International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy

, Volume 36, Issue 2, pp 295–302 | Cite as

Adverse drug reactions in children reported by European consumers from 2007 to 2011

  • Lise AagaardEmail author
  • Ebba Holme Hansen
Research Article


Background Information about medicines safety in children is very limited. Consumer adverse drug reaction (ADR) reports can provide information about serious and unknown ADRs from medicine use in children. Objective To characterize ADRs in children reported by consumers in Europe from 2007 to 2011. Methods We analysed ADRs reported to the European ADR database, EudraVigilance (EV) for individuals from birth to 17 years. Data were characterized with respect to age and sex of the child, type of ADR (system organ class and preferred term), seriousness and suspected medicines (anatomical therapeutic chemical classification system level 1 and 5). Results In total, 240 ADR reports corresponding to 670 ADRs were identified. The relatively largest share of ADRs were reported for infants below 1 year followed by teenagers, and 60 % of all ADRs were reported for girls. The majority of ADRs reported were of the general type (20 %) and nervous system disorders (15 %). The largest share of serious ADRs was of the type nervous system disorders (17 % of all serious). Three cases of death were reported. Vaccines and anti-infectives for systemic use contributed to 30 % of ADRs, antineoplastic and immunomodulating agents for 23 % and sex hormones for 13 %. Conclusion Only few paediatric ADR consumer reports were found in EudraVigilance. Many of these ADRs were serious, and fatal cases were reported, however also nonserious reports were present. The findings indicate that consumer reports may be of value in paediatric ADR signal detection.


Adverse drug reactions Children Consumers EudraVigilance Paediatrics Pharmacovigilance 



The authors would like to thank the European Medicines Agency for providing data and MSc Jesper Frederiksen and MSc Michael Due Larsen for assistance with data handling.


No external sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this study.

Conflicts of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.


  1. 1.
    Aagaard L, Christensen A, Hansen EH. Information about adverse drug reactions reported in children: a qualitative review of empirical studies. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2010;70:481–91.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Van Hunsel F, Härmark L, Pal S, Olsson S, van Groothest K. Experiences with adverse drug reaction reporting by patients: an 11-country survey. Drug Saf. 2012;35:45–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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 3 years of experience. Drug Saf. 2008;31:515–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Medawar C, Herxheimer A. A comparison of adverse drug reaction reports from professionals and users, relating to risk of dependence and suicidal behaviour with paroxytone. Int J Risk Saf Med. 2004;16:5–19.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Aagaard L, Weber CB, Hansen EH. Adverse drug reactions in the paediatric population in Denmark: a retrospective analysis of reports made to the Danish medicines agency from 1998 to 2007. Drug Saf. 2010;33:327–39.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Star K, Noren N, Nordin K, Edwards RI. Suspected adverse drug reactions reported for children worldwide: an explorative study using Vigibase. Drug Saf. 2011;34:415–28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Volume 9. Pharmacovigilance: medicinal products for human use and veterinary products. Available at (last accessed 14 July 2013).
  9. 9.
    European Medicines Agency. EudraVigilance access policy for medicines for human use. EMA/759287/2009 corr. Published 23 August 2011.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Official journal of the European communities. Regulation (EC) No. 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents. L 145/43.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    MedDRA. Available at (last accessed 14 July 2013).
  12. 12.
    WHO collaboration centre for drug statistics methodology (2007) Available at (last accessed 14 July 2013).
  13. 13.
    Kricker A, Elliott JW, Forrest JM, McCredie J. Congenital limb reduction deformities and use of oral contraceptives. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1986;155:1072–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Li DK, Daling JR, Muelle BA, Hickok DE, Fantel AG, Weiss NS. Oral contraceptive use after conception in relation to the risk of congenital urinary tract anomalies. Teratology. 1995;51:30–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Koninklijke Nederlandse Maatschappij ter bevordering der Pharmacie 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Health Sciences, Institute of Public HealthUniversity of Southern DenmarkOdenseDenmark
  2. 2.Section for Social and Clinical Pharmacy, Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Health and Medical SciencesUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations