Literature DB >> 21063828

[The importance of patient perspective in drug surveillance systems].

L Gäwert1, F Hierse, A Zink, A Strangfeld.   

Abstract

AIMS: using data from the German biologics register RABBIT we investigated which gain in information can be achieved by integrating patient-reported adverse drug reactions (ADRs) into drug surveillance systems.
METHODS: patients with rheumatoid arthritis enrolled in the longitudinal cohort of the German biologics register between May 2001 and September 2006 who had undergone at least one follow-up were included in the study. All ADRs reported to the register either by the treating rheumatologists or the patients were coded with the same coding system (MedDRA®). The agreement between patients and physicians was analysed for the most frequently reported ADRs using the patient as gold standard.
RESULTS: data from 4246 patients with a mean observation time of 2 years were analysed. Patients reported on average 1.2 ADRs per patient year (PY), while physicians indicated 1 ADR per PY (p<0,001). The ADR most frequently reported by patients was nausea (93.8 per 1000 PY), followed by fatigue (72.5 per 1000 PYs) and alopecia (60.6 per 1000 PYs). These ADRs were significantly less often reported by physicians. Agreement between patients and physicians was higher in more objective symptoms, such as injection site reaction (in 60.0% of cases where the patient reported this symptom, the physician did so too) or rash (53.0%), than in more subjective symptoms such as fatigue (17.4%). Agreement was highest in life-threatening events.
CONCLUSIONS: patients report a higher number of ADRs than their treating physicians. Patients report subjective symptoms impacting on quality of life more frequently than physicians. Patient-physician agreement on known or clinically relevant ARDs is high. Integration of patient reports on ADRs into clinical routine could enhance the patient-physician partnership and improve compliance as well as awareness of signs and symptoms of possible ADRs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21063828     DOI: 10.1007/s00393-010-0642-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Z Rheumatol        ISSN: 0340-1855            Impact factor:   1.372


  18 in total

1.  Underreporting of adverse drug reactions: attitudes of Irish doctors.

Authors:  D Williams; J Feely
Journal:  Ir J Med Sci       Date:  1999 Oct-Dec       Impact factor: 1.568

2.  Attitudes to reporting adverse drug reactions in northern Sweden.

Authors:  M Bäckström; T Mjörndal; R Dahlqvist; T Nordkvist-Olsson
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 2.953

3.  Prescription-event monitoring and reporting of adverse drug reactions.

Authors:  E Heeley; J Riley; D Layton; L V Wilton; S A Shakir
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2001-12-01       Impact factor: 79.321

4.  Physicians' knowledge and attitudes regarding the spontaneous reporting system for adverse drug reactions.

Authors:  J Hasford; M Goettler; K-H Munter; B Müller-Oerlinghausen
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 6.437

5.  Attitude survey of adverse drug-reaction reporting by health care professionals across the European Union. The European Pharmacovigilance Research Group.

Authors:  K J Belton
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 2.953

6.  Patient versus clinician symptom reporting using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events: results of a questionnaire-based study.

Authors:  Ethan Basch; Alexia Iasonos; Tiffani McDonough; Allison Barz; Ann Culkin; Mark G Kris; Howard I Scher; Deborah Schrag
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 41.316

7.  Adverse drug reaction monitoring: comparing doctor and patient reporting for new drugs.

Authors:  N Jarernsiripornkul; W Kakaew; W Loalukkana; J Krska
Journal:  Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 2.890

Review 8.  Patients' role in reporting adverse drug reactions.

Authors:  Kees van Grootheest; Lolkje de Jong-van den Berg
Journal:  Expert Opin Drug Saf       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 4.250

9.  Adverse drug reaction reporting by patients in the Netherlands: three years of experience.

Authors:  Joyce de Langen; Florence van Hunsel; Anneke Passier; Lolkje de Jong-van den Berg; Kees van Grootheest
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 5.606

Review 10.  Under-reporting of adverse drug reactions : a systematic review.

Authors:  Lorna Hazell; Saad A W Shakir
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 5.228

View more
  1 in total

1.  Comparing adverse event rates of oral blood glucose-lowering drugs reported by patients and healthcare providers: a post-hoc analysis of observational studies published between 1999 and 2011.

Authors:  Liana Hakobyan; Flora M Haaijer-Ruskamp; Dick de Zeeuw; Daniela Dobre; Petra Denig
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2011-12-01       Impact factor: 5.606

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.