Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of Completeness of Suspected Adverse Drug Reaction Reports Submitted to the Mexican National Pharmacovigilance Centre

A Cross-Sectional Period-Prevalence Study

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

Abstract

Background: The Mexican National Centre of Pharmacovigilance (CNFV) receives suspected adverse drug reaction (ADR) reports from the pharmaceutical industry, Federal States Centre of Pharmacovigilance (CEFV) and Healthcare Institution Centres of Pharmacovigilance (CIFV). The completeness of these suspected ADR reports is particularly important for the proper evaluation of drug safety.

Objective: The aim of the study was to evaluate the completeness of the information reported in a representative sample of suspected ADR reports submitted to the CNFV during 2007 and 2008, to evaluate the completeness of the suspected ADR reports submitted to the CNFV from different sources during these 2 years and to identify the therapeutic subgroups with the highest number of suspected ADR reports during the study years.

Methods: A cross-sectional period-prevalence study was conducted at the CNFV. Only reports of suspected ADRs submitted by the CEFV, pharmaceutical industry and CIFV during 2007 and 2008 were included in the present study (reports related to vaccines were excluded). The sample sizes to be used for each year were determined using the formula for population rate at 95% significance level. The samples for each year were randomly selected from the reports related to synthetic drugs submitted that year. The suspected ADR reports were classified according to the standing Mexican Official Norm (Norma Oficial Mexicana [NOM]) guidelines, which were used to divide the reports into four categories (0, 1, 2 and 3) based on their completeness. The seriousness of the suspected ADRs reported was also evaluated; a suspected ADR was classified as ‘non-serious’ when signs and symptoms are likely to be tolerated, ‘moderate’ when ADR is not life threatening and needs pharmacological treatment, ‘erious’ when ADR is life threatening and leads to hospitalization and ‘fatal’ when ADR contributes directly or indirectly to the patient’s death.

Results: A total sample size of 370 and 371suspected ADR reports from 2007 and 2008, respectively, were examined. Our analysis revealed that the pharmaceutical industry sent the highest number of suspected ADR reports for both years (58% and 63%, respectively). Results of the information completeness analysis by using the NOM categories showed that, in both study years, among the total suspected ADR reports about 32% (119) and 40% (148), respectively, were categorized as grade 0 (information insufficient to generate risk signals). Analyses of the seriousness of all suspected ADR reports revealed that 2% of reports were classified as fatal each year, whereas 6% and 5% were classified as serious and 25% and 29% were classified as moderate in 2007 and 2008, respectively. The therapeutic subgroups, according to the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical classification, with the highest frequencies of suspected ADR reports in both study years were sex hormones and modulators of the genital system, antibacterial for systemic use, antiepileptics and psychoanaleptics, and antihypertensives.

Conclusions: The completeness of the information provided in the suspected ADR reports submitted during the sample study years was incomplete and, in general, did not fulfil the requirements established by the NOM guidelines. Among the pharmaceutical industry, CEFV and CIFV, the suspected ADR reports were mainly provided by the pharmaceutical industry. It is necessary to improve the pharmacovigilance system in Mexico to achieve a high level of completeness of suspected ADR reports that totally fulfil the standing regulations.

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

Table I
Table II
Table III
Table IV
Table V

References

  1. Ashish K, Kuperman GJ, Rittemberg E, et al. Identifying hospital admissions due to adverse drug events using a computer based monitor. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2001; 10: 113–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Mirjam K, Rommers MK, Teepe-Twiss IM, et al. Preventing adverse drug events in hospital practice: an overview. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2007; 10: 1–7

    Google Scholar 

  3. Laporte JR, Carné X. Epidemiological basic methodology in pharmacovigilance. In: Laporte JR, Tognoni G, editors. Drug epidemiology principles. 2nd ed. Barcelona: Masson-Salvat, 1993: 111–27

    Google Scholar 

  4. Emerson A, Martin MR, Tomlin M, et al. Prospective cohort study of adverse events monitored by hospital pharmacists. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2001; 10: 95–103

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Herrera CJ, Núñez LME. Pharmacovigilance. In: Herrera CJ, editors. Handbook of clinical pharmacy and pharmaceutical care. 1st ed. Madrid: Elsevier, 2003: 283–96

    Google Scholar 

  6. World Health Organization. The importance of pharmacovigilance: safety monitoring of medical products [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ops.org.bo/textocompleto/ime18633.pdf [Accessed 2011 Feb 28]

  7. Anonymous. Pharmacovigilance in Mexico. Pharmacovigilance Bulletin 2006; 14 (4): 6

  8. Bousquet PJ, Demoly P, Romano A, et al. Pharmacovigilance of drug allergy and hypersensitivity using the ENDA-DAHD database and the GA2LEN platform. The Galenda Project. Allergy 2009; 64: 194–203

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Funmilayo O, Ajayi Sun H, Perry J. Adverse drug reactions: a review of relevant factors. J Clin Pharmacol 2000; 40: 1093–101

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gislason GH, Jacobsen S, Rasmussen JN, et al. Risk of death or reinfarction associated with the use of selective cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitors and nonselective nonsteroidal antiinflamatory drugs after acute myocardial infarction. Circulation 2007; 113: 2906–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Guha M. Anti-epileptics to get suicide warning in the EU. Scrip 2008; 13: 3425–6

    Google Scholar 

  12. Grosso A, Douglas I, Hingorani A, et al. Post-marketing assessment of the safety of strontium ranelate; a novel case-only approach to the early detection of adverse drug reactions. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2008; 66(5): 689–94

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. 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 2007; 63(2): 148–56

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Dowson B, Trapp RG. Basic and clinical biostatistics. 4th ed.: New York: McGraw-Hill, 2004: 126–58

    Google Scholar 

  15. Lachin JM. Biostatistical methods: the assessment of relative risks. 2nd ed.: Hoboken (NJ): John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2011: 85–95

    Book  Google Scholar 

  16. World Health Organization, Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology. Guidelines for ATC classification and DDD assignment 2010. Oslo: WHO, 2009

    Google Scholar 

  17. International Marketing Services-Health (IMS-Health Mexico). 2007 Mexican Pharmaceutical Market Statistics Database

  18. International Marketing Services-Health (IMS-Health Mexico). 2008 Mexican Pharmaceutical Market Statistics Database

  19. Olsson S, Pal SN, Stergachis A, et al. Pharmacovigilance activities in 55 low- and middle-income countries: a questionnaire-based analysis. Drug Saf 2010; 33(8): 689–703

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

No sources of funding were used to prepare this study. The authors have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Biological and Health Sciences, Department of Biological Systems, Metropolitan Autonomous University-Xochimilco, Mexico City, Mexico

    Betsabé Sánchez-Sánchez,  Marina Altagracia-Martínez, Jaime Kravzov-Jinich, Consuelo Moreno-Bonett, Everardo Vázquez-Moreno & Juan Manuel Martínez-Núñez

  2. Pfizer Laboratory, Mexico City, Mexico

    Everardo Vázquez-Moreno

Authors
  1. Betsabé Sánchez-Sánchez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marina Altagracia-Martínez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jaime Kravzov-Jinich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Consuelo Moreno-Bonett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Everardo Vázquez-Moreno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Juan Manuel Martínez-Núñez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marina Altagracia-Martínez.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sánchez-Sánchez, B., Altagracia-Martínez, M., Kravzov-Jinich, J. et al. Evaluation of Completeness of Suspected Adverse Drug Reaction Reports Submitted to the Mexican National Pharmacovigilance Centre. Drug Saf 35, 837–844 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03261979

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03261979

Keywords

Search

Navigation