–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
  24. 24.
    The Erice declaration: the critical role of communication in drug safety. Hugman B Drug Saf. 2006;29(1):91–3.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Avery AJ, Anderson C, Bond CM, et al. Evaluation of patient reporting of adverse drug reactions to the UK ‘Yellow Card Scheme’: literature review, descriptive and qualitative analyses, and questionnaire surveys. Health Technol Assess. 2011;15(20):1–234, iii–iv.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Robertson J, Newby DA. Low awareness of adverse drug reaction reporting systems: a consumer survey. Med J Aust. 2013;199(10):684–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Irish Medicines Board. Tract “Medicines and side effects”. http://www.imb.ie/images/uploaded/documents/SideEffects.pdf. Accessed 3 Nov 2013.
  28. 28.
    9th Call for Proposals 2013—Innovative Medicines Initiative—IMI/DORA_2013-03180. http://www.imi.europa.eu. Accessed 29 Oct 2013.
  29. 29.
    Singh A, Bhatt P. Comparative evaluation of adverse drug reaction reporting forms for introduction of a spontaneous generic ADR form. J Pharmacol Pharmacother. 2012;3(3):228–32.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Olsson S, Pal SN, Stergachis A, Couper M. Pharmacovigilance activities in 55 low- and middle-income countries: a questionnaire-based analysis. Drug Saf. 2010;33(8):689–703.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Chiahemen T. Interview: how NAFDAC checkmates adverse drug reaction with PRASCOR—Mrs. Osakwe. National Accord Newspaper; 2013.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Délégation à la Recherche Clinique et à l’InnovationHospices Civils de LyonLyon Cedex 02France

Personalised recommendations