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

Warfarin-associated bleeding events and concomitant use of potentially interacting medicines reported to the Norwegian spontaneous reporting system

AIMS

To study warfarin associated bleeding events reported to the Norwegian spontaneous reporting system and evaluate the differences in assessment of potentially interacting medicines between reporters and evaluators.

METHODS

Data on bleeding events on warfarin were retrieved from the Norwegian spontaneous reporting system database. Key measurements were time to bleeding, use of concomitant medications and the evaluation done by reporters.

RESULTS

In 289 case reports a total of 1261 medicines (median 4.0 per patient, range 1-17) was used. The evaluators (authors of this article) identified 546 medicines including warfarin (median 2.0 per patient, range 1-7) that could possibly cause bleeding alone or in combination. Reporters assessed 349 medicines (median 1.0 per patient, range 1-4) as suspect. Evaluators identified 156 pharmacokinetic and 101 pharmacodynamic interactions, compared with 19 pharmacokinetic and 56 pharmacodynamic interactions reported as suspected by the reporters. Time to bleeding was stated in 224 reports. Among the early bleeding events, the reports on warfarin without interacting medicines showed the highest INR (international normalized ratio). Heparin was used in 17/21 reported bleeding events during the first week on warfarin. Among the late bleeding events, reports with pharmacokinetic interacting medicines had the highest INR.

CONCLUSIONS

Concomitant use of potentially interacting medicines was involved in the majority of the warfarin-associated bleeding events reported to the Norwegian spontaneous reporting system. Reporters assessed mostly warfarin as the only contributor to bleeding. In particular, pharmacokinetically interacting medicines were not suspected as contributing to bleeding.

Secondary use of electronic health record data: spontaneous triggered adverse drug event reporting

PURPOSE

Physicians in the United States report fewer than 1% of adverse drug events (ADEs) to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), but frequently document ADEs within electronic health records (EHRs). We developed and implemented a generalizable, scalable EHR-based system to automatically send electronic ADE reports to the FDA in real-time.

METHODS

Proof-of-concept study involving 26 clinicians given access to EHR-based ADE reporting functionality from December 2008 to May 2009.

MEASUREMENTS

Number and content of ADE reports; severity of adverse reactions (clinician and computer algorithm defined); clinician survey.

RESULTS

During the study period, 26 clinicians submitted 217 reports to the FDA. The clinicians defined 23% of the ADEs as serious and a computer algorithm defined 4% of the ADEs as serious. The most common drug classes were cardiovascular drugs (40%), central nervous system drugs (19%), analgesics (13%), and endocrine drugs (7%). The reports contained information, pre-filled from the EHR, about comorbid conditions (207 reports [95%] listed 1899 comorbid conditions), concurrent medications (193 reports [89%] listed 1687 concurrent medications), weight (209 reports [96%]), and laboratory data (215 reports [99%]). It took clinicians a mean of 53 seconds to complete and send the form. In the clinician survey, 21 of 23 respondents (91%) said they had submitted zero ADE reports to the FDA in the prior 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

EHR-based, triggered ADE reporting is efficient and acceptable to clinicians, provides detailed clinical information, and has the potential to greatly increase the number and quality of spontaneous reports submitted to the FDA.

Pharmacy student driven detection of adverse drug reactions in the community pharmacy setting

PURPOSE

Post-marketing safety studies of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) form an important part of pharmacovigilance. Countries having a formal pharmacovigilance system to a large extent rely on voluntary ADR reporting from health professionals through spontaneous report systems. The contribution of pharmacists in ADR reporting, although varies significantly among countries. Pharmacists in community pharmacies are in a unique position for detection of experienced ADRs by the drug users. The study reports from a study on community pharmacy internship students' proactive role in ADR detection through direct encountering and questioning with drug users.

METHOD

Pharmacy students undertaking internship in a community pharmacy were approached. Thirteen students from nine community pharmacies participated in the project as data collectors. Prior to the study students attended an educational seminar focusing on ADR detection and reporting in general. Ibuprofen was chosen as the drug of study. Pharmacy students approached recurrent drug users purchasing the drug. Participating users were asked about experienced ADRs linked to ibuprofen use. Reported ADRs were collected and analysed.

RESULTS

Hundred and twenty eight ibuprofen users participated in the study out of who thirty three reported forty five ADRs possibly linked to ibuprofen use. The reported ADRs followed earlier reported patterns of distribution with gastric pain showing up as the most commonly reported symptom followed by heartburn, nausea, diarrhoea and constipation.

CONCLUSIONS

Through adequate training community pharmacy internship students get competencies and are capable of detecting and reporting ADRs through direct questions to drug users.

Educational sessions in pharmacovigilance: What do the doctors think?

Background

The aim of this study was to determine physicians' opinion regarding pharmacovigilance feedback sessions. A survey was conducted in a teaching hospital, and the physicians who attended the sessions were invited to participate by filling out a structured questionnaire. All sessions included a review of adverse drug reactions identified at the hospital and information on pharmacovigilance issues (news on warnings released by regulatory agencies or drug toxicity problems identified by recently published studies in medical journals). The survey questions were related to the interest, satisfaction, and belief in the utility of the sessions. A Likert scale (0-10 points) was used to assess physicians' opinions.

Findings

A total of 159 physicians attended the sessions and 115 (72.3%) participated in the survey. The mean (SD) age was 38.9 (12.1) years, and 72 (62.6%) were men. The mean (SD) scores of interest, satisfaction with the information provided, and belief in the utility of these sessions were 7.52 (1.61), 7.58 (1.46), and 8.05 (1.38) respectively. Significant differences were observed among physicians according to medical category and speciality in terms of interest, satisfaction, and belief in the utility of those sessions.

Conclusions

Educational activities for physicians, such as feedback sessions, can be integrated into the pharmacovigilance activities. Doctors who attend the sessions are interested in and satisfied with the information provided and consider the sessions to be useful. Additional studies on the development and effectiveness of educational activities in pharmacovigilance are necessary.

Efficacy and safety of ciclesonide in the treatment of 24,037 asthmatic patients in routine medical care

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and safety profile of ciclesonide (CIC) in the treatment of asthma was evaluated in a large patient population in a real-life setting in Germany.

METHODS

24,037 patients with persistent mild/moderate bronchial asthma were enrolled into three observational studies with identical design. Data were pooled and analyzed. Patients received ciclesonide (160 μg/day) and were observed for 3 months. FEV(1), PEF, NO, asthma episodes, use of rescue medication and adverse drug reactions (ADR) were recorded.

RESULTS

Mean (95% CI) FEV(1) significantly increased from 80.7 [80.5; 80.9]% of predicted at baseline to 90.1 [89.9; 90.2]% after 3 months (n = 20,297), mean PEF significantly increased from 338 [335; 340] l/min to 392 [390; 395] l/min (n = 8100). NO was significantly reduced from 53.6 [51.8; 55.4] ppb to 26.2 [25.2; 27.1] ppb (n = 971). The percentage of patients with daily symptoms declined from 24.3% to 1.9%, night-time symptoms from 13.3% to 1.3%, and β(2)-agonists use from 26.9% to 8.8%. ADRs were reported by 51 patients (0.2%). Most frequent ADRs were: dysphonia (n = 11), cough (n = 10), dyspnoea, throat irritation, and oral candidiasis (n = 5 each). 46 patients terminated the study prematurely, 41 due to ADR and 5 due to unknown/missing reason. One patient died due to cardiac failure (no causal relation).

CONCLUSION

These observational studies under real-life conditions support findings from controlled clinical studies regarding efficacy and tolerability of ciclesonide in patients with mild to moderate bronchial asthma. No unexpected ADRs were detected.

Motives for reporting adverse drug reactions by patient-reporters in the Netherlands

Aim

The aim of this study was to quantify the reasons and opinions of patients who reported adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in the Netherlands to a pharmacovigilance centre.

Method

A web-based questionnaire was sent to 1370 patients who had previously reported an ADR to a pharmacovigilance centre. The data were analysed using descriptive statistics, χ² tests and Spearman’s correlation coefficients.

Results

The response rate was 76.5% after one reminder. The main reasons for patients to report ADRs were to share their experiences (89% agreed or strongly agreed), the severity of the reaction (86% agreed or strongly agreed to the statement), worries about their own situation (63.2% agreed or strongly agreed) and the fact the ADR was not mentioned in the patient information leaflet (57.6% agreed or strongly agreed). Of the patient-responders, 93.8% shared the opinion that reporting an ADR can prevent harm to other people, 97.9% believed that reporting contributes to research and knowledge, 90.7% stated that they felt responsible for reporting an ADR and 92.5% stated that they will report a possible ADR once again in the future.

Conclusion

The main motives for patients to report their ADRs to a pharmacovigilance centre were the severity of the ADR and their need to share experiences. The high level of response to the questionnaire shows that patients are involved when it comes to ADRs and that they are also willing to share their motivations for and opinions about the reporting of ADRs with a pharmacovigilance centre.

Addressing gaps in pharmacovigilance practices in the antiretroviral therapy program in the Eastern Cape Province, South Africa

BACKGROUND

The use of antiretrovirals (ARVs) is associated with considerable concern regarding adverse drug reactions (ADRs), including both short- and long-term complications. Currently, there is a general underreporting of ADRs in South Africa. In May 2007, the Eastern Cape regional training centre introduced a pharmacovigilance plan for antiretroviral therapy (ART) to improve reporting practices in the area.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to gain insight on attitudes and experiences regarding ADR detection and reporting among health care providers (HCPs) shortly after the first formal pharmacovigilance plan for ART was introduced.

METHODS

Three focus-group discussions were conducted with 12 HCPs. There were 7 nurses, 3 pharmacists, 1 doctor, and 1 auxiliary staff, all recruited from public hospitals and local health authorities in 2 towns in the Eastern Cape Province, South Africa.

RESULTS

It was observed that senior HCPs knew that ADRs from ARVs should be reported formally, whereas junior staff did not demonstrate the same knowledge. The participants thought that underreporting from the primary health care level was a major problem. HCPs identified various reasons for underreporting ADRs: problems with filling out the reporting form, lack of training, high workload, lack of feedback, and fears of not being taken seriously. Lack of adequate training in pharmacovigilance led to lack of confidence among the professional nurses in managing ADRs.

CONCLUSIONS

Increased focus on pharmacovigilance with adequate, continuous training, especially for nurses managing down-referred patients in primary health care on identification and management of ADRs, and practical use of the ADR form may be necessary to improve pharmacovigilance practices in the area.

Perceptions of doctors to adverse drug reaction reporting in a teaching hospital in Lagos, Nigeria

BACKGROUND

Spontaneous adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting is the cornerstone of pharmacovigilance. ADR reporting with Yellow Cards has tremendously improved pharmacovigilance of drugs in many developed countries and its use is advocated by the World Health Organization (WHO). This study was aimed at investigating the knowledge and attitude of doctors in a teaching hospital in Lagos, Nigeria on spontaneous ADR reporting and to suggest possible ways of improving this method of reporting.

METHODS

A total of 120 doctors working at the Lagos State University Teaching Hospital (LASUTH), in Nigeria were evaluated with a questionnaire for their knowledge and attitudes to ADR reporting. The questionnaire sought the demographics of the doctors, their knowledge and attitudes to ADR reporting, the factors that they perceived may influence ADR reporting, and their levels of education and training on ADR reporting. Provision was also made for suggestions on the possible ways to improve ADR reporting.

RESULTS

The response rate was 82.5%. A majority of the respondents (89, 89.9%) considered doctors as the most qualified health professionals to report ADRs. Forty (40.4%) of the respondents knew about the existence of National Pharmacovigilance Centre (NPC) in Nigeria. Thirty-two (32.3%) respondents were aware of the Yellow Card reporting scheme but only two had ever reported ADRs to the NPC. About half (48.5%) of the respondents felt that all serious ADRs could be identified after drug marketing. There was a significant difference between the proportion of respondents who felt that ADR reporting should be either compulsory or voluntary (chi2 = 38.9, P < 0.001). ADR reporting was encouraged if the reaction was serious (77, 77.8%) and unusual (70, 70.7%). Education and training was the most recognised means of improving ADR reporting.

CONCLUSION

The knowledge of ADRs and how to report them are inadequate among doctors working in a teaching hospital in Lagos, Nigeria. More awareness should be created on the Yellow Card reporting scheme. Continuous medical education, training and integration of ADR reporting into the clinical activities of the doctors would likely improve reporting.

Educational intervention to improve physician reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in a primary care setting in complementary and alternative medicine

BACKGROUND

Recent studies have shown that adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are underreported. This may be particularly true of ADRs associated with complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Data on CAM-related ADRs, however, are sparse.Objective was to evaluate the impact of an educational intervention and monitoring programme designed to improve physician reporting of ADRs in a primary care setting.

METHODS

A prospective multicentre study with 38 primary care practitioners specialized in CAM was conducted from January 2004 through June 2007. After 21 month all physicians received an educational intervention in terms of face-to-face training to assist them in classifying and reporting ADRs. The study centre monitored the quantity and quality of ADR reports and analysed the results.To measure changes in the ADR reporting rate, the median number of ADR reports and interquartile range (IQR) were calculated before and after the educational intervention. The pre-intervention and post-intervention quality of the reports was assessed in terms of changes in the completeness of data provided for obligatory items. Interrater reliability between the physicians and the study centre was calculated using Cohen's kappa with a 95% confidence interval (CI). We used Mann Whitney U-test for testing continuous data and chi-square test was used for categorical data. The level of statistical significance was set at P < 0.05.

RESULTS

A total of 404 ADRs were reported during the complete study period. An initial 148% increase (P = 0.001) in the number of ADR reports was observed after the educational intervention. Compared to baseline the postinterventional number of ADR reportings was statistically significant higher (P < 0.005) through the first 16 months after the intervention but not significant in the last 4-month period (median: 8.00 (IQR [2.75; 8.75]; P = 0.605). The completeness of the ADR reports increased from 80.3% before to 90.7% after the intervention. The completeness of the item for classifying ADRs as serious or non-serious increased significantly (P < 0.001) after the educational intervention. The quality of ADR reports increased from kappa 0.15 (95% CI: 0.08; 0.29) before to 0.43 (95% CI: 0.23; 0.63) after the intervention.

CONCLUSION

The results of the present study demonstrate that an educational intervention can increase physician awareness of ADRs. Participating physicians were able to incorporate the knowledge they had gained from face-to-face training into their daily clinical practice. However, the effects of the intervention were temporary.