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 6/2008

01-06-2008 | Original Research Article

Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting by Patients in the Netherlands Three Years of Experience

Authors: Joyce de Langen, Florence van Hunsel, Anneke Passier, Lolkje de Jong-van den Berg, Dr Kees van Grootheest

Published in: Drug Safety | Issue 6/2008

Login to get access

Abstract

Background: There has been discussion about the acceptance of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) reported by patients to spontaneous reporting systems. Lack of experience with patient reporting in real life was one of the main drawbacks in this debate. This study covers 3 years of experience with patient reporting in daily practice. We compared patient reports with reports from healthcare professionals. Although patients have the opportunity to report ADRs in several countries, little is published in the literature about the contribution that patient reports have in practice. To our knowledge, this paper is the first to describe long-term experiences with patient reporting as part of a spontaneous reporting system.
Methods: The number of reports received, age and sex of the reporters, characteristics of the most frequently reported drugs and characteristics of the ADRs (most frequently reported ADRs, seriousness, outcome) in a 3-year period (April 2004–April 2007) were compared between patient reports and reports from healthcare professionals.
Findings: During this 3-year period, the Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb received 2522 reports directly from patients, concerning 5401 ADRs. In the same period, healthcare professionals submitted 10 635 reports, concerning 16 722 ADRs. Differences were found in the categories of seriousness and outcome of the reported ADRs between patients and healthcare professionals. Conversely, similarities between patient reports and reports from healthcare professionals were found in age, sex, most frequently reported ADRs and most frequently reported drugs.
Interpretation: Our study highlights clearly that valuable differences between ADR reports from patients and reports from healthcare professionals exist. Differences in interpretation by patients and healthcare professionals may cause the observed disparities in seriousness and outcome of reported ADRs. However, the similarities between patient reports and reports from healthcare professionals in most frequently reported ADRs and most frequently reported drugs are striking. After 3 years of experience with patient reporting, we conclude that patient reporting in spontaneous reporting systems is feasible and that it contributes significantly to a reliable pharmacovigilance.
Footnotes
1
1The use of trade names is for product identification purposes only and does not imply endorsement.
 
Literature
1.
Mitchell AS, Henry DA, Hennrikus D, et al. Adverse drug reactions: can consumers provide early warning? Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 1994; 3: 257–64CrossRef
2.
van Grootheest AC, van Puijenbroek EP, de Jong-van den Berg LTW. Contribution of pharmacists to the reporting of adverse drug reactions. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2002; 11: 205–10PubMedCrossRef
3.
Morrison-Griffiths S, Walley TJ, Park BK, et al. Reporting of adverse drug reactions by nurses. Lancet 2003; 361: 1347–8PubMedCrossRef
4.
van Grootheest K, de Graaf L, de Jong-van den Berg LTW LTW. Consumer adverse drug reaction reporting: a new step in pharmacovigilance? Drug Saf 2003; 26: 211–7PubMedCrossRef
5.
6.
Blenkinsopp A, Wilkie P, Wang M. Patient reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions: a review of published literature and international experience. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2006; 63: 148–56CrossRef
7.
van Grootheest AC, Passier JLM, van Puijenbroek EP. Direct reporting of side effects by the patient: favourable experience in the first year. Ned Tijdschr Geneesk 2005; 149: 529–33
8.
Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences. International reporting of adverse drug reactions. CIOMS working group report. Geneva: World Health Organisation, 1987
9.
10.
Brown EG, Wood L, Wood S. The medical dictionary for regulatory activities (MedDRA). Drug Saf 1999; 20: 109–17PubMedCrossRef
11.
Brown EG. Effects of coding dictionary on signal generation: a consideration of use of MedDRA compared with WHO-ART. Drug Saf 2002; 25: 445–52PubMedCrossRef
12.
van Grootheest K, de Jong-van den Berg L. Patients’ role in reporting adverse drug reactions. Expert Opin Drug Saf 2004; 3: 363–8PubMedCrossRef
13.
De Bruin ML, van Puijenbroek EP, Bracke M, et al. Pharmacogenetics of drug-induced arrhythmias: a feasibility study using spontaneous adverse drug reactions reporting data. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2006 Feb; 15(2): 99–105PubMedCrossRef
14.
de Jong-van den Berg LTW. Women and drug use. Pharm Weekbl 2001; 136: 1624–8
15.
Medawar C, Herxheimer A, Bell A, et al. Paroxetine, panorama and user reporting of ADRs: consumer intelligence matters in clinical practice and post-marketing drug surveillance. Int J Risk Saf Med 2002; 13: 161–9
16.
Golomb B, Evans M. Risk factors for rhabdomyolysis with simvastatin and atorvastatin. Drug Saf 2006; 29(12): 1191–2PubMedCrossRef
17.
Passier JLM, Srivastava N, van Puijenbroek EP. Isotretinoin-induced inflammatory bowel disease. Neth J Med 2006; 64(2): 52–4PubMed
18.
Passier JLM. Lithium and hyperparathyroidism. Geneesmid-delenbulletin 2005; 39(11): 131–2
19.
van Grootheest AC, de Graaf L. Pergolide en gokverslaving. Geneesmiddelenbulletin 2006; 40(8): 86–7
20.
21.
22.
23.
May A, Lederbogen S, Diener HC. Octreotide dependency and headache: a case report. Cephalalgia 1994; 14(4): 303–4PubMedCrossRef
24.
Donangelo I, Rodacki M, Peixoto MC, et al. Dependency and analgesia related to treatment with subcutaneous octreotide in patients with growth hormone-secreting tumors. Endocr Pract 2004; 10(2): 107–11PubMed
25.
Levy MJ, Goadsby PJ. Octreotide dependency: a cautionary tale [abstract]. Endocrine Abstracts 2004; 7: 110
26.
Levy MJ, Matharu MS, Meeran K, et al. The clinical characteristics of headache in patients with pituitary tumours. Brain 2005; 128 (Pt 8): 1921–30PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting by Patients in the Netherlands Three Years of Experience
Authors
Joyce de Langen
Florence van Hunsel
Anneke Passier
Lolkje de Jong-van den Berg
Dr Kees van Grootheest
Publication date
01-06-2008
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Drug Safety / Issue 6/2008
Print ISSN: 0114-5916
Electronic ISSN: 1179-1942
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2165/00002018-200831060-00006

Other articles of this Issue 6/2008

Drug Safety 6/2008 Go to the issue

Review Article

Safety of the Nonselective NSAID Nabumetone

Review Article

Safety of Clopidogrel and Aspirin for Stroke Prevention

Original Research Article

Risk of Hypospadias in Newborn Infants Exposed to Valproic Acid During the First Trimester of Pregnancy

Original Research Article

Cardiovascular Safety and Overall Tolerability of Solifenacin in Routine Clinical Use

Original Research Article

Prevalence, Clinical Features and Avoidability of Adverse Drug Reactions as Cause of Admission to a Geriatric Unit

Review Article

Cardiotoxicity Profile of Trastuzumab