S Sri Ranganathan1, J E Houghton, D P Davies, P A Routledge. 1. Department of Pharmacology, Therapeutics and Toxicology, University of Wales College of Medicine, Heath Park, Cardiff CF14 4XN, UK. sriranganathan@cf.ac.uk
Abstract
AIMS: In order to aid the monitoring of the new Meningococcal serogroup C Conjugate (Men C) vaccine, the Yellow Card Scheme was extended to allow nurses for the first time to report any suspected adverse reactions associated with these vaccines. We have analysed the Yellow Cards received by the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) Wales from nurses reporting a suspected reaction in association with these vaccines during the first 16 months of the programme. METHODS: CSM Wales receives Yellow Cards from healthcare professionals in Wales. Details of Yellow Cards reporting a suspected adverse reaction associated with Men C vaccines during the study period were extracted from the CSM Wales database and analysed according to health professional category [nurses, General Practitioners (GP), hospital doctors or pharmacists]. RESULTS: During the study period 534 117 doses of Men C vaccines were administered in Wales; in the same period CSM Wales received 1095 Yellow Cards containing 1952 suspected reactions. Nurses completed 529 [48.3%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 43.6, 53.1] Yellow Cards compared with 294 (26.8%, 95% CI 22.7, 30.8) from GPs, 262 (23.9%, 95% CI 20.1, 27.6) from hospital doctors and 10 (0.91%, 95% CI 0.43, 1.73) from others, which include hospital pharmacists, community pharmacists and health visitors. The proportion of Yellow Cards sent by nurses was significantly higher than those sent by GPs and hospital doctors. Ninety-five percent CIs for differences in proportions (CI diff prop) were (0.175, 0.254) and (0.204, 0.282), respectively. The majority (90.9%, 95% CI 88.7, 93.5) of the Yellow Cards from nurses reported suspected reactions children in over the age of 5 (95% CI diff prop 0.861, 0.917). The spectrum of suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) involved the skin and subcutaneous tissue, central nervous system, general reactions, and the gastrointestinal tract. Of the suspected reactions reported by nurses, GPs and hospital doctors, 13.4% (95% CI 10.5, 15.8), 12.9% (95% CI 9.6, 16.8) and 9.1% (95% CI 6.5, 11.8), respectively, were of serious reactions. Nurses reported 52.5% (95% CI 45.4, 60.6) of all the suspected serious reactions, which was statistically more significant than hospital doctors [chi2 = 5.864, degree of freedom (DF) = 1, P < 0.05] but not GPs (chi2 = 0.066, DF = 1, P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Nurses were the health professionals who provided the largest proportion of reports of suspected ADRs and almost half of all reports during the Men C vaccination campaign. Their reports contained an equal proportion of serious suspected ADRs and the reports were documented as completely as those from GPs and hospital doctors.
AIMS: In order to aid the monitoring of the new Meningococcal serogroup C Conjugate (Men C) vaccine, the Yellow Card Scheme was extended to allow nurses for the first time to report any suspected adverse reactions associated with these vaccines. We have analysed the Yellow Cards received by the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) Wales from nurses reporting a suspected reaction in association with these vaccines during the first 16 months of the programme. METHODS: CSM Wales receives Yellow Cards from healthcare professionals in Wales. Details of Yellow Cards reporting a suspected adverse reaction associated with Men C vaccines during the study period were extracted from the CSM Wales database and analysed according to health professional category [nurses, General Practitioners (GP), hospital doctors or pharmacists]. RESULTS: During the study period 534 117 doses of Men C vaccines were administered in Wales; in the same period CSM Wales received 1095 Yellow Cards containing 1952 suspected reactions. Nurses completed 529 [48.3%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 43.6, 53.1] Yellow Cards compared with 294 (26.8%, 95% CI 22.7, 30.8) from GPs, 262 (23.9%, 95% CI 20.1, 27.6) from hospital doctors and 10 (0.91%, 95% CI 0.43, 1.73) from others, which include hospital pharmacists, community pharmacists and health visitors. The proportion of Yellow Cards sent by nurses was significantly higher than those sent by GPs and hospital doctors. Ninety-five percent CIs for differences in proportions (CI diff prop) were (0.175, 0.254) and (0.204, 0.282), respectively. The majority (90.9%, 95% CI 88.7, 93.5) of the Yellow Cards from nurses reported suspected reactions children in over the age of 5 (95% CI diff prop 0.861, 0.917). The spectrum of suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) involved the skin and subcutaneous tissue, central nervous system, general reactions, and the gastrointestinal tract. Of the suspected reactions reported by nurses, GPs and hospital doctors, 13.4% (95% CI 10.5, 15.8), 12.9% (95% CI 9.6, 16.8) and 9.1% (95% CI 6.5, 11.8), respectively, were of serious reactions. Nurses reported 52.5% (95% CI 45.4, 60.6) of all the suspected serious reactions, which was statistically more significant than hospital doctors [chi2 = 5.864, degree of freedom (DF) = 1, P < 0.05] but not GPs (chi2 = 0.066, DF = 1, P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Nurses were the health professionals who provided the largest proportion of reports of suspected ADRs and almost half of all reports during the Men C vaccination campaign. Their reports contained an equal proportion of serious suspected ADRs and the reports were documented as completely as those from GPs and hospital doctors.
Authors: P M van den Bemt; A C Egberts; A W Lenderink; J M Verzijl; K A Simons; W S van der Pol; H G Leufkens Journal: Eur J Clin Pharmacol Date: 1999-04 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Suehyun Lee; Jongsoo Han; Rae Woong Park; Grace Juyun Kim; John Hoon Rim; Jooyoung Cho; Kye Hwa Lee; Jisan Lee; Sujeong Kim; Ju Han Kim Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 5.606
Authors: Pilar Carrasco-Garrido; Carmen Gallardo-Pino; Rodrigo Jiménez-García; Miguel A Tapias; Angel Gil de Miguel Journal: Clin Drug Investig Date: 2004 Impact factor: 2.859
Authors: Ali Azeez Al-Jumaili; Sarah K Abbood; Ashwaq N Abbas; Hind Mowafak Rafaeel; Fatima Raheem Mohammed; Al-Zahraa Ali Journal: Saudi Pharm J Date: 2021-09-20 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Adriana Parrella; Annette Braunack-Mayer; Michael Gold; Helen Marshall; Peter Baghurst Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2013-08-15 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Tim Schutte; Rike van Eekeren; Milan Richir; Jojanneke van Staveren; Eugène van Puijenbroek; Jelle Tichelaar; Michiel van Agtmael Journal: Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol Date: 2017-10-23 Impact factor: 3.000