[Satisfaction of a pharmacovigilance declaration support network in general practice]

Evaluation of a simplified pharmacovigilance tool for general practitioners: 5 years of insight

Spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) is the cornerstone of pharmacovigilance. However, major underreporting exists. The main objective of this study was to assess the use of a pharmacovigilance simplified reporting tool (PSRT) by general practitioners (GPs) and, secondarily, to describe the quality of ADR reports during this period. The PSRT was proposed on June 1st, 2015, for the 1290 GPs in the Western Normandy Region. The number and quality of ADRs reported monthly by GPs were prospectively collected from June 1st, 2015, to May 31st, 2020 (Period 2), and compared to those reported during a control period (June 1st, 2010, to May 31st, 2015, Period 1). During all the periods, 920 reports were made by 307 GPs (198 reports in Period 1 and 722 reports in Period 2), with 477 reports (51.8%) using the PSRT. During Period 2, the monthly number of reports was multiplied by 3.5 (p < 0.0001), and the number of GPs was 1.4 compared to that in Period 1 (p = 0.01). Our PSRT showed effectiveness in quantitative and qualitative terms. It must now go further and be integrated into GP software to facilitate ADR reporting nationwide.

Cabinets de médecine générale et notification des effets indésirables médicamenteux : expertise d’un délégué de l’Assurance maladie

INTRODUCTION

In order to reduce the under-reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADR) in general practice, the Caen Normandie regional pharmacovigilance center (CRPV) has implemented a training program for the French health insurance representatives (DAM) of the Manche department in order to raise awareness among general practitioners (GPs) to ADR reporting.

PURPOSE OF RESEARCH

During quarterly visits of DAM to GPs, the mode of operation and the value of pharmacovigilance reporting was presented. This pilot study presents the impact of these DAM visits to GPs in term of ADRs reporting quantification.

RESULTS

Assessment of this first year showed a doubling of ADR reporting by GPs of the Manche department in 2019 compared to 2017 and 2018. This phenomenon was not found in the two control departments (departments of Calvados and Orne) where the information had not been issued. These ADRs first concerned drugs of the renin-angiotensin system, then psychotropic drugs and anti-infectives. These were cutaneous, then neurological and gastrointestinal ADRs, preferentially affecting women.

CONCLUSIONS

This experimentation should continue on a larger scale. The longer-term evaluation of this tool also requires evaluating its relevance.

Interest of a general practitioner pharmacovigilance network to provide drug information: A comparative study in France

INTRODUCTION

Since 2015, Toulouse University PharmacoVigilance Center (TUPVC) set up a pharmacovigilance (PV) general practitioner (GP) network, called PharmacoMIP-MG. A clinical research assistant (CRA) moves to the office of GPs included in the PharmacoMIP-MG network (PMIP-GPs). There, he collects the adverse drug reaction (ADR) reports and drug-related questions. This additional support is not available to GPs not included in the PV network (NoPMIP-GPs) who have to ask drug questions spontaneously to the TUPVC.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to compare the number and characteristics of drug questions between PMIP-GPs and NoPMIP-GPs.

METHODS

All questions asked by GPs to the TUPVC from 01 Jan 2015 to 31 Dec 2017 were reviewed. Questions were classified into two groups: "general" and "related to a patient". The "related to a patient" category was divided in three subgroups: "ADRs", Drug-Drug Interactions and "Drug Management". Drugs were classified according to anatomical therapeutic chemical (ATC) classification. For comparisons, Wilcoxon test, Chi² test or Fisher test were used.

RESULTS

During the study period, the CRA collected 293 questions from the 165 PMIP-GPs. TUPVC received 333 questions asked spontaneously by the 3400 NoPMIP-GPs. PMIP-GPs asked significantly 3 times more questions than NoPMIP-GPs. Most of the GP questions were classified in the "related to a patient" category (74.9%). When we compared the proportion of "related to a patient" to "general" questions, there was no statistically significant difference between PMIP-GPs and NoPMIP-GPs. PMIP-GPs asked more questions about "ADRs", but less on "Drug Management" and or "Drug-Drug Interactions". The drugs most frequently involved were amiodarone, rivaroxaban and levothyroxine.

CONCLUSION

This is the first study about GPs' drug-related questions asked to a PV center. We found that an organization, such as a CRA-GP "face to face" visit, increased the number of drug questions. This kind of organization should be developed in order to improve independent drug information outreach.