Identifying and managing ADRs: Qualitative analysis of patient reports to the UK Yellow Card Scheme

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.

Patient's reporting of adverse drug reactions: Which added value in 2023?

Several studies were focused on the qualitative and quantitative analysis of serious adverse drug reactions (ADRs) leading to hospitalisation or death. These figures do not take into account ADRs in ambulatory patients affecting their quality of life. 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 health care professional (HCP) reporting. A certain amount of information is crucial in order to determine the drug-reaction relationship. European regulation and patient support programs have contributed widely to increased patient reporting but the quality of ADR reports is still unequal from one country to another. Patient reports of ADRs have contributed enormously to pharmacovigilance signal detection in a number of ways. Over the last decades, countries have developed dedicated websites for direct patient reporting. The increasing involvement of patients in ADR reporting activities facilitated by a web portal was confirmed by some studies. Patients are now recognised as having a legitimate part to play in the decision-making process. The contribution of patient reports to drug safety was acknowledged and consolidated by European Union (EU) PV legislation in 2012 aiming to involve patients more actively, nowadays called "patient centricity in pharmacovigilance". Patient organisations are involved in regulatory issues and collaborate with health institutions on the development of guidelines. However, some studies suggested that a substantial number of patient organisations have potential financial conflicts of interest but limited disclosure practices. Pharmaceutical companies integrate into patient associations, particularly for chronic diseases by different strategies: educational therapeutic or observance support programs. The question of conflict of interest of patient associations is important requiring better transparency.

Development of a Framework Structuring Themes in the Course of Adverse Drug Reactions from a Patient's Perspective

INTRODUCTION

There is a need for more extensive information about adverse drug reactions (ADRs) for patients than currently available, including information on the course of ADRs. Aspects characterising the course of ADRs from the patient perspective have not been identified before.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to develop a framework based on common themes in the course of ADRs identified from patient descriptions in patient-reported ADRs.

METHODS

In this qualitative study, patient descriptions of the course of patient-reported ADRs were analysed by a thematic analysis with an inductive approach using three different existing datasets containing patient-reported ADRs. Two datasets included patient-reported ADRs from cohort event monitoring of biologics and direct oral anticoagulants and one dataset included spontaneous reports from patients concerning medication for lower urinary tract symptoms. A conceptual framework was developed from the identified main themes and subthemes.

RESULTS

Patient-reported data concerning 3888 ADRs were analysed. Six main themes with multiple subthemes were identified from patient descriptions of the course of ADRs. Four themes were descriptive: frequency of an ADR episode, duration of an ADR episode, moment or period of ADR occurrence, and development in the intensity of the ADR. Two themes concerned factors influencing the course of ADRs: triggering factors and improving factors.

CONCLUSIONS

The presented framework illustrates that patients describe extensive details on the course and timeframe of ADRs. The identified themes provide a basis for improving the systematic data collection of more extensive details about ADRs from patients as a first step towards the provision of more comprehensive ADR information to patients.