An investigation of pharmacovigilance and reporting of adverse drug reactions in hospitals: a cross-sectional study in China

Analysis of adverse drug reactions/events of cancer chemotherapy and the potential mechanism of Danggui Buxue decoction against bone marrow suppression induced by chemotherapy

Objective: To analyze the clinical characteristics of adverse reactions/events based on chemotherapy in cancer patients, and then explore the potential mechanism of Danggui Buxue Decoction (DBD) against chemotherapy-induced bone marrow suppression (BMS). Methods: Retrospectively collected and evaluated were the clinical data of patients in a hospital who experienced adverse reactions/events brought on by chemotherapeutic medications between 2015 and 2022. We explored the potential mechanism of DBD against BMS using network pharmacology based on the findings of the adverse reactions/events analysis. Results: 151 instances (72.25%) experienced adverse reactions/events from a single chemotherapy medication. Besides, platinum-based medications produced the most unfavorable effects. The study also found that chemotherapy caused the highest number of cases of BMS, including platinum drugs. Consequently, BMS is the most prevalent adverse reaction disease caused by chemotherapy found in this part. According to network pharmacology findings, DBD can prevent BMS primarily involving 1,510 primary targets and 19 key active ingredients. Based on the enrichment analysis, PI3K-AKT, TNF, MAPK, and IL-17 signaling pathways made up the majority of the DBD-resisting BMS pathways. Molecular docking displayed that kaempferol, the major active ingredient of DBD, had the highest binding energy (-10.08 kJ mol-1) with PTGS2 (a key target of BMS). Conclusion: Cancer patients who received chemotherapy had a risk to develop BMS. Regular blood tests should be performed while taking medicine; early discovery and treatment can reduce a patient's risk of experiencing adverse reactions/events. Additionally, this study demonstrated that DBD, through a variety of targets and pathways, may be crucial in avoiding BMS.

Current career situations of Chinese pharmacovigilance professionals working for pharmaceutical companies: an exploratory survey

BACKGROUND

Pharmacovigilance in China has experienced rapid development in the past 30 years. The implementation of Good Pharmacovigilance Practice in China since the end of 2021 heralds a new era of pharmacovigilance affairs, which puts forward higher requirements for the quantity and quality of pharmacovigilance personnel. This study aimed to preliminarily explore the current career situations of pharmacovigilance professionals working in China for pharmaceutical companies.

METHODS

A questionnaire was adapted from research in the USA and Europe with the help of several pharmacovigilance experts. Snowball sampling was used to conduct an exploratory survey to obtain the frequency of basic demographic information, work status, and career expectations of pharmacovigilance professionals working for pharmaceutical companies.

RESULTS

The personnel engaged in pharmacovigilance work for pharmaceutical companies were mainly medical or pharmaceutical undergraduates within 3 years of graduation. Their work intensity and pressure were relatively high. The training provided by their universities and enterprises could not well meet their needs to improve their job competence. Although they were optimistic about pharmacovigilance and will not change their career, most of them were planning to change their employers.

CONCLUSION

There was a gap between the demand and supply of pharmacovigilance personnel. Relevant regulatory authorities and industry associations should guide higher education institutions to collaborate with pharmacovigilance specialists to strengthen pharmacovigilance education for medical or pharmaceutical students, on the basis of which pharmacovigilance certification courses and continuing education courses can be developed. Meanwhile, pharmaceutical enterprises should consider reasonably adjusting work intensity and income to avoid a high turnover rate.

Adverse drug reaction reporting quality among different health professionals and the contribution of clinical pharmacists: A pilot study

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting is generally of poor quality, which may delay post-marketing regulatory actions. Here, we evaluated the quality of ADR reporting at our institution and examined the roles of clinical pharmacists in this process.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed ADR reports at our hospital between 2017 and 2019 to assess the number, source, drugs, and routes of administration. The quality assessment of ADR case reports form issued by the China Adverse Drug Reaction Monitoring Centre was used to assess the quality of ADR reports. Quality scores of ADR reports from pharmacists and nonpharmacists were assessed before and after review by clinical pharmacists.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Reports of adverse drug reaction reporting by healthcare professionals increased annually, with 59, 77 and 82 reports submitted in 2017, 2018 and 2019, respectively. The numbers of new or serious ADR reports by healthcare professionals in 2017, 2018, and 2019 were 5 (8.47%), 77 (11.69%) and 82 (10.98%), respectively. New or serious ADR reports accounted for approximately 10% (23/218) of all reported cases, and more than 70% (158/218) of the reports were from pharmacists. Systemic administration accounted for more than 80% (233/265) of adverse reactions, whereas ADRs due to topical drug use were rarely reported. The drugs that reportedly triggered ADRs were mainly antibacterial and patented Chinese medicines and accounted for more than half of all reported cases. The scores of ADR reports from pharmacists and nonpharmacists before modification by clinical pharmacists were 86.69 ± 8.12 and 68.36 ± 5.94, respectively, and the scores of ADR reports from pharmacists and nonpharmacists after modification by clinical pharmacists were 91.14 ± 6.64 and 90.02 ± 5.63, respectively.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

In a real-world setting, pharmacists are commonly responsible for most ADR reports. The quality of ADR reports from pharmacists and nonpharmacists before review did not reach the standard of excellence. An audit of clinical pharmacists may improve the overall quality of ADR reports. However, under-reporting of adverse reactions still occurs.