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 ASCO Annual Meeting 2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

2024 ASCO Annual Meeting

Keep up to date with all the top stories and latest evidence with our hub page, including official congress videos and expert takeaways.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Drug Safety
Published in: Drug Safety 7/2017

Open Access 01-07-2017 | Original Research Article

The Quality of Clinical Information in Adverse Drug Reaction Reports by Patients and Healthcare Professionals: A Retrospective Comparative Analysis

Authors: Leàn Rolfes, Florence van Hunsel, Laura van der Linden, Katja Taxis, Eugène van Puijenbroek

Published in: Drug Safety | Issue 7/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Introduction

Clinical information is needed to assess the causal relationship between a drug and an adverse drug reaction (ADR) in a reliable way. Little is known about the level of relevant clinical information about the ADRs reported by patients.

Objective

The aim was to determine to what extent patients report relevant clinical information about an ADR compared with their healthcare professional.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of all ADR reports on the same case, i.e., cases with a report from both the patient and the patient’s healthcare professional, selected from the database of the Dutch Pharmacovigilance Center Lareb, was conducted. The extent to which relevant clinical information was reported was assessed by trained pharmacovigilance assessors, using a structured tool. The following four domains were assessed: ADR, chronology, suspected drug, and patient characteristics. For each domain, the proportion of reported information in relation to information deemed relevant was calculated. An average score of all relevant domains was determined and categorized as poorly (≤45%), moderately (from 46 to 74%) or well (≥75%) reported. Data were analyzed using a paired sample t test and Wilcoxon signed rank test.

Results

A total of 197 cases were included. In 107 cases (54.3%), patients and healthcare professionals reported a similar level of clinical information. Statistical analysis demonstrated no overall differences between the groups (p = 0.126).

Conclusions

In a unique study of cases of ADRs reported by patients and healthcare professionals, we found that patients report clinical information at a similar level as their healthcare professional. For an optimal pharmacovigilance, both healthcare professionals and patient should be encouraged to report.
Literature
1.
2.
3.
Ishiguro C, Hall M, Neyarapally GA, Dal PG. Post-market drug safety evidence sources: an analysis of FDA drug safety communications. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2012;21(10):1134–6.CrossRefPubMed
4.
van Hunsel F, Härmark L, Pal S, Olsson S, van Grootheest K. Experiences with adverse drug reaction reporting by patients; an 11-country survey. Drug Saf. 2012;35(1):45–60.CrossRefPubMed
5.
6.
Inch J, Watson MC, Anakwe-Umeh S. Patient versus healthcare professional spontaneous adverse drug reaction reporting: a systematic review. Drug Saf. 2012;35(10):807–18.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Harmark L, van HF, Grundmark B. ADR reporting by the general public: lessons learnt from the Dutch and Swedish systems. Drug Saf. 2015;38(4):337–47.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Hazell L, Cornelius V, Hannaford P, Shakir S, Avery AJ. How do patients contribute to signal detection? A retrospective analysis of spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions in the UK’s Yellow Card Scheme. Drug Saf. 2013;36(3):199–206.CrossRefPubMed
9.
van Hunsel F. The contribution of direct patient reporting to pharmacovigilance. Thesis, University of Groningen, The Netherlands; 2011.
10.
Inacio P, Cavaco A, Airaksinen M. The value of patient reporting to the pharmacovigilance system: a systematic review. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2016;83(2):227–46.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Edwards IR, Aronson JK. Adverse drug reactions: definitions, diagnosis, and management. Lancet. 2000;356(9237):1255–9.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Aagaard L, Hansen E. Consumers’ reports of suspected adverse drug reactions volunteered to a consumer magazine. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2010;69(3):317–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
Chebane L, Abadie D, Bagheri H, Durrie G, Montastruc JL. Patient reporting of adverse drug reactions: experience of Toulouse Regional Pharmacovigilance Center (abstract ISoP 2012). Drug Saf. 2012;35(942):942.
14.
Clothier H, Selvaraj G, Easton M, Lewis G, Crawford N, Buttery J. Consumer reporting of adverse events following immunization. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2014;10(12):3726–30.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
de Langen J, van Hunsel F, Passier A, de Jong-van den Berg LTW, van Grootheest AC. Adverse drug reaction reporting by patients in the Netherlands, three years of experience. Drug Saf. 2008;31(6):515–24.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Durrieu G, Palmaro A, Pourcel L, Caillet C, Faucher A, Jacquet A, et al. First French experience of ADR reporting by patients after a mass immunization campaign with influenza A (H1N1) pandemic vaccines: a comparison of reports submitted by patients and healthcare professionals. Drug Saf. 2012;35(10):845–54.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Jansson K, Ekbom Y, Sjölin-Forsberg G. Basic conditions for consumer reporting of adverse drug reactions in Sweden—a pilot study (abstract 28). Drug Saf. 2006;29(10):938.CrossRef
18.
Leone R, Moretti U, D’Incau P, Conforti A, Magro L, Lora R, et al. Effect of pharmacist involvement on patient reporting of adverse drug reactions: first Italian study. Drug Saf. 2013;36(4):267–76.CrossRefPubMed
19.
McLernon DJ, Bond CM, Hannaford PC, Watson MC, Lee AJ, Hazell L, et al. Adverse drug reaction reporting in the UK: a retrospective observational comparison of yellow card reports submitted by patients and healthcare professionals. Drug Saf. 2010;33(9):775–88.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Medawar C, Herxheimer A. A comparison of adverse drug reaction reports from professionals and users, relating to risk of dependence and suicidal behaviour with paroxetine. Int J Risk Saf Med. 2003;16:5–19.
21.
Rolfes L, van Hunsel F, Wilkes S, van Grootheest K, van Puijenbroek E. Adverse drug reaction reports of patients and healthcare professionals–differences in reported information. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2015;24(2):152–8.CrossRefPubMed
22.
van Grootheest A, Passier J, van Puijenbroek E. Direct reporting of side effects by the patient: favourable experience in the first year (article in Dutch). Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2005;149(10):529–33.PubMed
23.
van Hunsel F, Passier A, van Grootheest AC. Comparing patients’ and healthcare professionals’ ADR reports after media attention. The broadcast of a Dutch television programme about the benefits and risks of statins as an example. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2009;67(5):558–64.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
Vilhelmsson A, Svensson T, Meeuwisse A, Carlsten A. What can we learn from consumer reports on psychiatric adverse drug reactions with antidepressant medication? Experiences from reports to a consumer association. BMC Clin Pharmacol. 2011;11:16.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
26.
27.
Oosterhuis I, Rolfes L, Ekhart C, Muller-Hansma A, Härmark L. Development and validity testing of a clinical documentation-tool to assess individual case safety reports in an international setting (abstract 716). PDS. 2016;25(Suppl. 3):417.
28.
29.
30.
van Hunsel F, van der Welle C, Passier A, van Puijenbroek E, van Grootheest K. Motives for reporting adverse drug reactions by patient-reporters in the Netherlands. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2010;66(11):1143–50.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
31.
Rolfes L, van Hunsel F, van Grootheest K, van Puijenbroek E. Feedback for patients reporting adverse drug reactions; satisfaction and expectations. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2015;14(5):625–32.CrossRefPubMed
32.
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):1067–74.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Manso G, Salgueiro M, Jimeno F, Aguirre C, Garcia M, Etxebarria A, et al. Preliminary results for reporting of problems associated with medications in Spain. The yo notifico (I notify) project. (abstract ISP3541-41). Drug Saf. 2013;36(793):951.
34.
Parretta E, Rafaniello C, Magro L, Coggiola PA, Sportiello L, Ferrajolo C, et al. Improvement of patient adverse drug reaction reporting through a community pharmacist-based intervention in the Campania region of Italy. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2014;13(Suppl 1):S21–9.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Povlsen K, Michan L, Frederiksen M, Kornholt J, Harder H. Characteristics and contribution of consumer reports of adverse drug reactions: experience from Denmark during the last decade (abstract P082). Drug Saf. 2012;35(10):877–970.CrossRef
36.
Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb. Annual statistics Lareb database (personal communication). 2016.
37.
Rolfes L, van Hunsel F, Taxis K, van Puijenbroek E. The impact of experiencing adverse drug reaction on the patient’s quality of life: a retrospective cross-sectional study in the Netherlands. Drug Saf. 2016. (Epub ahead of print).
38.
Vilhelmsson A, Svensson T, Meeuwisse A, Carlsten A. Experiences from consumer reports on psychiatric adverse drug reactions with antidepressant medication: a qualitative study of reports to a consumer association. BMC Pharmacol Toxicol. 2012;13:19.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
The Quality of Clinical Information in Adverse Drug Reaction Reports by Patients and Healthcare Professionals: A Retrospective Comparative Analysis
Authors
Leàn Rolfes
Florence van Hunsel
Laura van der Linden
Katja Taxis
Eugène van Puijenbroek
Publication date
01-07-2017
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Drug Safety / Issue 7/2017
Print ISSN: 0114-5916
Electronic ISSN: 1179-1942
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-017-0530-5

Other articles of this Issue 7/2017

Drug Safety 7/2017 Go to the issue

Review Article

Targeting Interleukin-5 or Interleukin-5Rα: Safety Considerations

Original Research Article

Patient Reporting in the EU: Analysis of EudraVigilance Data

Original Research Article

Adverse Drug Reaction-Related Hospitalizations in Elderly Australians: A Prospective Cross-Sectional Study in Two Tasmanian Hospitals

Leading Article

Summarising the Evidence for Drug Safety: A Methodological Discussion of Different Meta-Analysis Approaches

Commentary

The Power of the Case Narrative - Can it be Brought to Bear on Duplicate Detection?

Original Research Article

Using Probabilistic Record Linkage of Structured and Unstructured Data to Identify Duplicate Cases in Spontaneous Adverse Event Reporting Systems