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
BMC Clinical Pharmacology
Published in: BMC Clinical Pharmacology 1/2011

Open Access 01-12-2011 | Research article

Impact of information letters on the reporting rate of adverse drug reactions and the quality of the reports: a randomized controlled study

Authors: Marie-Louise Johansson, Staffan Hägg, Susanna M Wallerstedt

Published in: BMC Clinical Pharmacology | Issue 1/2011

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) is an important method for pharmacovigilance, but under-reporting and poor quality of reports are major limitations. The aim of this study was to evaluate if repeated one-page ADR information letters affect (i) the reporting rate of ADRs and (ii) the quality of the ADR reports.

Methods

All 151 primary healthcare units in the Region Västra Götaland, Sweden, were randomly allocated (1:1) to an intervention (n = 77) or a control group (n = 74). The intervention consisted of one-page ADR information letters administered at three occasions during 2008 to all physicians and nurses in the intervention units. The number of ADR reports received from the 151 units was registered, as was the quality of the reports, which was defined as high if the ADR was to be reported according to Swedish regulations, that is, if the ADR was (i) serious, (ii) unexpected, and/or (iii) related to the use of new drugs and not labelled as common in the Summary of Product Characteristics. A questionnaire was administered to evaluate if the ADR information letter had reached the intended recipient.

Results

Before the intervention, no significant differences in reporting rate or number of high quality reports could be detected between the randomization groups. In 2008, 79 reports were sent from 37 intervention units and 52 reports from 30 control units (mean number of reports per unit ± standard deviation: 1.0 ± 2.5 vs. 0.7 ± 1.2, P = 0.34). The number of high quality reports was higher in intervention units than in control units (37 vs. 15 reports, 0.5 ± 0.9 vs. 0.2 ± 0.6, P = 0.048). According to the returned questionnaires (n = 1,292, response rate 57%), more persons in the intervention than in the control group had received (29% vs. 19%, P < 0.0001) and read (31% vs. 26%, P < 0.0001) an ADR information letter.

Conclusions

This study suggests that repeated ADR information letters to physicians and nurses do not increase the ADR reporting rate, but may increase the number of high quality reports.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Wysowski DK, Swartz L: Adverse drug event surveillance and drug withdrawals in the United States, 1969-2002: the importance of reporting suspected reactions. Arch Intern Med. 2005, 165 (12): 1363-1369. 10.1001/archinte.165.12.1363.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Medical Products Agency: Code of statutes. 2006
3.
4.
Hazell L, Shakir SA: Under-reporting of adverse drug reactions: a systematic review. Drug Saf. 2006, 29 (5): 385-396. 10.2165/00002018-200629050-00003.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Lopez-Gonzalez E, Herdeiro MT, Figueiras A: Determinants of under-reporting of adverse drug reactions: a systematic review. Drug Saf. 2009, 32 (1): 19-31. 10.2165/00002018-200932010-00002.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Figueiras A, Herdeiro MT, Polonia J, Gestal-Otero JJ: An educational intervention to improve physician reporting of adverse drug reactions: a cluster-randomized controlled trial. Jama. 2006, 296 (9): 1086-1093. 10.1001/jama.296.9.1086.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Castel JM, Figueras A, Pedros C, Laporte JR, Capella D: Stimulating adverse drug reaction reporting: effect of a drug safety bulletin and of including yellow cards in prescription pads. Drug Saf. 2003, 26 (14): 1049-1055. 10.2165/00002018-200326140-00005.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Johansson ML, Brunlof G, Edward C, Wallerstedt SM: Effects of e-mails containing ADR information and a current case report on ADR reporting rate and quality of reports. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2009, 65 (5): 511-514. 10.1007/s00228-008-0603-6.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Tabali M, Jeschke E, Bockelbrink A, Witt CM, Willich SN, Ostermann T, Matthes H: Educational intervention to improve physician reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in a primary care setting in complementary and alternative medicine. BMC Public Health. 2009, 9: 274-10.1186/1471-2458-9-274.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Gony M, Badie K, Sommet A, Jacquot J, Baudrin D, Gauthier P, Montastruc JL, Bagheri H: Improving adverse drug reaction reporting in hospitals: results of the French Pharmacovigilance in Midi-Pyrenees region (PharmacoMIP) network 2-year pilot study. Drug Saf. 2010, 33 (5): 409-416. 10.2165/11319170-000000000-00000.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Backstrom M, Mjorndal T: A small economic inducement to stimulate increased reporting of adverse drug reactions-a way of dealing with an old problem?. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2006, 62 (5): 381-385. 10.1007/s00228-005-0072-0.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Wallerstedt SM, Brunlof G, Johansson ML, Tukukino C, Ny L: Reporting of adverse drug reactions may be influenced by feedback to the reporting doctor. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2007, 63 (5): 505-508. 10.1007/s00228-007-0270-z.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Backstrom M, Ekman E, Mjorndal T: Adverse drug reaction reporting by nurses in Sweden. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2007, 63 (6): 613-618. 10.1007/s00228-007-0274-8.CrossRefPubMed
14.
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): 1067-1074. 10.2165/11316680-000000000-00000.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Evans SJ, Waller PC, Davis S: Use of proportional reporting ratios (PRRs) for signal generation from spontaneous adverse drug reaction reports. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2001, 10 (6): 483-486. 10.1002/pds.677.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Bate A, Lindquist M, Orre R, Edwards IR, Meyboom RH: Data-mining analyses of pharmacovigilance signals in relation to relevant comparison drugs. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2002, 58 (7): 483-490. 10.1007/s00228-002-0484-z.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Impact of information letters on the reporting rate of adverse drug reactions and the quality of the reports: a randomized controlled study
Authors
Marie-Louise Johansson
Staffan Hägg
Susanna M Wallerstedt
Publication date
01-12-2011
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Clinical Pharmacology / Issue 1/2011
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6904
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6904-11-14

Other articles of this Issue 1/2011

BMC Clinical Pharmacology 1/2011 Go to the issue

Research article

The association between drospirenone and hyperkalemia: a comparative-safety study

Research article

Pharmacokinetics of phenoxodiol, a novel isoflavone, following intravenous administration to patients with advanced cancer

Research article

Knowledge, attitudes and practice survey about antimicrobial resistance and prescribing among physicians in a hospital setting in Lima, Peru

Research article

Use of antipsychotic and antidepressant within the Psychiatric Disease Centre, Regional Health Service of Ferrara

Research article

Pharmacokinetics and tolerability of zibotentan (ZD4054) in subjects with hepatic or renal impairment: two open-label comparative studies

Research article

Cognitive functioning in opioid-dependent patients treated with buprenorphine, methadone, and other psychoactive medications: stability and correlates