Pedro Inácio1, Marja Airaksinen1, Afonso Cavaco2. 1. Clinical Pharmacy Group, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Helsinki, Finland. 2. iMed.ULisboa Research Institute for Medicines and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Lisbon, Av. Prof. Gama Pinto, 1649-003 Lisbon, Portugal. Electronic address: acavaco@ff.ul.pt.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The description of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) by health care professionals (HCPs) can be highly variable. This variation can affect the coding of a reaction with the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA(®)), the gold standard for pharmacovigilance database entries. Ultimately, the strength of a safety signal can be compromised. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess: 1) participation of different HCPs in ADR reporting, and 2) variation of language used by HCPs when describing ADRs, and to compare it with the corresponding MedDRA(®) codes. METHODS: A retrospective content analysis was performed, using the database of spontaneous reports submitted by HCPs in the region of the Southern Pharmacovigilance Unit, Portugal. Data retrieved consisted of the idiomatic description of all ADRs occurring in 2004 (first year of the Unit activity, n = 53) and in 2012 (n = 350). The agreement between the language used by HCPs and the MedDRA(®) dictionary codes was quantitatively assessed. RESULTS: From a total of 403 spontaneous reports received in the two years, 896 words describing ADRs were collected. HCPs presented different levels of pharmacovigilance participation and ADR idiomatic descriptions, with pharmacists providing the greatest overall contribution. The agreement between the language used in spontaneous reports and the corresponding MedDRA(®) terms varied by HCP background, with nurses presenting the poorer results than medical doctors and pharmacists when considering the dictionary as the gold standard in ADRs' language. CONCLUSIONS: Lexical accuracy and semantic variations exist between different HCP groups. These differences may interfere with the strength of a generated safety signal. Clinical and MedDRA(®) terminology training should be targeted to increase not only the frequency, but also the quality of spontaneous reports, in accordance with HCPs' experience and background.
BACKGROUND: The description of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) by health care professionals (HCPs) can be highly variable. This variation can affect the coding of a reaction with the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA(®)), the gold standard for pharmacovigilance database entries. Ultimately, the strength of a safety signal can be compromised. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess: 1) participation of different HCPs in ADR reporting, and 2) variation of language used by HCPs when describing ADRs, and to compare it with the corresponding MedDRA(®) codes. METHODS: A retrospective content analysis was performed, using the database of spontaneous reports submitted by HCPs in the region of the Southern Pharmacovigilance Unit, Portugal. Data retrieved consisted of the idiomatic description of all ADRs occurring in 2004 (first year of the Unit activity, n = 53) and in 2012 (n = 350). The agreement between the language used by HCPs and the MedDRA(®) dictionary codes was quantitatively assessed. RESULTS: From a total of 403 spontaneous reports received in the two years, 896 words describing ADRs were collected. HCPs presented different levels of pharmacovigilance participation and ADR idiomatic descriptions, with pharmacists providing the greatest overall contribution. The agreement between the language used in spontaneous reports and the corresponding MedDRA(®) terms varied by HCP background, with nurses presenting the poorer results than medical doctors and pharmacists when considering the dictionary as the gold standard in ADRs' language. CONCLUSIONS: Lexical accuracy and semantic variations exist between different HCP groups. These differences may interfere with the strength of a generated safety signal. Clinical and MedDRA(®) terminology training should be targeted to increase not only the frequency, but also the quality of spontaneous reports, in accordance with HCPs' experience and background.