Literature DB >> 29255992

Adverse drug reaction reporting: how can drug consumption information add to analyses using spontaneous reports?

Kristian Svendsen1, Kjell H Halvorsen2, Solveig Vorren3, Hilde Samdal4, Beate Garcia5,2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) is a cornerstone in pharmacovigilance. However, information about the underlying consumption of drugs is rarely used when analysing spontaneous reports. The purpose of this study was to combine ADR reports with drug consumption data to demonstrate the additional information this gives in various scenarios, comparing different drugs, gender-stratified sub-populations and changes in reporting over time.
METHODS: We combined all Norwegian ADR reports in 2004-2013 from the EudraVigilance database (n = 14.028) with dispensing data from the Norwegian Prescription Database (more than 800 million dispensed prescriptions during 2004-2013). This was done in order to calculate drug-specific consumption-adjusted adverse drug reaction reporting rates (CADRRs) by dividing the number of reports for each drug with the number of users of the drug during the same time period.
RESULTS: Among the ten drugs with the highest number of ADR reports and the ten drugs with the highest CADRR, only four drugs were in both categories. This indicates that drugs with a high number of reports often also have a high number of users and that CADRR captures drugs with potentially relevant safety issues but a smaller number of users. Comparing reported ADRs in females and males using methylphenidate, we found that the two groups report different ADRs. Finally, we showed that changes in ADR reporting for simvastatin and atorvastatin during 2004-2013 were due to changes in consumption and that atorvastatin had a higher CADRR but fewer reports than simvastatin.
CONCLUSIONS: CADRR provides additional information compared with number of reports alone in studies using spontaneous reports. It is important for researchers to adjust for consumption whenever possible in pharmacovigilance studies.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Adverse drug reactions; Drug consumption; EudraVigilance; Norway; Pharmacovigilance

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29255992     DOI: 10.1007/s00228-017-2396-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol        ISSN: 0031-6970            Impact factor:   2.953


  21 in total

1.  Timing of new black box warnings and withdrawals for prescription medications.

Authors:  Karen E Lasser; Paul D Allen; Steffie J Woolhandler; David U Himmelstein; Sidney M Wolfe; David H Bor
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2002-05-01       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  Does age increase the risk of adverse drug reactions?

Authors:  Bernard Bégaud; Karin Martin; Annie Fourrier; Françoise Haramburu
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 4.335

Review 3.  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

Review 4.  The Nordic countries as a cohort for pharmacoepidemiological research.

Authors:  Kari Furu; Björn Wettermark; Morten Andersen; Jaana E Martikainen; Anna Birna Almarsdottir; Henrik Toft Sørensen
Journal:  Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol       Date:  2009-12-04       Impact factor: 4.080

5.  The case-population study design: an analysis of its application in pharmacovigilance.

Authors:  Hélène Théophile; Joan-Ramon Laporte; Nicholas Moore; Karin-Latry Martin; Bernard Bégaud
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2011-10-01       Impact factor: 5.606

6.  JADE: a tool for medical researchers to explore adverse drug events using health claims data.

Authors:  D Edlinger; S K Sauter; C Rinner; L M Neuhofer; M Wolzt; W Grossmann; G Endel; W Gall
Journal:  Appl Clin Inform       Date:  2014-07-09       Impact factor: 2.342

7.  How safe are recently FDA-approved antimicrobials? A review of the FDA adverse event reporting system database.

Authors:  Tina M Khadem; Robbert P van Manen; Jack Brown
Journal:  Pharmacotherapy       Date:  2014-11-25       Impact factor: 4.705

8.  Impact of safety alerts on measures of disproportionality in spontaneous reporting databases: the notoriety bias.

Authors:  Antoine Pariente; Fleur Gregoire; Annie Fourrier-Reglat; Françoise Haramburu; Nicholas Moore
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 5.606

9.  Adverse drug reaction reports of patients and healthcare professionals-differences in reported information.

Authors:  Leàn Rolfes; Florence van Hunsel; Sarah Wilkes; Kees van Grootheest; Eugène van Puijenbroek
Journal:  Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf       Date:  2014-07-31       Impact factor: 2.890

10.  Stimulated reporting: the impact of US food and drug administration-issued alerts on the adverse event reporting system (FAERS).

Authors:  Keith B Hoffman; Andrea R Demakas; Mo Dimbil; Nicholas P Tatonetti; Colin B Erdman
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2014-11       Impact factor: 5.606

View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  Adverse Drug Reactions in Norway: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Mojtaba Vaismoradi; Patricia A Logan; Sue Jordan; Hege Sletvold
Journal:  Pharmacy (Basel)       Date:  2019-07-25
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.