R M Lynn1, K Riding, N McIntosh. 1. Research Division of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, 5-11 Theobalds Road, London WC1X 8SH, UK. richard.lynn@rcpch.ac.uk
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate: (1) the feasibility of establishing active paediatric surveillance for adverse drug reactions (ADRs), (2) whether electronic reporting is effective and (3) whether such a system could complement the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) yellow card system. DESIGN: Between January 2006 and February 2007 ADRs in children under 16 were reported each month by consultant paediatricians and paediatric pharmacists in Scotland. For 8 months respondents received a postal card, after which half were selected to report electronically via an email card for a further 6 months and half continued with the postal card. Reports of paediatric ADRs severe enough to warrant hospital admission or to delay discharge of hospitalised patients or resulting from an outpatient prescription were followed up. A postal questionnaire evaluated the system at the end of the study. RESULTS: Following a 2-month lead-in period, 83% of the cards were returned over the year, 84% by paediatricians and 82% by pharmacists. With electronic reporting the response rate was 80%. Eighty-seven confirmed reports of a drug being associated with one or more adverse reactions were reported in 67 children. Only eight children were also identified through the MHRA yellow card system. Respondents indicated continuing willingness to contribute to an active (preferably electronic) reporting system. CONCLUSIONS: Active paediatric ADR surveillance is feasible; electronic reporting is effective and data collected are different to, but could complement, those collected by the MHRA yellow card.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate: (1) the feasibility of establishing active paediatric surveillance for adverse drug reactions (ADRs), (2) whether electronic reporting is effective and (3) whether such a system could complement the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) yellow card system. DESIGN: Between January 2006 and February 2007 ADRs in children under 16 were reported each month by consultant paediatricians and paediatric pharmacists in Scotland. For 8 months respondents received a postal card, after which half were selected to report electronically via an email card for a further 6 months and half continued with the postal card. Reports of paediatric ADRs severe enough to warrant hospital admission or to delay discharge of hospitalised patients or resulting from an outpatient prescription were followed up. A postal questionnaire evaluated the system at the end of the study. RESULTS: Following a 2-month lead-in period, 83% of the cards were returned over the year, 84% by paediatricians and 82% by pharmacists. With electronic reporting the response rate was 80%. Eighty-seven confirmed reports of a drug being associated with one or more adverse reactions were reported in 67 children. Only eight children were also identified through the MHRA yellow card system. Respondents indicated continuing willingness to contribute to an active (preferably electronic) reporting system. CONCLUSIONS: Active paediatric ADR surveillance is feasible; electronic reporting is effective and data collected are different to, but could complement, those collected by the MHRA yellow card.