Advertisement

Drug Safety

, Volume 29, Issue 5, pp 385–396 | Cite as

Under-Reporting of Adverse Drug Reactions

A Systematic Review
Review Article

Abstract

The purpose of this review was to estimate the extent of under-reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to spontaneous reporting systems and to investigate whether there are differences between different types of ADRs. A systematic literature search was carried out to identify studies providing a numerical estimate of under-reporting. Studies were included regardless of the methodology used or the setting, e.g. hospital versus general practice. Estimates of under-reporting were either extracted directly from the published study or calculated from the study data. These were expressed as the percentage of ADRs detected from intensive data collection that were not reported to the relevant local, regional or national spontaneous reporting systems. The median under-reporting rate was calculated across all studies and within subcategories of studies using different methods or settings.

In total, 37 studies using a wide variety of surveillance methods were identified from 12 countries. These generated 43 numerical estimates of under-reporting. The median under-reporting rate across the 37 studies was 94% (interquartile range 82–98%). There was no significant difference in the median under-reporting rates calculated for general practice and hospital-based studies. Five of the ten general practice studies provided evidence of a higher median under-reporting rate for all ADRs compared with more serious or severe ADRs (95% and 80%, respectively). In comparison, for five of the eight hospital-based studies the median under-reporting rate for more serious or severe ADRs remained high (95%). The median under-reporting rate was lower for 19 studies investigating specific serious/severe ADR-drug combinations but was still high at 85%.

This systematic review provides evidence of significant and widespread under-reporting of ADRs to spontaneous reporting systems including serious or severe ADRs. Further work is required to assess the impact of under-reporting on public health decisions and the effects of initiatives to improve reporting such as internet reporting, pharmacist/nurse reporting and direct patient reporting as well as improved education and training of healthcare professionals.

Keywords

Spontaneous Reporting Selective Reporting Spontaneous Reporting System Proportional Reporting Ratio Public Health Decision 
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

Acknowledgements

The Drug Safety Research Unit (DSRU) is a registered independent charity (No. 327206) associated with the University of Portsmouth. The DSRU receives donations and grants from pharmaceutical companies; however, the companies have no control on the conduct or publication of its studies.

This systematic review was not externally funded. Lorna Hazell has no conflicts of interest with regard to this review. Dr Shakir has provided consultancies and received lecturing fees from pharmaceutical companies but none of these are related to this review.

References

  1. 1.
    Edwards I, Olsson S. WHO Programme -Global Monitoring. In: Mann RD, Andrews E, editors. Pharmacovigilance. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2002: 169–82Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Waller PC, Bahri P. Regulatory pharmacovigilance in the EU. In: Mann RD, Andrews E, editors. Pharmacovigilance. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2002: 183–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Griffin JP. Survey of spontaneous adverse drug reaction reporting schemes in fifteen different countries. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1986; 22: 83S–100SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kennedy D, Goldman S, Lillie R. Spontaneous reporting in the United States. In: Strom BL, editor. Pharmacoepidemiology. 3rd ed. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2000: 151–74Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Strom BL. Study designs available for pharmacoepidemiology studies. In: Strom BL, editor. Pharmacoepidemiology. 3rd ed. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2000: 17–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Layton D, Key C, Shakir SAW, et al. Prolongation of the QT interval and cardiac arrhythmias associated with cisapride: limitations of the pharmacoepidemiological studies conducted and proposals for the future. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2003; 12%(1): 31–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wiholm B-E, Olsson S, Moore N, Waller P. Spontaneous reporting systems outside the US. In: Strom BL, editor. Pharmacoepidemiology. 3rd ed. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2000: 175–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fourrier A, Pere JC. Measurement of frequency in pharmacovigilance. In: Arme P, editor. Methodological approaches in pharmacoepidemiology. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1993: 21–5Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Begaud B, Pere JC, Miremont G. Estimation of the denominator in spontaneous reporting. In: Arme P, editor. Methodological approaches in pharmacoepidemiology. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1993: 51–70Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Haramburu F. Estimation of underreporting. In: Arme P, editor. Methodological approaches in pharmacoepidemiology. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1993: 39–50Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Begaud B, Moride Y, Tubert-Bitter P, et al. False-positives in spontaneous reporting: should we worry about them? Br J Clin Pharmacol 1994; 38: 401–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mann RD, Andrews E, editors. Pharmacovigilance. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2002Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Strom BL, editor. Pharmacoepidemiology, 3rd ed. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2000Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Arme P, editor. Methodological approaches in pharmacoepidemiology. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1993Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Talbot J, Waller P, editors. Stephens’ detection of new adverse drug reactions. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2004Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Council for International Organizations for Medical Sciences (CIOMS) Working Group III. Guidelines for preparing core clinical-safety information on drugs. Geneva: CIOMS, 1995Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Heeley E, Riley J, Layton D, et al. Prescription-event monitoring and reporting of adverse drug reactions. Lancet 2001; 358: 1872–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lewis MA, Kuhl-Habich D, von Rosen J. Drug use and adverse event monitoring in German children. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 2001; 39: 507–12PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lacoste-Roussillon C, Pouyanne P, Haramburu F, et al. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in general practice: a prospective study. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2001; 69: 458–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Alvarez RA, Carvajal A, Begaud B, et al. Under-reporting of adverse drug reactions: estimate based on a spontaneous reporting scheme and a sentinel system. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1998; 54: 483–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Martin RM, Kapoor KV, Wilton LV, et al. Underreporting of suspected adverse drug reactions to newly marketed (“black triangle”) drugs in general practice: observational study. BMJ 1998; 317: 119–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Moride Y, Haramburu F, Requejo AA, et al. Under-reporting of adverse drug reactions in general practice. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1997; 43: 177–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Montastruc P, Damase MC, Lapeyre MM, et al. A prospective intensive study of adverse drug reactions in urban general practice. Clin Drug Invest 1995; 10: 117–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fletcher AP. Spontaneous adverse drug reaction reporting vs event monitoring: a comparison. J R Soc Med 1991; 84: 341–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lumley CE, Walker SR, Hall GC, et al. The under-reporting of adverse reactions seen in general practice. Pharm Med 1986; 1: 205–12Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Backstrom M, Mjorndal T, Dahlqvist R. Under-reporting of serious adverse drug reactions in Sweden. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2004; 13(7): 483–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pouyanne P, Haramburu F, Imbs JL, et al. Admissions to hospital caused by adverse drug reactions: a cross-sectional incidence study: French pharmacovigilance centres. BMJ 2000; 320: 1036PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Imbs J, Pouyanne P, Haramburu F, et al. Adverse drug reactions: prevalence in French public hospitals. Therapie 1999; 52: 21–7Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Smith CC, Bennett PM, Pearce HM, et al. Adverse drug reactions in a hospital general medical unit meriting notification to the Committee on Safety of Medicines. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1996; 42: 423–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Maistrello I, Morgutti M, Maltempi M, et al. Adverse drug reactions in hospitalised patients: an operational procedure to improve reporting and investigate under reporting. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 1994; 4: 101–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Chan T, Critchley J. Reporting of adverse drug reactions in relation to general medical admissions to a teaching hospital in Hong Kong. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 1994; 3: 85–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hallas J, Gram LF, Grodum E, et al. Drug related admissions to medical wards: a population based survey. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1992; 33: 61–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Classen D, Pestotnik S, Evans RS, et al. Computerised surveillance of adverse drug reactions in hospital practice. JAMA 1991; 266: 2847–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Dugue A, Bagheri H, Lapeyre-Mestre M, et al. Detection and incidence of muscular adverse drug reactions: a prospective analysis from laboratory to signals. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2004; 60: 285–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mittman N, Knowles S, Gomez M, et al. Evaluation of the extent of under-reporting of serious adverse drug reactions: the case of toxic epidermal necrolysis. Drug Saf 2004; 27: 477–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    La Grenade L, Graham DJ, Nourjah P. Underreporting of hemorrhagic stroke associated with phenylpropanolamine. JAMA 2001; 286: 3081PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bagheri H, Michel F, Lapeyre-Mestre M, et al. Detection and incidence of drug-induced liver injuries in hospital: a prospective analysis from laboratory signals. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2000; 50: 479–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Skjeldestad FE, Amundsen T, Hoibraaten E. Reporting of adverse drug reactions to the Norwegian Drug Control Agency [in Norwegian]. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 2000; 120: 336–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Pumphrey RS, Davis S. Under-reporting of antibiotic anaphylaxis may put patients at risk. Lancet 1999; 353: 1157–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kimmel SE, Sekeres MA, Berlin JA, et al. Adverse events after protamine administration in patients undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass: risks and predictors of under-reporting. J Clin Epidemiol 1998; 51: 1–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Samuelsson E, Hagg S, Backstrom M, et al. Thrombosis caused by oral contraceptives: underreporting to the adverse effects registry [in Swedish]. Lakartidningen 1996; 93: 3117–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Prevots DR, Sutter RW, Strebel PM, et al. Completeness of reporting for paralytic poliomyelitis, United States, 1980 through 1991: implications for estimating the risk of vaccineassociated disease. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1994; 148: 479–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Arneborn P, Palmbled J. Drug-induced neutropenia a survey for Stockholm 1973-1978. Acta Med Scand 1982; 212: 289–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Bottiger M, Romanus V, de Verdier C, et al. Osteitis and other complications caused by generalised BCGitis: experience in Sweden. Acta Paediatr Scand 1982; 71: 471–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Inman W-HW. Study of fatal bone marrow depression with special reference to phenylbutazone and oxyphenbutazone. BMJ 1977; 1: 1500–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Bottiger L, Westerholm B. Drug-induced blood dyscrasias in Sweden. BMJ 1973; 3: 339–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Inman W-HW, Vessey MP. Investigation of deaths from pulmonary, coronary and cerebral thrombosis and embolism in women of childbearing age. BMJ 1968; 2: 193–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    in’T Veld BA, van der Linden PD, Feenstra J, et al. The function of a reporting system for suspected adverse drug reactions as risk indicator for Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis. Tijdschr Geneeskd 2000; 56: 1258–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Farrington P, Pugh S, Colville A, et al. A new method for active surveillance of adverse events from diphtheria/tetanus/pertussis and measles/mumps/rubella vaccines. Lancet 1995; 345: 567–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Begaud B, Chaslerie A, Haramburu F. Organization and results of drug vigilance in France [in French]. Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique 1994; 42: 416–23PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Torello IJ, Castillo F, Lainez MM, et al. Adverse reactions to drugs reported by the primary care physicians of Andalusia: analysis of underreporting. Aten Primaria 1994; 13: 307–11Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Rawlins MD. Spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions: the data. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1988; 26: 1–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Inman W-HW, Adelstein AM. Rise and fall of asthma mortality in England and Wales in relation to pressurized aerosols. Lancet 1969; II: 279–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Belton KJ. Attitude survey of adverse drug-reaction reporting by health care professionals across the European Union. The European Pharmacovigilance Research Group. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1997; 52: 423–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Eland IA, Belton KJ, van Grootheest AC, et al. Attitudinal survey of voluntary reporting of adverse drug reactions. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1999; 48: 623–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Bateman DN, Sanders GLS, Rawlins MD. Attitudes to adverse drug reaction reporting in the Northern Region. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1992; 34: 421–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Pierfitte C, Begaud B, Lagnaoui R, et al. Is reporting rate a good predictor of risks associated with drugs? Br J Clin Pharmacol 1999; 47: 329–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Evans SJW, Waller PC, Davis S. Use of proportional reporting ratios (PRRs) for signal generation from spontaneous adverse drug reaction reports. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2001; 10: 483–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Begaud B, Tubert P, Haramburu F, et al. Comparing toxicity of drugs: use and misuse of spontaneous reporting. Post Marketing Surveillance 1991; 5(1): 69–76Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Tubert-Bitter P, Begaud B, Moride Y, et al. Comparing the toxicity of two drugs in the framework of spontaneous reporting: a confidence interval approach. J Clin Epidemiol 1996; 49(1): 121–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Van der Heijden PGM, Van Puijenbrock EP, Van Buuren S, et al. On the assessment of adverse drug reactions from spontaneous reporting systems: the influence of under-reporting on odds ratios. Stat Med 2002; 21: 2027–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Rogers AS, Israel E, Smith CR, et al. Physician knowledge, attitudes, and behavior related to reporting adverse drug events. Arch Intern Med 1988; 148: 1596–600PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Scott H, Rosenbaum S, Waters W, et al. Rhode Island physicians’ recognition and reporting of adverse drug reactions. R I Med J 1987; 70: 311–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Hasford J, Goettler M, Munter KH, et al. Physicians’ knowledge and attitudes regarding the spontaneous reporting system for adverse drug reactions. J Clin Epidemiol 2002; 55: 945–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Williams D, Feely J. Underreporting of adverse drug reactions: attitudes of Irish doctors. Ir J Med Sci 1999; 168: 257–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Backstrom M, Mjorndal T, Dahlqvist R, et al. Attitudes to reporting adverse drug reactions in northern Sweden. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2000; 56: 729–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Herdeiro MT, Figueiras A, Polonia J, et al. Physicians’ attitudes and adverse drug reaction reporting: a case-control study in Portugal. Drug Saf 2005; 28(9): 825–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    MCA launches web version of yellow card scheme. Pharmaceutical J 2002; 269: 631Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Green CF, Mottram DR, Rowe PH, et al. Adverse drug reaction monitoring by United Kingdom hospital pharmacy departments: impact of the introduction of ‘yellow card’ reporting for pharmacists. Int J Pharm Pract 1999; 7: 238–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Backstrom M, Mjorndal T, Dahlqvist R. Spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions by nurses. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2002; 11: 647–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Cox A, Marriott J, Wilson K, et al. Adverse drug reaction teaching in UK undergraduate medical and pharmacy programmes. J Clin Pharm Ther 2004; 29: 31–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Centre for Pharmacy Postgraduate Education (CPPE). Adverse drug reactions (open learning pack) [online]. Available from URL: http://www.cppe.man.ac.uk/Bookings/opendetails.asp?.topicID=ADR%2DD%2D02 [Accessed 2004 Aug 18]Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Encheva D. Spontaneous reporting and continuing medical education. Uppsala Reports No. 25 April 2004 p10-11 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.who-umc.org/pdfs/UR25.pdf. WHO Uppsala Monitoring Centre, Sweden
  74. 74.
    Clarke A, Deeks J, Shakir S. An assessment of the publicly disseminated evidence of safety used in decisions to withdraw medicinal products from the UK and US markets. Drug Saf 2006; 29: 175–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Drug Safety Research UnitBursledon HallSouthamptonUK
  2. 2.University of PortsmouthPortsmouthUK

Personalised recommendations