A qualitative study to explore how patients identify and assess symptoms as adverse drug reactions

Patients' Identification, Management and Prevention of Adverse Drug Reactions: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Patients with Severe Adverse Drug Reactions

Background: Few studies have been conducted on how patients identify, manage, and prevent severe adverse drug reactions (ADRs). This study aimed to explore the reasoning that patients use to identify symptoms of severe ADRs and the methods they employ to manage and prevent them. Methods: A cross-sectional survey using structured telephone interviews was administered to patients with a self-assessed severe ADR and to patients with serious skin ADRs from a hospital medical record database (in-patient and out-patient) from 1 September 2016 to 1 September 2019. Patients identified via the medical records were asked to assess their ADR for severity, and only patients that rated their ADR as severe were followed up with a telephone interview. Structured telephone interviews were conducted with respondents by a research pharmacist and audio-recorded. Results: A total of 722 patients with a severe ADR were identified, with 300 completing the interview (41.6%). The most frequently cited reasons for classifying ADRs as severe was worsening ADR symptoms (58.3%), severe ADR symptoms (44.4%), and ADR symptoms interfering with their life (36.4%). Only severe ADR symptoms were significantly different between the questionnaire and the medical records database groups (p = 0.007). The most frequent method of ADR management was discontinuation of drug by physicians (88.3%). About 79.0% of patients stated that they increased their carefulness when using other drugs after experiencing ADRs. The main method patients used to prevent ADRs was informing healthcare professionals (HCPs) about their drug allergy history (65.7%). Conclusions: Worsening ADR symptoms were often used to identify severe ADRs. However, HCPs were mainly responsible for the management and prevention of severe ADRs. Increasing awareness of ADRs by HCPs, and providing additional drug information, may improve patient safety.

Accuracy in patient-reported adverse drug reactions and their recognition: a mixed-methods study

BACKGROUND

The causality assessment tool can be utilized to assist patients in identifying adverse drug reactions (ADRs).

AIM

To evaluate the accuracy of the causality assessment tool for patients identifying ADRs compared to assessments made by pharmacists, and to explore how patients recall and recognize symptoms as ADRs.

METHOD

Mixed methods study consisting of self-administered questionnaires (phase 1) and semi-structured, face-to-face interviews (phase 2) with patients who had experienced ADRs in the past year at a tertiary care hospital in Thailand.

RESULTS

Out of 769 questionnaires, 716 were returned and 622 of these were both valid and had at least one ADR (86.8%). Classification of patient-reported symptoms using the causality assessment tool found 12 (1.9%) highly-probable ADRs, 399 (64.1%) probable ADRs, 207 (33.3%) possible ADRs, and 4 (0.6%) that were not classified as ADRs. There was fair agreement between patient-assessed and pharmacist-assessed causality classifications using the Naranjo algorithm (K = 0.268) and the World Health Organization Uppsala Monitoring Centre (WHO-UMC) criteria (K = 0.373). The timing relationship between the occurrence of symptoms and administration of a suspected drug was the most frequently mentioned reason that patients gave for recalling and recognizing suspected ADRs.

CONCLUSION

Promoting the causality assessment tool for use by patients in collaboration with healthcare professionals is likely to enhance patients' ability to correctly identify ADRs and ultimately contribute to increased medication safety.

Comparing patient reported and medical record data of adverse drug reactions to anti-seizure drugs

BACKGROUND

Anti-seizure drugs (ASDs) can potentially cause serious adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Patient self-reporting can increase the rate of ADR detection, but studies examining patient self-reporting of ADRs caused by ASDs are lacking.

AIM

To determine the characteristics of ADRs reported by patients receiving ASDs, assess laboratory data and medical record confirmation of patient-reported ADRs, and explore factors associated with laboratory data and medical record confirmation.

METHOD

A self-reporting questionnaire was distributed to patients prescribed ASDs at outpatient clinics. Patients assessed the causality of suspected ADRs using Causality Assessment Tool. Naranjo's algorithm was used by researchers for causality assessment. Medical records were used to gather information on ADR symptoms, ASD medication, and abnormal laboratory data.

RESULTS

From 478 distributed questionnaires, 93.1% completed the questionnaire and 67.4% of respondents reported at least one ADR. The most common ADRs were drowsiness (50.7%), dizziness (9.7%), and ataxia (4.3%). For causality, suspected ADRs were classified as possible in 52.3% of cases and probable in 46.3% of cases by patients, and possible in 64.7% of cases and probable in 25.7% of cases by researchers. Only 12.7% of patients had laboratory data and/or medical record confirmation of suspected ADRs. The psychiatry clinic was less likely to confirm suspected ADRs compared to the epilepsy clinic (OR = 0.412, p = 0.022).

CONCLUSION

Confirmation of patient-reported ADRs with either laboratory data or medical records was uncommon. Recording patient-reported ADRs in patients' medical history and monitoring laboratory tests related to patient-reported symptoms should be promoted to increase the safety of ASD treatment.

Pharmacovigilance in low- and middle-income countries: A review with particular focus on Africa

Low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) face unique challenges with regard to the establishment of robust pharmacovigilance systems capable of generating data to inform healthcare policy and practice. These include the limited integration and reliability of pharmacovigilance systems across LMIC despite recent efforts to harmonize pharmacovigilance rules and regulations in several regional economic communities. There are particular challenges relating to the need to translate reporting tools into numerous local languages and the low numbers of healthcare providers relative to number of patients, with very short consultation times. Additional factors frequent in LMIC include high uptake of herbal and traditional medication, mostly by self-medication; disruptive political conflicts jeopardizing fragile systems; and little or no access to drug utilization data, which makes it difficult to reliably estimate the true risks of medicines use. Pharmacovigilance activities are hindered by the scarcity of well-trained personnel with little or no budgetary support from national governments; high turnover of pharmacovigilance staff whose training involves a substantial amount of resources; and little awareness of pharmacovigilance among healthcare workers, decision makers and consumers. Furthermore, little collaboration between public health programmes and national medicines regulatory authorities coupled with limited investment in pharmacovigilance activities, especially during mass drug administration for neglected tropical diseases and mass vaccinations, produces major challenges in establishing a culture where pharmacovigilance is systematically embedded. Very low spontaneous reporting rates with poor quality reports hinders robust signal detection analyses. This review summarises the specific challenges and areas of progress in pharmacovigilance in LMIC with special focus on the situation in Africa.

Understanding Patient Needs Regarding Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Smartphone Applications: A Qualitative Insight from Saudi Arabia

BACKGROUND

A pragmatic shift in the healthcare sector characterized by moving from curative to preventive approaches highlights the role of pharmacovigilance in patient safety. There have been few published studies on patient reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in Saudi Arabia. This qualitative study aims to explore the community opinions and the need for patient-friendly smartphone applications (SPAs) to enhance their participation in ADR reporting.

METHODS

Purposeful sampling was followed to recruit study participants, a semi-structured interview guide was used to conduct interviews, and the saturation was reached after the 13th interviewer; no new information was obtained after two subsequent interviews. All the interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed by means of a standard content analysis framework.

RESULTS

As per the WHO guidelines, eleven participants were aware of the term "ADR". All the participants denied receiving any prior education and attending events about ADRs and were unaware of the Saudi FDA-ADR reporting systems. The use of technologies such as SPAs has been widely accepted with a high level of concern for data confidentiality and privacy.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings point out the need to build patient-oriented educational programs to increase their awareness of ADR reporting and to prioritize the use of artificial intelligence (AI) to be integrated in the Saudi healthcare system to develop future SPAs for improving both patient safety and signal detection of ADRs.

Community Pharmacists' Views and Experiences with ADR Reporting for Complementary Medicines: A Qualitative Study in New Zealand

INTRODUCTION

Detecting signals of safety concerns associated with complementary medicines (CMs) relies on spontaneous reports submitted by health professionals and patients/consumers. Community pharmacists are well placed to identify and report suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) associated with CMs, but pharmacists submit few CMs ADR reports.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to explore New Zealand community pharmacists' views and experiences with ADR reporting for CMs.

METHODS

Qualitative, in-depth, semi-structured interviews were undertaken with 27 practising community pharmacists identified through purposive and convenience sampling. Data were analysed using a general inductive approach.

RESULTS

Participants were familiar with systems for reporting ADRs, believed ADR reporting for CMs important, and that pharmacists should contribute. However, few submitted reports of CMs ADRs and none encouraged patients/consumers to do so. Participants explained this was because they had never been informed by patients about ADRs associated with CMs. Participants said they would report serious ADRs; time pressures, lack of certainty around causality, lack of awareness of mechanisms for reporting CMs ADRs, and lack of remuneration were deterrents to reporting. Participants were aware of intensive-monitoring studies for prescription medicines, understood the rationale for considering this approach for CMs and recognised there would be potential practical difficulties.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants used their knowledge of CMs safety concerns to minimise risk of harms to consumers from CMs use, but most had a passive approach to identifying and reporting ADRs for CMs. There is substantial potential for pharmacists to adopt proactive strategies in pharmacovigilance for CMs, particularly in recognising and reporting ADRs, and empowering CMs users to do the same.

Recommendations on the Use of Mobile Applications for the Collection and Communication of Pharmaceutical Product Safety Information: Lessons from IMI WEB-RADR

Over a period of 3 years, the European Union's Innovative Medicines Initiative WEB-RADR (Recognising Adverse Drug Reactions; https://web-radr.eu/ ) project explored the value of two digital tools for pharmacovigilance (PV): mobile applications (apps) for reporting the adverse effects of drugs and social media data for its contribution to safety signalling. The ultimate intent of WEB-RADR was to provide policy, technical and ethical recommendations on how to develop and implement such digital tools to enhance patient safety. Recommendations relating to the use of mobile apps for PV are summarised in this paper. There is a presumption amongst at least some patients and healthcare professionals that information ought to be accessed and reported from any setting, including mobile apps. WEB-RADR has focused on the use of such technology for reporting suspected adverse drug reactions and for broadcasting safety information to its users, i.e. two-way risk communication. Three apps were developed and publicly launched within Europe as part of the WEB-RADR project and subsequently assessed by a range of stakeholders to determine their value as effective tools for improving patient safety; a fourth generic app was later piloted in two African countries. The recommendations from the development and evaluation of the European apps are presented here with supporting considerations, rationales and caveats as well as suggested areas for further research.

Use of information sources regarding medicine side effects among the general population: a cross-sectional survey

Aim:

To determine the use and perceived value of different information sources that patients may use to support identification of medicine side effects; to explore associations between coping styles and use of information sources.

Background:

Side effects from medicines can have considerable negative impact on peoples’ daily lives. As a result of an ageing UK population and attendant multi-morbidity, an increasing number of medicines are being prescribed for patients, leading to increased risk of unintended side effects.

Methods:

A cross-sectional survey of patients who use medicine, recruited from community pharmacies. The survey sought views on attributes of various information sources, their predicted and actual use, incorporating a shortened Side Effects Coping Questionnaire (SECope) scale and the abbreviated Miller Behavioural Style Scale (MBSS).

Findings:

Of 935 questionnaires distributed, 230 (25.0%) were returned, 61.3% from females; 44.7% were retired and 84.6% used at least one medicine regularly. 69.6% had experienced a side effect, resulting in 57.5% of these stopping the medicine. Patient information leaflets (PILs) and GPs were both predicted and actually most widely used sources, despite GPs being judged as relatively less accessible and PILs less trustworthy, particularly by regular medicine users. Pharmacists, considered both easy to access and trustworthy, were used by few in practice, while the internet was considered easy to access, but less trustworthy and was also little used. SECope sub-scales for non-adherence and information seeking showed positive associations with stopping a medicine and seeking information from a health professional. More high monitors than low monitors stopped a medicine themselves, but there were no differences in use of information sources. Information seeking following a side effect is a common strategy, potentially predicted by the SECope, but not the MBSS. Limited GP accessibility could contribute to high internet use. Further research could determine how the trustworthiness of PILs can be improved.

Patient beliefs and attitudes to taking statins: systematic review of qualitative studies

BACKGROUND

Statins are effective in preventing cardiovascular disease (CVD) events and are recommended for at-risk individuals but estimated adherence rates are low.

AIM

To describe patients' perspectives, experiences, and attitudes towards taking statins.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Systematic review of qualitative studies reporting perspectives of patients on statins.

METHOD

PsycINFO, CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, and PhD dissertations from inception to 6 October 2016 were searched for qualitative studies on adult patients' perspectives on statins. All text and participant quotations were extracted from each article and analysed by thematic synthesis.

RESULTS

Thirty-two studies involving 888 participants aged 22-93 years across eight countries were included. Seven themes were identified: confidence in prevention (trust in efficacy, minimising long-term catastrophic CVD, taking control, easing anxiety about high cholesterol); routinising into daily life; questioning utility (imperceptible benefits, uncertainties about pharmacological mechanisms); medical distrust (scepticism about overprescribing, pressure to start therapy); threatening health (competing priorities and risks, debilitating side effects, toxicity to body); signifying sickness (fear of perpetual dependence, losing the battle); and financial strain.

CONCLUSION

An expectation that statins could prevent CVD and being able to integrate the statin regimen in daily life facilitated acceptance of statins among patients. However, avoiding the 'sick' identity and prolonged dependence on medications, uncertainties about the pharmacological mechanisms, risks to health, side effects, costs, and scepticism about clinicians' motives for prescribing statins were barriers to uptake. Shared decision making that addresses the risks, reasons for prescribing, patient priorities, and implementing strategies to minimise lifestyle intrusion and manage side effects may improve patient satisfaction and continuation of statins.

Adverse drug event patterns experienced by patients with diabetes: A diary study in primary care

PURPOSE

Little is known about adverse drug events (ADEs) experienced over time during chronic drug use. The purpose of this study was to assess ADE patterns experienced by patients with diabetes.

METHODS

Patients who received an oral glucose-lowering drug completed a daily diary for 13 weeks. The diary asked for experienced symptoms and whether patients related these symptoms to any drug they used. Summaries of Product Characteristics were used to check whether the ADEs were known adverse drug reactions (ADRs) of the drugs used. Patterns of weekly occurring ADEs were assessed with descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

We included 78 patients. Almost half of them reported at least one ADE (N = 36; 46%). In total, 80 ADEs were reported. Of these ADEs, 71 (90%) were known ADRs. ADEs lasted less than 1 week in 27 cases (34%) and between 2 and 12 weeks in 15 cases (19%). The remaining ADEs fluctuated (16 cases; 20%) or persisted (22 cases; 28%) during the entire study period.

CONCLUSIONS

ADEs experienced by patients with diabetes can fluctuate or persist over long periods of drug use.

Development and preliminary validation of an instrument to enable laypersons to assess suspected side effects from medicines

PURPOSE

Research into causality assessment tools enabling patients to assess suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) is limited. Supporting patients with tools could improve their confidence in discussions with health professionals and encourage reporting of suspected ADRs to regulators. This study describes development and preliminary validation of an instrument: Side Effect Patient ASsessment Tool (SE-PAST).

METHODS

SE-PAST was developed from survey and interview data involving patients experiencing suspected ADRs. It included 10 statements enabling causality assessment, covering timing, additional information sources, and experiences, with four options: yes/no/don't know/not applicable. Scoring and weighting resulted in four categories of causal association: highly probable, probable, possible, unlikely. Validation involved obtaining feedback from 31 individuals experiencing an ADR. Further validation involved online distribution through patient support groups and comparison of reported symptoms to known ADRs.

RESULTS

Validators found SE-PAST easy to read (31), to understand (27), and to complete (29). A total of 294 respondents completed SE-PAST online, with 98% completing eight or more causality assessment statements. Symptoms were categorised as highly probable (46; 16%), probable (80; 62%), possible (44; 15%), and unlikely (21; 7%). A total of 221 respondents identified one suspected medicine, with 95% of these reporting at least one symptom known to be an ADR. Of 227 providing feedback, 139 (61%) found SE-PAST useful, 160 (71%) felt motivated to discuss their experience with a health professional, and 136 (60%) were encouraged to report to the regulator.

CONCLUSION

SE-PAST was easily completed and understood by people experiencing suspected ADRs and could be useful in encouraging patient reporting to health professionals and agencies.

‘You feel like you haven’t got any control’: A qualitative study of side effects from medicines

Objectives

An aging UK population and multi-morbidity means patients are receiving an increasing number of medicines. This can lead to greater risk of unintended side effects. The aim of this study was to increase understanding of how people identify and manage side effects from their medicines.

Design

A qualitative interview study with patients who had experienced side effects, recruited from community pharmacies.

Methods

This study examined patients’ experiences of side effects and the impact of these effects on their daily life. Fifteen participants were interviewed – 10 females and 5 males, with ages that ranged between 25 and 80 years, using different types and numbers of medicines.

Results

Thematic analysis revealed six themes: side effect experience, identification, adherence, information use, coping and body awareness. Participants described a wide range of physical and psychological symptoms which had both explicit and implicit impact on their lives. A system of identification based on constructed cognitive processes was common across participants. A variety of strategies were used by participants to cope with their side effects which included information seeking, social support seeking and non-adherent behaviours.

Conclusions

Psychological factors, such as medication beliefs, symptom interpretation and body awareness, contribute to cognitive and behavioural processes used to identify and manage side effects. These processes can have significant impacts on an individual’s decisions about adherence.

The contribution of Ghanaian patients to the reporting of adverse drug reactions: a quantitative and qualitative study

Background

Under-reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) is a major challenge for pharmacovigilance in Africa. This study sets out to assess the level of awareness of Ghanaian patients about ADRs and ADR-reporting and explores how different patients in Ghana recognize an ADR and the steps they take when they experience an ADR.

Methods

This was a two-part study consisting of a survey to quantify the awareness of Ghanaian patients on ADRs and ADR-reporting, and in-depth interviews to explore how patients recognize an ADR and the steps they take thereafter. Participants were selected from 28 health care facilities (HCF) in rural and urban areas in 4 out of the 10 administrative regions of Ghana. Chi-square tests were used to examine associations between demographic variables and i) awareness of ADRs and ADR-reporting, ii) ADR experience and iii) awareness of the Ghana Food and Drug Authority (Ghana-FDA) and its patient reporting system (PRS). Only participants that indicated they experienced an ADR were included for the in-depth interviews. Data was investigated for participants’ awareness of ADRs, ADR reporting and steps taken when they experience ADRs.

Results

Of the total 572 participants enrolled in the study, 14% indicated they were unaware of ADRs and were excluded. Of the remaining 491 participants, 38% had experienced an ADR, of which 67% reported the ADR, 68% of them reported it to a doctor. Only 3% of the 491 participants were aware of the Ghana-FDA’s PRS. The interview phase consisted of 33 patients who had experienced an ADR. Three key findings from the interview phase were; most participants recognized an ADR themselves, the symptoms of the ADR were the most mentioned reason for reporting and participants experienced a wide variety of obstacles in ADR-reporting.

Conclusions

Most Ghanaian patients appear unaware of or unable/unwilling to use formal national channels for ADR reporting like the Ghana-FDA PRS. Motivation for ADR reporting appeared mainly personal and not communal. These findings warrant further attention in order to increase patient reporting of ADRs.

Confidence and accuracy in identification of adverse drug reactions reported by outpatients

Background Patient reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) could supplement the existing reporting system and contribute to early detection of ADRs. The confidence in ADR identification and their attribution of ADRs were limited to outpatients. Objective To determine the type and frequency of ADRs reported by outpatients, to evaluate confidence and accuracy in ADR identification as well as contributing factors. Setting University hospital in northeastern Thailand Method Cross-sectional study using questionnaires distributed to 500 outpatients who claimed to have experienced an ADR. Confidence in identifying ADRs was measured by visual analogue score (VAS), while accuracy of reported ADRs was determined using Naranjo algorithm and WHO criteria. Main outcome measure Number and type of ADRs, confidence rating and accuracy category. Results In total, 390 outpatients completed the questionnaire (response rate = 78.0%). Rash (19.0%), nausea/vomiting (7.4%), and dizziness (5.8%) were the top three reported ADRs. Sixty-one percent of respondents rated their level of confidence in identifying ADRs as high (VAS 9.2 ± 0.95), which was associated with having underlying diseases (OR 1.93), low number of reported symptoms (OR 0.38) and severe ADRs (OR 1.33). Causality assessment was classified as true ADRs in 90.0% and 88.9% of cases, using Naranjo algorithm and WHO criteria, respectively. Respondents with low number of reported symptoms (OR 0.27) and high level of confidence had greater accuracy in ADR identification (OR 1.11). Conclusion The outpatients reported a high proportion of potential ADRs with high confidence and accuracy. Patient reporting of ADRs has potential to support the pharmacovigilance system.

Interest in a Mobile App for Two-Way Risk Communication: A Survey Study Among European Healthcare Professionals and Patients

INTRODUCTION

Previously, an app has been developed for healthcare professionals (HCPs) and patients to report adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to national medicines agencies and to receive drug safety information.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess (1) European HCPs' and patients' interest in an app for this two-way risk communication; (2) their preferences and perceptions towards specific app characteristics; and (3) which HCPs and patients are particularly interested in the app. In addition, these aspects were studied specifically for the countries where such an app was already available, i.e. Croatia, The Netherlands, and The UK.

METHODS

European HCPs and patients were asked to complete a web-based survey developed in the context of the Web-Recognizing Adverse Drug Reactions (Web-RADR) project. Data on app interest and preferences and perceptions towards app characteristics were analysed descriptively. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to assess the association of HCP characteristics and patient characteristics on the level of interest in the app (i.e. very interested vs. not/somewhat interested).

RESULTS

In total, 399 HCPs and 656 patients completed the survey. About half of the patients (48%; ranging from 38% from The Netherlands to 54% from The UK), and 61% of the HCPs (ranging from 42% from The Netherlands to 54% from The UK) were very interested in the app. A faster means of reporting ADRs and easier access to the reporting form were the main perceived benefits. HCPs and patients who already use a health app were particularly interested in the app (HCPs: odds ratio [OR] 3.52; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.96-6.30, patients: OR 1.64; 95% CI 1.19-2.27).

CONCLUSIONS

An app is positively perceived by HCPs and patients for reporting ADRs quickly and for receiving drug safety information from national medicines agencies. In particular, HCPs and patients who already use other health apps were interested in the app.

Consumer opinions on adverse events associated with medicines and vaccines

INTRODUCTION

Despite the availability of an Australian consumer adverse event (AE) reporting system for over 50 years, reporting rates remain low. A comprehensive understanding of consumer perceptions and experiences regarding AEs is needed to further ascertain factors impacting their engagement in AE reporting.

AIM

The aim of this study was to explore consumer opinions about AEs potentially associated with medicines and vaccines, and their experiences and understanding of managing and reporting AEs.

METHODS

Six focus groups were conducted across metropolitan Sydney with a total of 48 adult participants. A semi-structured focus group topic guide was developed to explore consumers' understanding, experiences, and actions taken in relation to AEs; and perspectives on managing treatment benefits and harms. Discussions were audio-recorded with participant permission and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were thematically analyzed.

RESULTS

Consumers acknowledged the potential for side effects (SEs), however inaccurately estimated SE risk in response to verbal descriptors such as "common." Consumer appraisal of treatment benefits and harms was influenced by factors such as medical condition(s), previous experiences, and beliefs. Although many had experienced SEs, consumers only reported them if considered severe or troublesome. Minimal awareness of consumer AE reporting systems was evident. Doctors were the primary avenue for reporting; consumers preferred doctors to act as the intermediary in reporting AEs to an independent body.

CONCLUSION

Consumers' lack of awareness of AE reporting systems was evident. With the complexities inherent in benefit/harm risk appraisal, information seeking, and AE reporting preferences, better consumer understanding of AEs and the systems available for reporting is needed.

Evaluation of Potentially Drug-Related Patient-Reported Common Symptoms Assessed During Clinical Medication Reviews: A Cross-Sectional Observational Study

Introduction

Healthcare professionals tend to consider common non-alarming drug-related symptoms to be of little clinical relevance. However, such symptoms can have a substantial impact on the individual patient. Insight into patient-reported symptoms could aid pharmacists to identify improvements in medication treatment, for instance in the patient interview at the start of a clinical medication review (CMR).

Objective

The objectives of this study were to describe the numbers and types of patient-reported symptoms assessed during a CMR and to elucidate their potential association with the drugs in use.

Methods

This observational study was performed using data from a clinical trial on patient-reported outcomes of CMRs. Patients taking at least five drugs and who were eligible for a CMR were selected by 15 community pharmacies. Patients were asked to fill in a structured instrument, the Patient Reported Outcome Measure, Inquiry into Side Effects (PROMISE). Among other domains, this instrument offers a list of 22 symptom categories to report symptoms and their relationship with the drugs in use. The results of the PROMISE instrument together with information on patients’ actual drug use were available for analysis. Besides descriptive analysis, associations with side effects as listed in the summary of product characteristics (SPC) of the drugs in use were assessed with logistic regression analysis.

Results

Of the 180 patients included, 168 patients (93.3%) reported at least one symptom via the PROMISE instrument, which could be discussed with the pharmacist during the patient interview. In total, the patients reported 1102 symptoms in 22 symptom categories. Of these patients, 101 (56.1%) assumed that at one or more of the symptoms experienced were related to the drugs in use and 107 (59.4%) reported at least one symptom that corresponded to a ‘very common’ side effect listed in the SPC of a drug in use. Each additional drug in use with a specific symptom listed as a ‘very common’ side effect in its SPC statistically significantly increased the probability of a patient reporting the symptoms of ‘dry mouth/thirst, mouth complaints’, ‘constipation’, ‘diarrhoea’ and ‘sweating’.

Conclusion

Many patient-reported symptoms and symptoms potentially related to drugs in use were identified by administering the PROMISE instrument to users of at least five drugs being taking long-term. This information can be used in CMRs to improve patients’ drug therapy.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40264-017-0504-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Factors Influencing the Use of a Mobile App for Reporting Adverse Drug Reactions and Receiving Safety Information: A Qualitative Study

Introduction

A mobile app may increase the reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and improve the communication of new drug safety information. Factors that influence the use of an app for such two-way risk communication need to be considered at the development stage.

Objective

Our aim was to reveal the factors that may influence healthcare professionals (HCPs) and patients to use an app for two-way risk communication.

Methods

Focus group discussions and face-to-face interviews were conducted in the Netherlands, Spain and the UK. Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, patients with a rare disease or their caregivers and adolescents with health conditions were eligible to participate. HCPs included pharmacists, paediatricians, general practitioners, internists, practice nurses and professionals caring for patients with a rare disease. Patients and HCPs were recruited through various channels. The recorded discussions and interviews were transcribed verbatim. The dataset was analysed using thematic analysis and arranged according to the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology.

Results

Seven focus group discussions and 13 interviews were conducted. In total, 21 HCPs and 50 patients participated. Identified factors that may influence the use of the app were the type of feedback given on reported ADRs, how ADR reports are stored and the type of drug news. Also mentioned were other functions of the app, ease of use, type of language, the source of safety information provided through the app, security of the app, layout, the operating systems on which the app can be used and the costs.

Conclusions

Further research is needed to assess associations between user characteristics and the direction (positive or negative) of the factors potentially influencing app use.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40264-016-0494-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The value of patient reporting to the pharmacovigilance system: a systematic review

AIMS

Current trends in pharmacovigilance systems are veering towards patient involvement in spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs). The aim of the current systematic review was to identify what is known and what remains unknown with respect to patient reporting to pharmacovigilance systems.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, CINAHL, Journals@Ovid and the Cochrane Library. Studies were included if they contained: (i) reviews about patient reporting; (ii) evaluation of patient reports to national or supranational pharmacovigilance authorities; (iii) a comparison between patient and healthcare professional (HCP) reports submitted to pharmacovigilance authorities; and (iv) surveys of patient experiences, opinions and awareness about reporting ADRs. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed according to principles of Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE).

RESULTS

A total of thirty four studies were included. Five of the studies were reviews (two of which systematic reviews), fourteen retrospective observational studies, nine surveys and six applied mixed research methods. Patient reporting has the advantages of bringing novel information about ADRs. It provides a more detailed description of ADRs, and reports about different drugs and system organ classes when compared with HCP reporting. In addition, patients describe the severity and impact of ADRs on daily life, complementing information derived from HCPs. Patient reporting is relatively rare in most countries.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient reporting adds new information, and perspective about ADRs in a way otherwise unavailable. This can contribute to better decision-making processes in regulatory activities. The present review identified gaps in knowledge that should be addressed to improve our understanding of the full potential and drawbacks of patient reporting.

Experiences of and attitudes towards receiving information about non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: a cross-sectional survey of patients in Thailand

OBJECTIVE

To determine sources of information about NSAIDs used by out-patients, factors related to receipt of information and patient attitudes towards receiving safety information.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Cross-sectional survey, using self-completed questionnaires distributed directly to 500 outpatients prescribed any NSAIDs from an orthopaedic clinic in Thailand, over a 4-month period.

RESULTS

There were 548 patients approached and 474 completed questionnaires returned (94.8%). The most frequent aspects of medicines information that were provided related to administration (97.2%), mostly provided by pharmacists, and indication (85.8%), mostly provided by physicians. Information on identifying, monitoring and managing adverse effects was received by fewer than 50% of patients. Safety information was received significantly more frequently by younger patients (P<0.01), those using non-selective COX-2 inhibitors (P<0.001), intermittent NSAIDs (P<0.05) and fewer concomitant medicines (P<0.05). Only 14.1% patients used additional information sources. Attitudes towards receiving medicines safety information were positive. Most patients agreed they should know about ADRs (98.1%) and receive information leaflets with first prescription (96.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients received medicines information mostly from healthcare professionals, but safety information was limited. Type of NSAIDs, regularity of NSAID use and age affected receipt of safety information about NSAIDs. Provision of more medicine information is needed, particularly written documents.

Initial development and testing of an instrument for patient self-assessment of adverse drug reactions

PURPOSE

To develop and conduct preliminary testing of a causality assessment tool for patients, for potential use in encouraging both discussions with clinicians about suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and reporting to authorities.

METHODS

Ten causality statements, developed from qualitative studies involving patients, with a scoring system allowing categorization, were embedded in a questionnaire which also included a symptom checklist and additional details about one suspected ADR and medicine, selected for causality assessment. Patients with experiences of suspected ADRs were involved in cognitive interviews (15), piloting (20) and psychometric testing (120). Test-retest reliability, construct validity and criterion-related validity were evaluated, through repeated causality assessment, comparison with a visual analogue scale assessing certainty of causality and comparison with causality assessment using World Health Organization-Uppsala Monitoring Centre (WHO-UMC) criteria, respectively. The study involved outpatients at a university hospital in northeast Thailand.

RESULTS

Ninety-eight patients completed causality assessment twice: both causality scores (Spearman rs  = 0.715; p < 0.001) and causality classification [percentage of positive agreement (PPA) = 68.4; κ = 0.419; p < 0.001] showed satisfactory reliability. Causality scores were positively correlated with certainty of causality (Spearman rs  = 0.556; p < 0.01). There was moderate agreement against WHO-UMC criteria [PPA = 70.4; κ = 0.440; p < 0.001]. Of the 91 completing an evaluation, 88% agreed that the tool should be used routinely, 78% agreed that it gave them useful results and 80% agreed that it was easy to use.

CONCLUSIONS

This novel instrument has satisfactory psychometric properties and was acceptable to Thai patients, but it requires further testing. It has potential for use in supporting patients with suspected ADRs to discuss these with health professionals, and perhaps to report directly.

Hospital pharmacists' roles and attitudes in providing information on the safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in Thailand

BACKGROUND

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are widely used for patients to manage pain and inflammation, especially in older adults. Failure to cope with some adverse drug reactions (ADRs) of NSAIDs could lead to more serious symptoms, therefore, providing useful information about medicine is an important step in protecting patients from developing serious ADRs. The pharmacy service should be a frequent source of medicine information for patients, however in Thailand, little is known about pharmacists' provision of safety information to patients for management and prevention of these ADRs.

OBJECTIVE

Aims of this study were to determine Thai hospital pharmacists' roles in providing drug safety information and to assess their attitudes towards the importance of giving drug safety education to patients.

SETTING

All government hospitals in north-eastern Thailand.

METHODS

This study was a cross-sectional survey. A total of 761 pharmacists in 287 hospitals in north-eastern Thailand were selected by stratified random sampling. Self-administered questionnaires were sent by post, with two reminders.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Proportion of hospital pharmacists providing ADR information on NSAIDs to patients, factors affecting this provision, and pharmacist attitudes towards drug safety education for patients.

RESULTS

The response rate was 54.8% (N = 417), the majority of respondents worked in community hospitals (57.2%). A total of 347 pharmacists (83.6%) had informed patients about ADRs, although less than half had informed patients about ADR monitoring and management (36.6% and 44.1% respectively). The proportion of time spent in direct patient contact, type of hospital, and other routine work were associated with the frequency of drug safety information provision. Pharmacists had moderately good attitudinal scores towards drug safety education (62.2 ± 5.4), with significantly higher scores found in those who provided most ADR information to patients (60.3 ± 5.2 vs. 62.6 ± 5.4, P = 0.002). The majority (82.2%) agreed that patient information leaflets should be provided.

CONCLUSIONS

Thai hospital pharmacists' provision of ADR information for NSAIDs may occur less frequently than is desirable. However, their positive attitude towards provision of ADR information suggests that drug safety education by pharmacists should be routinely provided to patients, particularly patients at high risk of NSAID use.

Construct and concurrent validity of a patient-reported adverse drug event questionnaire: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Direct patient-reported information about adverse drug events (ADEs) is important since it adds to healthcare professional-reported information about the safety of drugs. Previously, we developed an instrument to assess patient-reported ADEs in research settings. The aim of this study is to assess the construct and concurrent validity of the questionnaire.

METHODS

Patients on at least an oral glucose-lowering drug completed the ADE questionnaire, the World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF, and the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM). The ADE questionnaire assesses ADEs for any drug that the patient uses. Construct validity was assessed by testing whether patients reporting an ADE had a lower general quality of life and physical health than those not reporting an ADE, using Mann-Whitney U-tests and t-tests (significance level <0.05). For concurrent validity, we tested whether ADEs that patients associate with particular drugs in the ADE questionnaire are documented in the Summary of Product Characteristics (SPC) of those drugs, and whether patients who report an ADE with the use of metformin on the TSQM, mention metformin as a drug associated with an ADE on the ADE questionnaire. Agreement of 70% with the SPC was considered satisfactory. Sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) were calculated for the comparison with the TSQM, where 70% was used as the cut-off level for sufficient concurrent validity.

RESULTS

We included 135 patients (mean age 64 years, 35% women). Patients who reported an ADE (N = 37) had a lower general quality of life and physical health than those not reporting an ADE (P < 0.05). For 78 of the 146 reported ADEs (53%), patients mentioned at least 1 particular drug associated with the ADE. After clustering related ADEs, this resulted in 56 patient-reported ADE-drug associations. Of these, 41 (73%) were in agreement with information in the SPC. Finally, the questionnaire had a sensitivity of 38% and PPV of 79% for assessing ADEs associated with metformin.

CONCLUSIONS

The construct validity of the patient-reported ADE questionnaire was sufficient for reporting any versus no ADE, but the concurrent validity was only partly demonstrated. Therefore, the questionnaire needs to be adapted before it can be used.