Drug Safety

, Volume 39, Issue 10, pp 883–890 | Cite as

Patient-Reported Safety Information: A Renaissance of Pharmacovigilance?

  • Linda Härmark
  • June Raine
  • Hubert Leufkens
  • I. Ralph Edwards
  • Ugo Moretti
  • Viola Macolic Sarinic
  • Agnes Kant
Current Opinion

Abstract

The role of patients as key contributors in pharmacovigilance was acknowledged in the new EU pharmacovigilance legislation. This contains several efforts to increase the involvement of the general public, including making patient adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting systems mandatory. Three years have passed since the legislation was introduced and the key question is: does pharmacovigilance yet make optimal use of patient-reported safety information? Independent research has shown beyond doubt that patients make an important contribution to pharmacovigilance signal detection. Patient reports provide first-hand information about the suspected ADR and the circumstances under which it occurred, including medication errors, quality failures, and ‘near misses’. Patient-reported safety information leads to a better understanding of the patient’s experiences of the ADR. Patients are better at explaining the nature, personal significance and consequences of ADRs than healthcare professionals’ reports on similar associations and they give more detailed information regarding quality of life including psychological effects and effects on everyday tasks. Current methods used in pharmacovigilance need to optimise use of the information reported from patients. To make the most of information from patients, the systems we use for collecting, coding and recording patient-reported information and the methodologies applied for signal detection and assessment need to be further developed, such as a patient-specific form, development of a severity grading and evolution of the database structure and the signal detection methods applied. It is time for a renaissance of pharmacovigilance.

References

  1. 1.
    The Erice Manifesto. for global reform of the safety of medicines in patient care. Drug Saf. 2007;30:187–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Directive 2010/84/EU. Official Journal of the European Union 2010; L. 348-74-99.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Regulation 1235/2010. Official Journal of the European Union 2010; L. 348-1-16.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    CIOMS Working group VIII. Practical aspects of signal detection in pharmacovigilanc: report of CIOMS Working group VIII. Geneva: CIOMS; 2010.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    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;20:286–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hazell L, Cornelius V, Hannaford P, Shakir S, Avery AJ. How do patients contribute to signal detection?: a retrospective analysis of spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions in the UK’s Yellow Card Scheme. Drug Saf. 2013;36:199–206.CrossRefPubMedGoogle 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;63:148–56.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Medawar C, Herxheimer A. A comparision of adverse drug reaction reports from professionals and users, relating to risk of dependence and suicidal behaviour with paroxetine. Int J Risk Saf Med. 2004;16:5–19.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Avery AJ, Anderson C, Bond CM, Fortnum H, Gifford A, Hannaford PC, Hazell L, Krska J, Lee AJ, McLernon DJ, 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;15:1–iv.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rolfes L, van Hunsel F, Wilkes S, van Grootheest K, van Puijenbroek E. Adverse drug reaction reports of patients and healthcare professionals-differences in reported information. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2015;24:152–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    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;31:515–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Danish Health and medicines Authority. Adverse Drug Reactions reported by consumers in Denmark compared with reports from Healthcare Professionals. 2013. https://laegemiddelstyrelsen.dk/~/media/B71CB7AF2879471ABE9DCF23BF853B18.ashx. Accessed 20 June 2016.
  13. 13.
    de Graaf L, van Puijenbroek EP. Serotonin reuptake inhibitors and shocklike paresthesia. J Clin Psychiatry. 2003;64:969–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Frost L, Lal S. Shock-like sensations after discontinuation of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Am J Psychiatry. 1995;152:810.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb. Serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and Shocklike Paraesthesia. 2002. http://www.lareb.nl/Signalen/kwb_2002_2_ssris. Accessed 21 Jan 2016.
  16. 16.
    Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb. Duloxetine and Electric Shock Sensations. 2011. http://www.lareb.nl/Signalen/kwb_2011_2_dulox. Accessed 21 Jan 2016.
  17. 17.
    Kennedy SH, Rizvi S. Sexual dysfunction, depression, and the impact of antidepressants. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2009;29:157–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ekhart CG, van Puijenbroek EP. Does sexual dysfunction persist upon discontinuation of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors? Tijdschr Psychiatr. 2014;56:336–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb. SSRIs and aggression. 2009. http://www.lareb.nl/Signalen/kwb_2009_3_ssris. Accessed 21 Jan 2016.
  20. 20.
    Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb. SSRI’s and aggression an update. 2014. http://www.lareb.nl/Signalen/KWB_2014_2_SSRI. Accessed 21 Jan 2016.
  21. 21.
    Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb. Overview of reports of adverse drug reactions associated with changes of the package of Thyrax (levothroxine) from a bottle to a blister. 2014. http://www.lareb.nl/Signalen/KWB_2014_4_Thyrax_bottle_2. Accessed 21 Jan 2016.
  22. 22.
    Van Hunsel F. Examples of the role of patient reports in safety signals. 2015. http://www.lareb.nl/whocc/Conference-on-Patient-Reporting. Accessed 21 Jan 2016.
  23. 23.
    Raine JM. The role of patients in pharmacovigilance. 2015. http://www.lareb.nl/whocc/Conference-on-Patient-Reporting. Accessed 21 Jan 2016.
  24. 24.
    Matos C, Härmark L, van Hunsel FPAM. Sharing knowledge on patient reporting of adverse drug reactions. Drug Saf. 2016 (Submitted).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Medawar C, Herxheimer A, Bell A, Jofre S. Paroxetine, panorama and user reporting of ADRs: consumer intelligence matters in clinical practice and post-marketing drug surveillance. Int J Risk Saf Med. 2002;15:161–9.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Frankenfeld C. “Serious” and “severe” adverse drug reactions need defining. BMJ. 2004;329:573.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    van Hunsel F, Passier A, van Grootheest K. Comparing patients’ and healthcare professionals’ ADR reports after media attention: the broadcast of a Dutch television programme about the benefits and risks of statins as an example. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2009;67:558–64.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    CIOMS. International reporting of adverse drug reactions. CIOMS working group report. Geneva: World Health Organisation; 1987.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    MedDRA® and MSSO. http://www.meddramsso.com/MSSOWeb/index.htm. Accessed 21 Jan 2016.
  30. 30.
    Dueck AC, Mendoza TR, Mitchell SA, Reeve BB, Castro KM, Rogak LJ, Atkinson TM, Bennett AV, Denicoff AM, O’Mara AM, et al. Validity and Reliability of the US National Cancer Institute’s Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). JAMA Oncol. 2015;1:1051–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Aagaard L, Nielsen LH, Hansen EH. Consumer reporting of adverse drug reactions: a retrospective analysis of the Danish adverse drug reaction database from 2004 to 2006. Drug Saf. 2009;32:1067–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Inch J, Watson MC, Anakwe-Umeh S. Patient versus healthcare professional spontaneous adverse drug reaction reporting: a systematic review. Drug Saf. 2012;35:807–18.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Caster O, Juhlin K, Watson S, Noren GN. Improved statistical signal detection in pharmacovigilance by combining multiple strength-of-evidence aspects in vigiRank. Drug Saf. 2014;37:617–28.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    FDA. FAERS reporting by Heathcare Providers and Consumers by Year. FDA. 2015. http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Surveillance/AdverseDrugEffects/ucm070456.htm. Accessed 21 Jan 2016.
  35. 35.
  36. 36.
    Härmark L, van Hunsel F, Grundmark B. ADR reporting by the general public: lessons learnt from the Dutch and Swedish systems. Drug Saf. 2015;38:337–47.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ghosh R, Lewis D. Aims and approaches of Web-RADR: a consortium ensuring reliable ADR reporting via mobile devices and new insights from social media. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2015;14:1845–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Bahk CY, Goshgarian M, Donahue K, Freifeld CC, Menone CM, Pierce CE, Rodriguez H, Brownstein JS, Furberg R, Dasgupta N. Increasing patient engagement in pharmacovigilance through online community outreach and mobile reporting applications: an analysis of adverse event reporting for the Essure device in the US. Pharm Med. 2015;29:331–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Consumentenbond. Ziek van de pillen. Consumentengids. 2014;5:16–9.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Robertson J, Newby DA. Low awareness of adverse drug reaction reporting systems: a consumer survey. Med J Aust. 2013;199:684–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Härmark L, van Hunsel F, Hak E, van Grootheest K. Monitoring the safety of influenza A (H1N1) vaccine using web-based intensive monitoring. Vaccine. 2011;29:1941–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Härmark L, Puijenbroek E, Grootheest K. Longitudinal monitoring of the safety of drugs by using a web-based system: the case of pregabalin. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2011;20:591–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Oosterhuis I, Härmark L, van Puijenbroek E. Experiences with the use of varenicline in daily practice in the Netherlands: a prospective, observational cohort study. Drug Saf. 2014;37:449–57.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    van Balveren-Slingerland L, Kant A, Härmark L. Web-based intensive monitoring of adverse events following influenza vaccination in general practice. Vaccine. 2015;33:2283–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Härmark L, Van Puijenbroek E, van Grootheest K. Intensive Monitoring of duloxetine, results from a web-based intensive monitoring study. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2013;69:209–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Härmark L, van Puijenbroek E, Straus S, van Grootheest K. Intensive Monitoring of pregabalin, results from an observational, web-based, prospective cohort study using patients as a source of information. Drug Saf. 2011;34:221–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    de Jong L, Härmark L, van Puijenbroek E. Time course, outcome and management of adverse drug reactions associated with metformin from patient’s perspective: a prospective, observational cohort study in the Netherlands. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2016;72:615–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Fox S. The social life of health information. 2011. http://www.pewinternet.org/2011/05/12/the-social-life-of-health-information-2011/. Accessed 21 Jan 2016.
  49. 49.
    Freifeld CC, Brownstein JS, Menone CM, Bao W, Filice R, Kass-Hout T, Dasgupta N. Digital drug safety surveillance: monitoring pharmaceutical products in twitter. Drug Saf. 2014;37:343–50.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Sloane R, Osanlou O, Lewis D, Bollegala D, Maskell S, Pirmohamed M. Social media and pharmacovigilance: a review of the opportunities and challenges. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2015;80:910–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Sarker A, Ginn R, Nikfarjam A, O’Connor K, Smith K, Jayaraman S, Upadhaya T, Gonzalez G. Utilizing social media data for pharmacovigilance: a review. J Biomed Inform. 2015;54:202–12.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Powell GE, Seifert HA, Reblin T, Burstein PJ, Blowers J, Menius JA, Painter JL, Thomas M, Pierce CE, Rodriguez HW, et al. Social media listening for routine post-marketing safety surveillance. Drug Saf. 2016;39:443–54.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    EMA. European database of suspected adverse reaction reports. EMA. 2015. http://www.adrreports.eu/. Accessed 22 Jan 2016.
  54. 54.
    UMC. VigiAccess. 2015. http://www.vigiaccess.org/. Accessed 21 Jan 2016.
  55. 55.
    Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb. 2015. http://www.lareb.nl. Accessed 21 Jan 2016.
  56. 56.
    European Patients’ Academy on Therapeutic Innovation (EUPATI), 2016. https://www.eupati.eu/what-is-eupati/. Accessed 20 June 2016.
  57. 57.
  58. 58.
    The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). 2016. http://www.pcori.org/. Accessed 20 June 2016.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb, WHO Collaborating Center for Pharmacovigilance in Education and Patient Reporting‘s-HertogenboschThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory AgencyLondonUK
  3. 3.Medicines Evaluation BoardUtrechtThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Uppsala Monitoring CentreUppsalaSweden
  5. 5.Department of Diagnostics and Public HealthUniversity of VeronaVeronaItaly
  6. 6.HalmedZagrebCroatia

Personalised recommendations