Literature DB >> 20397740

Improving adverse drug reaction reporting in hospitals: results of the French Pharmacovigilance in Midi-Pyrénées region (PharmacoMIP) network 2-year pilot study.

Mireille Gony1, Kattalin Badie, Agnès Sommet, Julien Jacquot, Dominique Baudrin, Pierre Gauthier, Jean Louis Montastruc, Haleh Bagheri.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) is fundamental to drug safety surveillance (pharmacovigilance); however, substantial under-reporting exists and is the main limitation of the system. Several factors could favour under-reporting.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this pilot study was to assess the effect of regular visits of a Clinical Research Assistant (CRA) on the improvement of ADR reporting in non-university hospitals.
METHODS: We set up an ADR report collecting system that involved regular visits by a CRA to non-university hospitals, which was similar to a system that already existed in university hospitals in Toulouse, France. Two areas in our region were chosen: Haute Garonne and Gers. We compared firstly the reporting rate (number of reports/number of beds) of total ADRs (i.e. spontaneously reported ADRs plus solicited ADRs collected by the CRA) and secondly, the percentage of serious ADRs reported by non-university hospitals in these two areas, in 2005 (the year prior to CRA visits) and after the start of CRA visits (2006 until the end of December 2008). We also compared the reporting rate of total ADRs in Haute Garonne and Gers non-university hospitals with those reported during the same period with a control group (the Ariège area, which has a similar number of beds to Gers and that was not visited by the CRA). The characteristics of ADRs collected by the CRA were also described.
RESULTS: A total of 687 reports were collected by the CRA: 40% were classified as serious, including two deaths. The number of ADRs and the reporting rate increased significantly between 2005 and 2008 in non-university hospitals of Haute-Garonne and Gers, but not in Ariège. In Gers, the reporting rate was 3% in 2005 and 25% in 2008. In Haute-Garonne, the reporting rate was 11% in 2005 and 40% in 2008. The difference between the number of spontaneous and solicited reports also increased.
CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that regular visits by a CRA increases the number of ADRs collected by a Regional Pharmacovigilance Centre. Another interesting consequence was the rise in spontaneous reporting by healthcare professionals following the set-up of this system. Further assessment of this procedure is necessary for the long-term evaluation of its effectiveness.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20397740     DOI: 10.2165/11319170-000000000-00000

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


  23 in total

1.  Reporting of adverse drug reactions by nurses.

Authors:  Sally Morrison-Griffiths; Thomas J Walley; B Kevin Park; Alasdair M Breckenridge; Munir Pirmohamed
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2003-04-19       Impact factor: 79.321

2.  Geographical differences in adverse drug reaction reporting rates in the Northern Region.

Authors:  D N Bateman; A Lee; M D Rawlins; J M Smith
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  1991-02       Impact factor: 4.335

3.  Physicians' attitudes and adverse drug reaction reporting : a case-control study in Portugal.

Authors:  Maria T Herdeiro; Adolfo Figueiras; Jorge Polónia; Juan Jesus Gestal-Otero
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 5.606

4.  A small economic inducement to stimulate increased reporting of adverse drug reactions--a way of dealing with an old problem?

Authors:  M Bäckström; T Mjörndal
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2006-03-30       Impact factor: 2.953

5.  Adverse drug reaction reporting by nurses in Sweden.

Authors:  M Bäckström; Elisabet Ekman; T Mjörndal
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2007-04-03       Impact factor: 2.953

6.  Factors that influence under-reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions among community pharmacists in a Spanish region.

Authors:  Marta Irujo; Guadalupe Beitia; Maira Bes-Rastrollo; Adolfo Figueiras; Sonia Hernández-Díaz; Berta Lasheras
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 5.606

Review 7.  Determinants of under-reporting of adverse drug reactions: a systematic review.

Authors:  Elena Lopez-Gonzalez; Maria T Herdeiro; Adolfo Figueiras
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 5.606

8.  Attitudes among hospital physicians to the reporting of adverse drug reactions in Sweden.

Authors:  Elisabet Ekman; M Bäckström
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2008-09-30       Impact factor: 2.953

9.  [Adverse drug effect notifications by nurses and comparison with cases reported by physicians].

Authors:  K Sacilotto; H Bagheri; M Lapeyre-Mestre; J L Montastruc; P Montastruc
Journal:  Therapie       Date:  1995 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.070

Review 10.  Bridging the gap between clinical pharmacology and rational drug prescribing.

Authors:  L E Ramsay
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  1993-06       Impact factor: 4.335

View more
  11 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.  Workshop- and telephone-based interventions to improve adverse drug reaction reporting: a cluster-randomized trial in Portugal.

Authors:  Maria Teresa Herdeiro; Inês Ribeiro-Vaz; Mónica Ferreira; Jorge Polónia; Amílcar Falcão; Adolfo Figueiras
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2012-08-01       Impact factor: 5.606

3.  Effect of an educational intervention to improve adverse drug reaction reporting in physicians: a cluster randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Elena Lopez-Gonzalez; Maria T Herdeiro; María Piñeiro-Lamas; Adolfo Figueiras
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 5.606

4.  Defining 'surveillance' in drug safety.

Authors:  Jeffrey K Aronson; Manfred Hauben; Andrew Bate
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2012-05-01       Impact factor: 5.606

Review 5.  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

6.  Adverse Drug Reaction Reports Received Through the Mobile App, VigiBIP®: A Comparison with Classical Methods of Reporting.

Authors:  François Montastruc; Haleh Bagheri; Isabelle Lacroix; Christine Damase-Michel; Leila Chebane; Vanessa Rousseau; Emilie Jouanjus; Maryse Lapeyre-Mestre; Geneviève Durrieu; Jean-Louis Montastruc
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2018-05       Impact factor: 5.606

7.  Completeness of Spontaneous Adverse Drug Reaction Reports Sent by General Practitioners to a Regional Pharmacovigilance Centre: A Descriptive Study.

Authors:  Geneviève Durrieu; Julien Jacquot; Mathilde Mège; Emmanuelle Bondon-Guitton; Vanessa Rousseau; François Montastruc; Jean-Louis Montastruc
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 5.606

8.  Impact of information letters on the reporting rate of adverse drug reactions and the quality of the reports: a randomized controlled study.

Authors:  Marie-Louise Johansson; Staffan Hägg; Susanna M Wallerstedt
Journal:  BMC Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2011-09-07

9.  Smartphone-based mobile applications for adverse drug reactions reporting: global status and country experience.

Authors:  Ayako Fukushima; Noha Iessa; Madhava Ram Balakrishnan; Shanthi Narayan Pal
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2022-05-02       Impact factor: 2.796

Review 10.  A systematic review of the prevalence and risk factors for adverse drug reactions in the elderly in the acute care setting.

Authors:  Tariq M Alhawassi; Ines Krass; Beata V Bajorek; Lisa G Pont
Journal:  Clin Interv Aging       Date:  2014-12-01       Impact factor: 4.458

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.