Literature DB >> 19916580

Improving follow-up rates in spontaneous adverse drug reaction reporting: effectiveness of a targeted letter used by a regional centre in the UK.

Christopher Anton1, Anthony R Cox, Robin E Ferner.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Spontaneous reports of suspected adverse drug reactions to regulatory bodies and market authorization holders are important in pharmacovigilance. Follow-up information, which can be difficult to obtain, is often required from reporters; therefore, we developed targeted follow-up letters that we hoped would make replying easier.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects of introducing targeted letters on responses to follow-up requests from a regional pharmacovigilance centre in the UK.
METHOD: In January 2001 we redesigned our follow-up request letter to include tick-boxes targeted to obtain the appropriate information from reporters. Response rates and the requirement for a second follow-up letter were examined for the 5-year period before introduction of the targeted follow-up letter (1996-2000) and the 5 years after the change to the targeted follow-up system (2001-5). In an 18-month sub-study examining data from 2001-2, time from the production of the first targeted follow-up letter to receipt of a response from reporters was also measured.
RESULTS: The introduction of targeted follow-up letters was associated with an increase in the mean annual response rate for follow-up from 36.4% in the 5 years pre-targeted follow-up to 60.5% in the 5 years post-targeted follow-up (p < 0.0001). Fifty percent of all successful follow-up responses were obtained within 70 days.
CONCLUSION: Targeted follow-up letters were associated with increased follow-up success rates. Results also indicate that closing cases to follow-up information at 70 days would allow collection of 78% of all follow-up that would ever arrive.

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19916580     DOI: 10.2165/11318940-000000000-00000

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Drug Saf        ISSN: 0114-5916            Impact factor:   5.606


  9 in total

1.  Use of proportional reporting ratios (PRRs) for signal generation from spontaneous adverse drug reaction reports.

Authors:  S J Evans; P C Waller; S Davis
Journal:  Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf       Date:  2001 Oct-Nov       Impact factor: 2.890

Review 2.  The use of evidence in pharmacovigilance. Case reports as the reference source for drug withdrawals.

Authors:  J A Arnaiz; X Carné; N Riba; C Codina; J Ribas; A Trilla
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 2.953

3.  An assessment of the publicly disseminated evidence of safety used in decisions to withdraw medicinal products from the UK and US markets.

Authors:  Andrea Clarke; Jonathan J Deeks; Saad A W Shakir
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 5.606

4.  The nature of the scientific evidence leading to drug withdrawals for pharmacovigilance reasons in France.

Authors:  Pascale Olivier; Jean-Louis Montastruc
Journal:  Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 2.890

5.  Expectations of general practitioners and specialist doctors regarding the feedback received after reporting an adverse drug reaction.

Authors:  Lotte Cornelissen; Eugène van Puijenbroek; Kees van Grootheest
Journal:  Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 2.890

6.  Gold standards in pharmacovigilance: the use of definitive anecdotal reports of adverse drug reactions as pure gold and high-grade ore.

Authors:  Manfred Hauben; Jeffrey K Aronson
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 5.606

Review 7.  Patient reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions: a review of published literature and international experience.

Authors:  A Blenkinsopp; P Wilkie; M Wang; P A Routledge
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 4.335

8.  Underreporting of suspected adverse drug reactions to newly marketed ("black triangle") drugs in general practice: observational study.

Authors:  R M Martin; K V Kapoor; L V Wilton; R D Mann
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1998-07-11

9.  Attitudinal survey of adverse drug reaction reporting by medical practitioners in the United Kingdom.

Authors:  K J Belton; S C Lewis; S Payne; M D Rawlins; S M Wood
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  1995-03       Impact factor: 4.335

  9 in total
  4 in total

1.  Adverse drug reactions: analysis of spontaneous reporting system in Europe in 2007-2009.

Authors:  Jindrich Srba; Veronika Descikova; Jiri Vlcek
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2012-02-01       Impact factor: 2.953

2.  Expectations for feedback in adverse drug reporting by healthcare professionals in the Netherlands.

Authors:  Ingrid Oosterhuis; Florence P A M van Hunsel; Eugène P van Puijenbroek
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2012-03-01       Impact factor: 5.606

Review 3.  Strategies to improve adverse drug reaction reporting: a critical and systematic review.

Authors:  Cristian Gonzalez-Gonzalez; Elena Lopez-Gonzalez; Maria T Herdeiro; Adolfo Figueiras
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 5.606

4.  Assessment of Knowledge, Attitude and Barriers towards Pharmacovigilance among Physicians and Pharmacists of Abbottabad, Pakistan.

Authors:  Akash Syed; Saira Azhar; Muhammad Mohsin Raza; Humaira Saeed; Shazia Qasim Jamshed
Journal:  Pharmacy (Basel)       Date:  2018-03-31
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.