Background: In the UK, spontaneous reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) by healthcare professionals has been in operation since 1964 through the Yellow Card Scheme (YCS). From 2005, patients themselves have been able to submit Yellow Card reports.
Objective: To compare patient characteristics, suspected drugs and suspected ADRs reported by patients with those reported by healthcare professionals using the YCS.
Design and Setting: Retrospective observational study in the UK.
Methods: Participants were patients reported to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), either by themselves, a representative or a healthcare professional, as having one or more suspected ADRs between October 2005 and September 2007. The main outcome measures were ADRs and time taken to report.
Results: In total, 26 129 Yellow Card reports from patients and healthcare professionals were received from the MHRA for the 2-year study period (19.8% patient and 80.2% healthcare professional). More Yellow Card reports were made for female than male patients (p < 0.001). Patients reported a significantly higher number of suspected ADRs per report than healthcare professionals (median [interquartile range IQR] of 3 [2–5] vs 2 [1–3], respectively; p<0.001). A higher proportion of patient reports (16.1%) contained more than one suspect drug than healthcare professional reports (9%; p < 0.001). Healthcare professional reports had a higher proportion of ADRs that caused hospitalization (18.8% vs 12.9%), were life threatening (11.1% vs 6.2%) or caused death (2.6% vs 0.7%) than patient reports (all p<0.001). Patient reporters took a significantly longer time to report their reaction than healthcare professionals (median [IQR] of 104 [27–463] vs 28 [13–75] days respectively; p<0.001). Direct comparisons of the seriousness of the ADRs were not possible because of important differences between patient and healthcare professional versions of the Yellow Cards.
Conclusions: This is the first substantial, published study in the UK to compare Yellow Card reports from patients and healthcare professionals. Whilst patients report more suspected ADRs to more suspect drugs than healthcare professionals, healthcare professionals tend to report more serious reactions that result in hospitalization, are life threatening or cause death. Further research is required to investigate the extent to which the extra information from patient reporters contributes to signal identification when assessing drug safety.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Metters J. Report of an independent review of access to the Yellow Card Scheme. London: The Stationery Office, 2004
van Grootheest K, de Graaf L, de Jong-van den Berg LTW. Consumer adverse drug reaction reporting: a new step in pharmacovigilance? Drug Saf 2003; 26(4): 211–7
Blenkinsopp A, Wilkie P, Wang M, et al. Patient reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions: a review of published literature and international experience. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2006; 63(2): 148–56
Anonymous. UK call for patient ADR reporting. Script 2001; 2634: 4
World Health Organisation (WHO). Consumer reporting of adverse drug reactions. WHO Drug Inf 2000; 14(4): 211–5
Hazell L, Shakir SAW. Under-reporting of adverse drug reactions: a systematic review. Drug Saf 2006; 29(5): 385–96
McGettigan P, Golden J, Conroy RM, et al. Reporting of adverse drug reactions by hospital doctors and the response to intervention. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1997; 44(1): 98–100
Hammond IW, Rich D. Consumers usurp spontaneous adverse event reporting in the United States. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2005; 14: S8–9
Health Action International. Patients’ reporting of adverse reactions: outcomes of a seminar organised by Health Action International Europe, 26 May 2005 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.haiweb.org/docs2005/final_report.doc [Accessed 2010 Feb 23]
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(11): 1067–74
Herxheimer A, Crombag R, Alves TL. Direct patient reporting of adverse drug reactions: a fifteen-country survey and literature review. HAI briefing paper [online]. Accessed from URL: http://www.haiweb.org/10052010/10_May_2010_Report_Direct_Patient_Reporting_of_ADRs.pdf [Accessed 2010 Jun 30]
de Langen J, van Hunsel F, Passier A, et al. Adverse drug reaction reporting by patients in the Netherlands: three years of experience. Drug Saf 2008; 31(6): 515–24
Elkins-Daukes S, Irvine D, Wise L, et al. The Yellow Card Scheme: evaluation of patient reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions [abstract]. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2006; 15: S105
Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, British Medical Association. British national formulary no. 57. London: British Medical Association and Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, 2009
Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). Download reporting forms and promotional material for the Yellow Card Scheme [online]. Available from URL: http://www.mhra.gov.uk/Safetyinformation/Reportingsafetyproblems/Medicines/Reportingsuspectedadversedrugreactions/Downloadreportingformsandpromotionalmaterial/index.htm [Accessed 2009 Apr 24]
Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). What happens to a yellow card [online]. Available from URL: http://www.mhra.gov.uk/Safetyinformation/Howwemonitorthesafetyofproducts/Medicines/TheYellowCardScheme/WhathappenstoaYellowCard/index.htm [Accessed 2009 Apr 24]
Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). Evaluation of patient reporting to the yellow card system [online]. Available from URL: http://www.mhra.gov.uk/home/idcplg?IdcService=GET_FILE&dDocName=CON2023599&RevisionSelectionMethod=Latest [Accessed 2010 Feb 23]
House of Commons Health Committee. The influence of the pharmaceutical industry. Fourth report of session 2004–5. London: The Stationery Office, 2005 Apr
Yellow Card Scheme —MHRA [online]. Accessed from URL: http://yellowcard.mhra.gov.uk// [Accessed 2010 Jun 1]
Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). Patient reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions [online]. Available from URL: http://www.mhra.gov.uk/Safetyinformation/Reportingsafetyproblems/Medicines/Reportingsuspectedadversedrugreactions/Patientreporting/index.htm [Accessed 2010 Feb 18]
Brown EG, Wood L, Wood S. The medical dictionary for regulatory activities (MedDRA). Drug Saf 1999; 20: 109–17
World Health Organisation (WHO). The Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System with Defined Daily Doses (ATC/DDD) [online]. Accessed from URL: http://www.who.int/classifications/atcddd/en/ [Accessed 2009 Apr 24]
Perry BA, Turner LW. A prediction model for polypharmacy: are older, educated women more susceptible to an adverse drug event? J Women Aging 2001; 13(4): 39–51
Davies EC, Green CF, Taylor S, et al. Adverse drug reactions in hospital in-patients: a prospective analysis of 3695 patient-episodes. PLoS ONE 2009; 4(2): e4439
Zopf Y, Rabe C, Neubert A, et al. Women encounter ADRs more often than do men. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2008; 64: 999–1004
Egberts TCG, Smulders M, de Koning FHP, et al. Can adverse drug reactions be detected earlier? A comparison of reports by patients and professionals. BMJ 1996; 313: 530–1
Foster JM, van der Molen T, de Jong L-van den Berg L. Patient-reporting of side effects may provide an important source of information in clinical practice. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2007; 63: 979–80
Jarernsiripornkul N, Krska J, Richards RME, et al. Patient reporting of adverse drug reactions: useful information for pain management? Eur J Pain 2003; 7: 219–24
Basch E. The missing voice of patients in drug-safety reporting. N Engl J Med 2010; 362: 865–9
Waller PC. Making the most of spontaneous adverse drug reaction reporting. Pharmacol Toxicol 2006; 98: 320–3
The Yellow Card Study Collaboration also includes Heather Fortnum, Alison Gifford, Janet Krska, Elizabeth Murphy, Tim Payne and Saad Shakir. Thanks to the Yellow Card Study Collaboration Advisory Group for their feedback. Thanks to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency for providing us with their data and assisting with any queries.
D.J. McLernon conducted the statistical analyses, drafted and finalized the paper. He is the guarantor for the paper. A.J. Lee, P.C. Hannaford, C.M. Bond, M.C. Watson and A. Avery contributed to and oversaw the design and conduct of the study, and contributed to the writing of the paper. L. Hazell prepared and coded the database, and contributed to the writing of the paper. All authors had full access to all of the data and can take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
This research was supported by the UK National Health Service Research & Development Programme Health Technology Assessment Programme (project number 06/92/03).
About this article
Cite this article
McLernon, D.J., Bond, C.M., Hannaford, P.C. et al. Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting in the UK. Drug-Safety 33, 775–788 (2010). https://doi.org/10.2165/11536510-000000000-00000
- Healthcare Professional
- Adverse Drug Reaction
- Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting
- Suspect Drug
- System Organ Class