European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

, Volume 74, Issue 4, pp 497–504 | Cite as

Adverse drug reaction reporting: how can drug consumption information add to analyses using spontaneous reports?

  • Kristian SvendsenEmail author
  • Kjell H. Halvorsen
  • Solveig Vorren
  • Hilde Samdal
  • Beate Garcia
Pharmacoepidemiology and Prescription



Spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) is a cornerstone in pharmacovigilance. However, information about the underlying consumption of drugs is rarely used when analysing spontaneous reports. The purpose of this study was to combine ADR reports with drug consumption data to demonstrate the additional information this gives in various scenarios, comparing different drugs, gender-stratified sub-populations and changes in reporting over time.


We combined all Norwegian ADR reports in 2004–2013 from the EudraVigilance database (n = 14.028) with dispensing data from the Norwegian Prescription Database (more than 800 million dispensed prescriptions during 2004–2013). This was done in order to calculate drug-specific consumption-adjusted adverse drug reaction reporting rates (CADRRs) by dividing the number of reports for each drug with the number of users of the drug during the same time period.


Among the ten drugs with the highest number of ADR reports and the ten drugs with the highest CADRR, only four drugs were in both categories. This indicates that drugs with a high number of reports often also have a high number of users and that CADRR captures drugs with potentially relevant safety issues but a smaller number of users. Comparing reported ADRs in females and males using methylphenidate, we found that the two groups report different ADRs. Finally, we showed that changes in ADR reporting for simvastatin and atorvastatin during 2004–2013 were due to changes in consumption and that atorvastatin had a higher CADRR but fewer reports than simvastatin.


CADRR provides additional information compared with number of reports alone in studies using spontaneous reports. It is important for researchers to adjust for consumption whenever possible in pharmacovigilance studies.


Drug consumption Pharmacovigilance Adverse drug reactions Norway EudraVigilance 


Contributions of authors

KS conceived the project and performed the analysis and first draft of paper. KH, SV and HS all contributed in the planning of the project as well as the writing of the manuscript. BH contributed in planning and writing and is the overall project manager.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

228_2017_2396_MOESM1_ESM.docx (397 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 397 kb)


  1. 1.
    European Medicines Agency (2015) 2014 Annual Report on EudraVigilance for the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission. Accessed 14 Dec 2017
  2. 2.
    Lasser KE, Allen PD, Woolhandler SJ, Himmelstein DU, Wolfe SM, Bor DH (2002) Timing of new black box warnings and withdrawals for prescription medications. JAMA 287(17):2215–2220. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    European Medicines Agency (2016) 2015 Annual Report on EudraVigilance for the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission. Accessed 14 Dec 2017
  4. 4.
    Star K, Noren GN, Nordin K, Edwards IR (2011) Suspected adverse drug reactions reported for children worldwide: an exploratory study using VigiBase. Drug Saf 34(5):415–428. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jonville-Bera AP, Saissi H, Bensouda-Grimaldi L et al (2009) Avoidability of adverse drug reactions spontaneously reported to a French regional drug monitoring centre. Drug Saf 32(5):429–440. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rolfes L, van Hunsel F, Wilkes S, van Grootheest K, van Puijenbroek E (2015) Adverse drug reaction reports of patients and healthcare professionals—differences in reported information. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 24(2):152–158. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    McDonald CJ, Kalisch Ellett LM, Barratt JD, Caughey GE (2014) A cross-country comparison of rivaroxaban spontaneous adverse event reports and concomitant medicine use with the potential to increase the risk of harm. Drug Saf 37(12):1029–1035. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Giezen TJ, Mantel-Teeuwisse AK, Meyboom RHB, Straus SMJM, Leufkens HGM, Egberts TCG (2010) Mapping the safety profile of biologicals: a disproportionality analysis using the WHO adverse drug reaction database, VigiBase. Drug Saf 33(10):865–878. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Khadem TM, van Manen RP, Brown J (2014) How safe are recently FDA-approved antimicrobials? A review of the FDA adverse event reporting system database. Pharmacotherapy 34(12):1324–1329. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tavassoli N, Lapeyre-Mestre M, Sommet A, Montastruc JL (2009) Reporting rate of adverse drug reactions to the French pharmacovigilance system with three step 2 analgesic drugs: dextropropoxyphene, tramadol and codeine (in combination with paracetamol). Br J Clin Pharmacol 68(3):422–426. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Capellà D, Pedrós C, Vidal X, Laporte J-R (2002) Case-population studies in pharmacoepidemiology. Drug Saf 25(1):7–19. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Théophile H, Laporte J-R, Moore N, Martin KL, Bégaud B (2011) The case-population study design: an analysis of its application in pharmacovigilance. Drug Saf 34(10):861–868. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Coloma PM, Schuemie MJ, Trifirò G, Gini R, Herings R, Hippisley-Cox J, Mazzaglia G, Giaquinto C, Corrao G, Pedersen L, van der Lei J, Sturkenboom M, on behalf of the EU-ADR consortium (2011) Combining electronic healthcare databases in Europe to allow for large-scale drug safety monitoring: the EU-ADR Project. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 20(1):1–11. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Edlinger D, Sauter SK, Rinner C, Neuhofer LM, Wolzt M, Grossmann W, Endel G, Gall W (2014) JADE: a tool for medical researchers to explore adverse drug events using health claims data. Appl Clin Inform 5(3):621–629. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Furu K, Wettermark B, Andersen M et al (2010) The Nordic countries as a cohort for pharmacoepidemiological research. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol 106(2):86–94. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Furu K (2008) Establishment of the nationwide Norwegian Prescription Database (NorPD)—new opportunities for research in pharmacoepidemiology in Norway. Nor J Epidemiol 18:129–136Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (2004) Regulation (EC) No 726/2004. Accessed 14 Dec 2017
  18. 18.
    European Medicines Agency (2014) Guideline on good pharmacovigilance practices (GVP) Annex I. Accessed 14 Dec 2017
  19. 19.
    MSSO MedDRA hierarchy. Accessed 14 Dec 2017
  20. 20.
    Storebø OJ, Ramstad E, Krogh HB et al (2015) Methylphenidate for children and adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Cochrane Database Syst Rev.
  21. 21.
    Sakshaug S, Furu K, Karlstad Ø, Rønning M, Skurtveit S (2007) Switching statins in Norway after new reimbursement policy: a nationwide prescription study. Br J Clin Pharmacol 64(4):476–481. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dagens Medisin (2009) Atorvastatin på blå resept igjen [Atorvastatin reimbursed again]. Accessed 14 Dec 2017
  23. 23.
    Pacurariu AC, Coloma PM, van Haren A, Genov G, Sturkenboom MCJM, Straus SMJM (2014) A description of signals during the first 18 months of the EMA pharmacovigilance risk assessment committee. Drug Saf 37(12):1059–1066. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bégaud B, Martin K, Fourrier A, Haramburu F (2002) Does age increase the risk of adverse drug reactions? Br J Clin Pharmacol 54(5):550–552CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pierfitte C, Bégaud B, Lagnaoui R, Moore ND (1999) Is reporting rate a good predictor of risks associated with drugs? Br J Clin Pharmacol 47(3):329–331CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lopez-Gonzalez E, Herdeiro MT, Figueiras A (2009) Determinants of under-reporting of adverse drug reactions: a systematic review. Drug Saf 32(1):19–31. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pariente A, Gregoire F, Fourrier-Reglat A, Haramburu F, Moore N (2007) Impact of safety alerts on measures of disproportionality in spontaneous reporting databases: the notoriety bias. Drug Saf 30(10):891–898. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hoffman KB, Demakas AR, Dimbil M, Tatonetti NP, Erdman CB (2014) Stimulated reporting: the impact of US Food and Drug Administration-issued alerts on the adverse event reporting system (FAERS). Drug Saf 37(11):971–980. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tromsø Hospital PharmacyUniversity Hospital of North NorwayTromsøNorway
  2. 2.Department of PharmacyUiT – The Arctic University of NorwayTromsøNorway
  3. 3.Regional Medicines Information and Pharmacovigilance Centre (RELIS)University Hospital of North NorwayTromsøNorway
  4. 4.Norwegian Medicines AgencyOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations