Literature DB >> 23444232

How do patients contribute to signal detection? : A retrospective analysis of spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions in the UK's Yellow Card Scheme.

Lorna Hazell1, Victoria Cornelius, Philip Hannaford, Saad Shakir, Anthony J Avery.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In 2005, spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to the UK's Yellow Card Scheme (YCS) was extended to include patient reports. Here, we investigate the potential pharmacovigilance impact of patient reporting.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to investigate the relative contribution of patient reporting to signal detection through disproportionality analysis.
METHODS: Data were analysed from all reports submitted directly to the YCS between October 2005 and September 2007. Three datasets of drug-ADR pairs were created: one for patient reports, one for healthcare professional (HCP) reports and one for all reports combined. The proportional reporting ratio (PRR) method was used to identify signals of disproportionate reporting (SDRs) in each dataset. The number of SDRs identified from patient and HCP reports were compared, as well as the type of ADR and suspect drug involved. A sensitivity analysis was performed to examine how combining the patient and HCP reports may affect the SDRs identified.
RESULTS: Data were received for 5,180 patient and 20,949 HCP reports, relating to 16,566 and 28,775 drug-ADR pairs, respectively, with 4,340 (10.6 %) pairs found in both datasets. A significantly higher proportion of the SDRs identified from HCP reports involved reactions classified as serious by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), compared with patient reports (n = 931, 48.0 % vs. n = 185, 28.5 %), or involved newly marketed drugs (n = 596, 30.7 % vs. n = 71, 10.9 %). The proportion of SDRs assessed as not listed on the Summary of Product Characteristics (SPC) was similar in each group (~15 %, based on a random sample). After combining the patient and HCP reports, 278 (~11 %) of the SDRs identified when each group was analysed separately no longer met the SDR criteria, including 12 potentially serious ADRs not listed on the product's SPC. On the other hand, the combined dataset identified an additional 508 SDRs that were not identified when patient or HCP reports were analysed separately. Approximately 10 % (n = 47) of these additional SDRs were assessed as serious ADRs and were not listed on the product's SPC.
CONCLUSIONS: Although this study is limited to the UK experience, overall, the results suggest that patient reporting may provide a positive complementary contribution to that of HCPs. Patient reporting may make an important contribution to drug safety by identifying different SDRs not identified from HCP reports alone. The combination of reports from patients and HCPs, however, when used for the purposes of signal detection through disproportionality analysis, may result in the loss of some information. One possible strategy is to conduct such analyses using reports from patients and HCPs combined, as well as separately for each group.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23444232     DOI: 10.1007/s40264-013-0021-2

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


  10 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.  Quantitative signal detection using spontaneous ADR reporting.

Authors:  A Bate; S J W Evans
Journal:  Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 2.890

3.  Consumer reporting of adverse drug reactions: a retrospective analysis of the Danish adverse drug reaction database from 2004 to 2006.

Authors:  Lise Aagaard; Lars Hougaard Nielsen; Ebba Holme Hansen
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 5.606

4.  Can adverse drug reactions be detected earlier? A comparison of reports by patients and professionals.

Authors:  T C Egberts; M Smulders; F H de Koning; R H Meyboom; H G Leufkens
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1996-08-31

5.  The proportion of patient reports of suspected ADRs to signal detection in the Netherlands: case-control study.

Authors:  Florence van Hunsel; Attje Talsma; Eugène van Puijenbroek; Lolkje de Jong-van den Berg; Kees van Grootheest
Journal:  Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf       Date:  2010-12-28       Impact factor: 2.890

6.  Adverse drug reaction reporting in the UK: a retrospective observational comparison of yellow card reports submitted by patients and healthcare professionals.

Authors:  David J McLernon; Christine M Bond; Philip C Hannaford; Margaret C Watson; Amanda J Lee; Lorna Hazell; Anthony Avery
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2010-09-01       Impact factor: 5.606

Review 7.  Evaluation of patient reporting of adverse drug reactions to the UK 'Yellow Card Scheme': literature review, descriptive and qualitative analyses, and questionnaire surveys.

Authors:  A J Avery; C Anderson; C M Bond; H Fortnum; A Gifford; P C Hannaford; L Hazell; J Krska; A J Lee; D J McLernon; E Murphy; S Shakir; M C Watson
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 4.014

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

  10 in total
  33 in total

1.  Ongoing challenges in pharmacovigilance.

Authors:  Gerald J Dal Pan
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 5.606

2.  Undesirable effects related to oral antineoplastic drugs: comparison between patients' internet narratives and a national pharmacovigilance database.

Authors:  Arnaud Pages; Emmanuelle Bondon-Guitton; Jean Louis Montastruc; Haleh Bagheri
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 5.606

3.  Consumer reporting of adverse events following immunization.

Authors:  Hazel J Clothier; Gowri Selvaraj; Mee Lee Easton; Georgina Lewis; Nigel W Crawford; Jim P Buttery
Journal:  Hum Vaccin Immunother       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 3.452

4.  Are consumers ready to take part in the Pharmacovigilance System?--a Portuguese preliminary study concerning ADR reporting.

Authors:  Cristiano Matos; Florence van Hunsel; João Joaquim
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2015-05-26       Impact factor: 2.953

Review 5.  ADR Reporting by the General Public: Lessons Learnt from the Dutch and Swedish Systems.

Authors:  Linda Härmark; Florence van Hunsel; Birgitta Grundmark
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 5.606

6.  Vaccine safety: An evolving evidence-based science.

Authors:  Bruce M McClenathan; Kathryn M Edwards
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2019-08-19       Impact factor: 4.335

7.  Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Practices Among United Arab Emirates Pharmacists and Prescribers.

Authors:  Amira S A Said; Nadia Hussain
Journal:  Hosp Pharm       Date:  2017-05-01

8.  Consumer reporting of adverse drug reactions: Systems that allow patients to report side effects of the drugs they are taking have yielded valuable information for improving drugs safety and health care.

Authors:  Katrin Weigmann
Journal:  EMBO Rep       Date:  2016-05-19       Impact factor: 8.807

9.  Patients' Perspectives on Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting in a Developing Country: A Case Study from Ghana.

Authors:  George Tsey Sabblah; Delese Mimi Darko; Hudu Mogtari; Linda Härmark; Eugène van Puijenbroek
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 5.606

10.  Adverse drug reaction reporting by patients: an overview of fifty countries.

Authors:  Florence Margraff; Delphine Bertram
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 5.606

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.