Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Completeness of Spontaneous Adverse Drug Reaction Reports Sent by General Practitioners to a Regional Pharmacovigilance Centre: A Descriptive Study

  • Short Communication
  • Published:
Drug Safety Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) remains the cornerstone of postmarketing drug safety surveillance (pharmacovigilance); however, one of its main limitations is incomplete data, thus limiting conclusions about causality assessment.

Objective

The primary aim of this study was to assess the completeness of ADR reports sent by general practitioners (GPs) to regional pharmacovigilance centres and the secondary objective was to identify factors associated with complete ADR reports.

Methods

All ADR reports sent by GPs to the Midi-Pyrénées Regional Pharmacovigilance Center (Toulouse, France) from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2013 were reviewed. Healthcare professionals and patients can forward an ADR using either an online form through the Pharmacology Information Bulletin website (http://www.bip31.fr) or ‘traditional’ ADR reports (i.e. email, letter or fax). According to information provided in ADR reports (i.e. patient identification, ADR, date of occurrence, clinical description, drugs, etc.), reports were classified into three groups: ‘well-documented’, ‘slightly documented’ or ‘poorly documented’. A multivariate logistic regression was performed to investigate potential factors associated with a ‘well-documented’ ADR report.

Results

During the study period, 613 ADR reports were analysed. Among these reports, only 12.7 % were classified as ‘well-documented’, 68.5 % as ‘slightly documented’ and 18.8 % as ‘poorly documented’. An association between a ‘well-documented’ ADR report and its ‘seriousness’ was found (odds ratio = 1.70 [95 % CI 1.04–2.76], p = 0.01). No association between report completeness (‘well-documented’ report) and GP practice location or mode of ADR reporting was found.

Conclusions

The study shows that only one out of eight ADR reports from GPs was ‘well-documented’. Therefore, it appears to be important to promote further information being available regarding the data required in ADR reports to optimise the evaluation of drug causality.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Hazell L, Shakir SA. Under-reporting of adverse drug reactions. Drug Saf. 2006;29:385–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Olivier P, Montastruc J-L. The nature of the scientific evidence leading to drug withdrawals for pharmacovigilance reasons in France. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2006;15:808–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Edwards IR, Aronson JK. Adverse drug reactions: definitions, diagnosis, and management. Lancet. 2000;356:1255–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kelly W, Arellano F, Barnes J, Bergman U, Edwards R, Fernandez A, et al. International Society of Pharmacoepidemiology; International Society of Pharmacovigilance. Guidelines for submitting adverse event reports for publication. Thérapie. 2009;64:289–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. FDA. Guidance for industry. Good pharmacovigilance practices and pharmacoepidemiologic assessment. US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CBER), March 2005. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM126834.pdf. Accessed Aug 2016.

  6. Brajovic S, Piazza-Hepp T, Swartz L, Dal Pan G. Quality assessment of spontaneous triggered adverse event reports received by the Food and Drug Administration. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2012;21:565–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bergvall T, Noren GN, Lindquist M. vigiGrade: a tool to identify well-documented individual case reports and highlight systematic data quality issues. Drug Saf. 2014;37:65–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products Safety. Annual report 2014. http://ansm.sante.fr/var/ansm_site/storage/original/application/ee4fa2afa64ec300a551d912ff7c0559.pdf. Accessed Aug 2016.

  9. Inman WH. Attitudes to adverse drug reaction reporting. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1996;41:434–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Herdeiro MT, Figueiras A, Polonia J, Gestal-Otero JJ. Physicians’ attitudes and adverse drug reaction reporting: a case–control study in Portugal. Drug Saf. 2005;28:825–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Gerristen R, Faddegon H, Dijkers F, van Groothest K, van Puijenbroek E. Effectiveness of Pharmacovigilance training of general practitioners: a retrospective cohort study in the Netherlands comparing two methods. Drug Saf. 2011;34:755–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Biagi C, Montanaro N, Buccellato E, Roberto G, Vaccheri A, Motola D. Underreporting in pharmacovigilance: an intervention for Italian GPs (Emilia-Romagna region). Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2013;69:237–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Gony M, Badie K, Sommet A, Jacquot J, Baudrin D, Gauthier P, et al. Improving adverse drug reaction reporting in hospitals: results of the French Pharmacovigilance in Midi-Pyrénées region (PharmacoMIP) network 2-year pilot study. Drug Saf. 2010;33:409–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Durrieu G, Jacquot J, Baudrin D, Me`ge M, Rousseau V, Bagheri H, et al. Improving adverse drug reaction reporting by general practitioners through clinical research assistants visits. The´rapie (In Press).

  15. Vial T. French pharmacovigilance: missions, organization and perspectives. Thérapie. 2016;71:135–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Lafond J. Pharmacovigilance implemented by patients: a necessity in the 21st century. Thérapie. 2016;71:245–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. La démographie médicale en région Midi-Pyrénées, Situation en 2013. http://www.conseil-national.medecin.fr/sites/default/files/midi_pyrenees_2013.pdf. Accessed 23 Feb 2016.

  18. EMA. Guideline on good pharmacovigilance practices (GVP). Module VI. Management and reporting of adverse reactions to medicinal products. 8 September 2014. EMA/873138/2011 Rev 1. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2014/09/WC500172402.pdf. Accessed Aug 2016.

  19. Abadie D, Chebane L, Bert M, Durrieu G, Montastruc JL. Online reporting of adverse drug reactions: a study from a French regional pharmacovigilance center. Thérapie. 2014;69:395–400.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Linquist M. Seeing and observing in international pharmacovigilance - achievements and prospects in worldwide drug safety. Nijmegen: University of Nijmegen; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Sanchez-Sanchez B, Altagracia-Martinez M, Kravzov-Jinich J, Moreno-Bonett C, Vazquez-Moreno E, Martinez-Nunez JM. Evaluation of completeness of suspected adverse drug reaction reports submitted to the Mexican National Pharmacovigilance Centre: a cross-sectional period-prevalence study. Drug Saf. 2012;35:837–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Montastruc F, Sommet A, Bondon-Guitton E, Durrieu G, Bui E, Bagheri H, et al. The importance of drug-drug interactions as a cause of adverse drug reactions: a pharmacovigilance study of serotoninergic reuptake inhibitors in France. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2012;68:767–75.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Bénard-Laribière A, Miremont-Salamé G, Pérault-Pochat MC, Noize P. Haramburu F; EMIR Study Group on behalf of the French network of pharmacovigilance centres. Incidence of hospital admissions due to adverse drug reactions in France: the EMIR study. Fundam Clin Pharmacol. 2015;29:106–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Pirmohamed M, James S, Meakin S, Green C, Scott AK, Walley J, et al. Adverse drug reactions as cause of admission to hospital: prospective analysis of 18,820 patients. BMJ. 2004;329:15–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Biron P. Les maladies médicamenteuses, ces oubliées du cursus des études médicales. Médecine. 2014;10:244–6.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Moore JM, Furberg CD, Mattison, Cohen MR. Completeness of serious adverse drug event reports received by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2014. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2016;25:713–8.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Service de Pharmacologie Médicale et Clinique, Laboratoire de Pharmacologie Médicale et Clinique, Centre Midi-Pyrénées de PharmacoVigilance, de Pharmacoépidémiologie et d’Informations sur les Médicaments, Pharmacopôle Midi-Pyrénées, INSERM UMR 1027, CIC INSERM 1436, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire et Faculté de Médecine de l’Université de Toulouse, 37 Allées Jules Guesde, 31000, Toulouse, France

    Geneviève Durrieu, Julien Jacquot, Mathilde Mège, Emmanuelle Bondon-Guitton, Vanessa Rousseau, François Montastruc & Jean-Louis Montastruc

Authors
  1. Geneviève Durrieu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Julien Jacquot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mathilde Mège
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Emmanuelle Bondon-Guitton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Vanessa Rousseau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. François Montastruc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jean-Louis Montastruc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Geneviève Durrieu.

Ethics declarations

Funding

No funding was received for this study.

Conflict of interest

Geneviève Durrieu, Julien Jacquot, Mathilde Mège, Emmanuelle Bondon-Guitton, Vanessa Rousseau, François Montastruc and Jean-Louis Montastruc have no conflicts of interest.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 357 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (PDF 303 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Durrieu, G., Jacquot, J., Mège, M. et al. Completeness of Spontaneous Adverse Drug Reaction Reports Sent by General Practitioners to a Regional Pharmacovigilance Centre: A Descriptive Study. Drug Saf 39, 1189–1195 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-016-0463-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-016-0463-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation