Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Drug Safety
Published in: Drug Safety 9/2010

01-09-2010 | Original Research Article

Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting in the UK

A Retrospective Observational Comparison of Yellow Card Reports Submitted by Patients and Healthcare Professionals

Authors: Dr David J. McLernon, Christine M. Bond, Philip C. Hannaford, Margaret C. Watson, Amanda J. Lee, Lorna Hazell, Anthony Avery, Yellow Card Collaboration

Published in: Drug Safety | Issue 9/2010

Login to get access

Abstract

Background: In the UK, spontaneous reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) by healthcare professionals has been in operation since 1964 through the Yellow Card Scheme (YCS). From 2005, patients themselves have been able to submit Yellow Card reports.
Objective: To compare patient characteristics, suspected drugs and suspected ADRs reported by patients with those reported by healthcare professionals using the YCS.
Design and Setting: Retrospective observational study in the UK.
Methods: Participants were patients reported to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), either by themselves, a representative or a healthcare professional, as having one or more suspected ADRs between October 2005 and September 2007. The main outcome measures were ADRs and time taken to report.
Results: In total, 26 129 Yellow Card reports from patients and healthcare professionals were received from the MHRA for the 2-year study period (19.8% patient and 80.2% healthcare professional). More Yellow Card reports were made for female than male patients (p < 0.001). Patients reported a significantly higher number of suspected ADRs per report than healthcare professionals (median [interquartile range IQR] of 3 [2‐5] vs 2 [1‐3], respectively; p<0.001). A higher proportion of patient reports (16.1%) contained more than one suspect drug than healthcare professional reports (9%; p < 0.001). Healthcare professional reports had a higher proportion of ADRs that caused hospitalization (18.8% vs 12.9%), were life threatening (11.1% vs 6.2%) or caused death (2.6% vs 0.7%) than patient reports (all p<0.001). Patient reporters took a significantly longer time to report their reaction than healthcare professionals (median [IQR] of 104 [27–463] vs 28 [13–75] days respectively; p<0.001). Direct comparisons of the seriousness of the ADRs were not possible because of important differences between patient and healthcare professional versions of the Yellow Cards.
Conclusions: This is the first substantial, published study in the UK to compare Yellow Card reports from patients and healthcare professionals. Whilst patients report more suspected ADRs to more suspect drugs than healthcare professionals, healthcare professionals tend to report more serious reactions that result in hospitalization, are life threatening or cause death. Further research is required to investigate the extent to which the extra information from patient reporters contributes to signal identification when assessing drug safety.
Literature
1.
Metters J. Report of an independent review of access to the Yellow Card Scheme. London: The Stationery Office, 2004
2.
van Grootheest K, de Graaf L, de Jong-van den Berg LTW. Consumer adverse drug reaction reporting: a new step in pharmacovigilance? Drug Saf 2003; 26(4): 211–7PubMedCrossRef
3.
Blenkinsopp A, Wilkie P, Wang M, et al. Patient reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions: a review of published literature and international experience. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2006; 63(2): 148–56CrossRef
4.
Anonymous. UK call for patient ADR reporting. Script 2001; 2634: 4
5.
World Health Organisation (WHO). Consumer reporting of adverse drug reactions. WHO Drug Inf 2000; 14(4): 211–5
6.
Hazell L, Shakir SAW. Under-reporting of adverse drug reactions: a systematic review. Drug Saf 2006; 29(5): 385–96PubMedCrossRef
7.
McGettigan P, Golden J, Conroy RM, et al. Reporting of adverse drug reactions by hospital doctors and the response to intervention. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1997; 44(1): 98–100PubMedCrossRef
8.
Hammond IW, Rich D. Consumers usurp spontaneous adverse event reporting in the United States. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2005; 14: S8–9
9.
10.
Aagaard L, Nielsen LH, Hansen EH. Consumer reporting of adverse drug reactions: a retrospective analysis of the Danish adverse drug reaction database from 2004 to 2006. Drug Saf 2009; 32(11): 1067–74PubMedCrossRef
11.
12.
de Langen J, van Hunsel F, Passier A, et al. Adverse drug reaction reporting by patients in the Netherlands: three years of experience. Drug Saf 2008; 31(6): 515–24PubMedCrossRef
13.
Elkins-Daukes S, Irvine D, Wise L, et al. The Yellow Card Scheme: evaluation of patient reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions [abstract]. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2006; 15: S105
14.
Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, British Medical Association. British national formulary no. 57. London: British Medical Association and Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, 2009
15.
16.
17.
18.
House of Commons Health Committee. The influence of the pharmaceutical industry. Fourth report of session 2004–5. London: The Stationery Office, 2005 Apr
19.
20.
21.
Brown EG, Wood L, Wood S. The medical dictionary for regulatory activities (MedDRA). Drug Saf 1999; 20: 109–17PubMedCrossRef
22.
23.
Perry BA, Turner LW. A prediction model for polypharmacy: are older, educated women more susceptible to an adverse drug event? J Women Aging 2001; 13(4): 39–51PubMedCrossRef
24.
Davies EC, Green CF, Taylor S, et al. Adverse drug reactions in hospital in-patients: a prospective analysis of 3695 patient-episodes. PLoS ONE 2009; 4(2): e4439PubMedCrossRef
25.
Zopf Y, Rabe C, Neubert A, et al. Women encounter ADRs more often than do men. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2008; 64: 999–1004PubMedCrossRef
26.
Egberts TCG, Smulders M, de Koning FHP, et al. Can adverse drug reactions be detected earlier? A comparison of reports by patients and professionals. BMJ 1996; 313: 530–1PubMedCrossRef
27.
Foster JM, van der Molen T, de Jong L-van den Berg L. Patient-reporting of side effects may provide an important source of information in clinical practice. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2007; 63: 979–80PubMedCrossRef
28.
Jarernsiripornkul N, Krska J, Richards RME, et al. Patient reporting of adverse drug reactions: useful information for pain management? Eur J Pain 2003; 7: 219–24PubMedCrossRef
29.
30.
Waller PC. Making the most of spontaneous adverse drug reaction reporting. Pharmacol Toxicol 2006; 98: 320–3
Metadata
Title
Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting in the UK
A Retrospective Observational Comparison of Yellow Card Reports Submitted by Patients and Healthcare Professionals
Authors
Dr David J. McLernon
Christine M. Bond
Philip C. Hannaford
Margaret C. Watson
Amanda J. Lee
Lorna Hazell
Anthony Avery
Yellow Card Collaboration
Publication date
01-09-2010
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Drug Safety / Issue 9/2010
Print ISSN: 0114-5916
Electronic ISSN: 1179-1942
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2165/11536510-000000000-00000

Other articles of this Issue 9/2010

Drug Safety 9/2010 Go to the issue

Original Research Article

Safety Profile of the Fluoroquinolones

Original Research Article

Completeness of Published Case Reports on Suspected Adverse Drug Reactions

BookReview

Book Review

Original Research Article

Paediatric Postmarketing Pharmacovigilance Using Prescription-Event Monitoring

Correspondence

The Authors’ Reply

Short Communication

Identifying Major Congenital Malformations in the UK General Practice Research Database (GPRD)