Abstract
Introduction
Spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) remains the cornerstone of postmarketing drug safety surveillance (pharmacovigilance); however, one of its main limitations is incomplete data, thus limiting conclusions about causality assessment.
Objective
The primary aim of this study was to assess the completeness of ADR reports sent by general practitioners (GPs) to regional pharmacovigilance centres and the secondary objective was to identify factors associated with complete ADR reports.
Methods
All ADR reports sent by GPs to the Midi-Pyrénées Regional Pharmacovigilance Center (Toulouse, France) from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2013 were reviewed. Healthcare professionals and patients can forward an ADR using either an online form through the Pharmacology Information Bulletin website (http://www.bip31.fr) or ‘traditional’ ADR reports (i.e. email, letter or fax). According to information provided in ADR reports (i.e. patient identification, ADR, date of occurrence, clinical description, drugs, etc.), reports were classified into three groups: ‘well-documented’, ‘slightly documented’ or ‘poorly documented’. A multivariate logistic regression was performed to investigate potential factors associated with a ‘well-documented’ ADR report.
Results
During the study period, 613 ADR reports were analysed. Among these reports, only 12.7 % were classified as ‘well-documented’, 68.5 % as ‘slightly documented’ and 18.8 % as ‘poorly documented’. An association between a ‘well-documented’ ADR report and its ‘seriousness’ was found (odds ratio = 1.70 [95 % CI 1.04–2.76], p = 0.01). No association between report completeness (‘well-documented’ report) and GP practice location or mode of ADR reporting was found.
Conclusions
The study shows that only one out of eight ADR reports from GPs was ‘well-documented’. Therefore, it appears to be important to promote further information being available regarding the data required in ADR reports to optimise the evaluation of drug causality.
References
Hazell L, Shakir SA. Under-reporting of adverse drug reactions. Drug Saf. 2006;29:385–96.
Olivier P, Montastruc J-L. The nature of the scientific evidence leading to drug withdrawals for pharmacovigilance reasons in France. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2006;15:808–12.
Edwards IR, Aronson JK. Adverse drug reactions: definitions, diagnosis, and management. Lancet. 2000;356:1255–9.
Kelly W, Arellano F, Barnes J, Bergman U, Edwards R, Fernandez A, et al. International Society of Pharmacoepidemiology; International Society of Pharmacovigilance. Guidelines for submitting adverse event reports for publication. Thérapie. 2009;64:289–94.
FDA. Guidance for industry. Good pharmacovigilance practices and pharmacoepidemiologic assessment. US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CBER), March 2005. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM126834.pdf. Accessed Aug 2016.
Brajovic S, Piazza-Hepp T, Swartz L, Dal Pan G. Quality assessment of spontaneous triggered adverse event reports received by the Food and Drug Administration. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2012;21:565–70.
Bergvall T, Noren GN, Lindquist M. vigiGrade: a tool to identify well-documented individual case reports and highlight systematic data quality issues. Drug Saf. 2014;37:65–77.
French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products Safety. Annual report 2014. http://ansm.sante.fr/var/ansm_site/storage/original/application/ee4fa2afa64ec300a551d912ff7c0559.pdf. Accessed Aug 2016.
Inman WH. Attitudes to adverse drug reaction reporting. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1996;41:434–5.
Herdeiro MT, Figueiras A, Polonia J, Gestal-Otero JJ. Physicians’ attitudes and adverse drug reaction reporting: a case–control study in Portugal. Drug Saf. 2005;28:825–33.
Gerristen R, Faddegon H, Dijkers F, van Groothest K, van Puijenbroek E. Effectiveness of Pharmacovigilance training of general practitioners: a retrospective cohort study in the Netherlands comparing two methods. Drug Saf. 2011;34:755–62.
Biagi C, Montanaro N, Buccellato E, Roberto G, Vaccheri A, Motola D. Underreporting in pharmacovigilance: an intervention for Italian GPs (Emilia-Romagna region). Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2013;69:237–44.
Gony M, Badie K, Sommet A, Jacquot J, Baudrin D, Gauthier P, et al. Improving adverse drug reaction reporting in hospitals: results of the French Pharmacovigilance in Midi-Pyrénées region (PharmacoMIP) network 2-year pilot study. Drug Saf. 2010;33:409–16.
Durrieu G, Jacquot J, Baudrin D, Me`ge M, Rousseau V, Bagheri H, et al. Improving adverse drug reaction reporting by general practitioners through clinical research assistants visits. The´rapie (In Press).
Vial T. French pharmacovigilance: missions, organization and perspectives. Thérapie. 2016;71:135–42.
Lafond J. Pharmacovigilance implemented by patients: a necessity in the 21st century. Thérapie. 2016;71:245–7.
La démographie médicale en région Midi-Pyrénées, Situation en 2013. http://www.conseil-national.medecin.fr/sites/default/files/midi_pyrenees_2013.pdf. Accessed 23 Feb 2016.
EMA. Guideline on good pharmacovigilance practices (GVP). Module VI. Management and reporting of adverse reactions to medicinal products. 8 September 2014. EMA/873138/2011 Rev 1. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2014/09/WC500172402.pdf. Accessed Aug 2016.
Abadie D, Chebane L, Bert M, Durrieu G, Montastruc JL. Online reporting of adverse drug reactions: a study from a French regional pharmacovigilance center. Thérapie. 2014;69:395–400.
Linquist M. Seeing and observing in international pharmacovigilance - achievements and prospects in worldwide drug safety. Nijmegen: University of Nijmegen; 2003.
Sanchez-Sanchez B, Altagracia-Martinez M, Kravzov-Jinich J, Moreno-Bonett C, Vazquez-Moreno E, Martinez-Nunez JM. Evaluation of completeness of suspected adverse drug reaction reports submitted to the Mexican National Pharmacovigilance Centre: a cross-sectional period-prevalence study. Drug Saf. 2012;35:837–44.
Montastruc F, Sommet A, Bondon-Guitton E, Durrieu G, Bui E, Bagheri H, et al. The importance of drug-drug interactions as a cause of adverse drug reactions: a pharmacovigilance study of serotoninergic reuptake inhibitors in France. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2012;68:767–75.
Bénard-Laribière A, Miremont-Salamé G, Pérault-Pochat MC, Noize P. Haramburu F; EMIR Study Group on behalf of the French network of pharmacovigilance centres. Incidence of hospital admissions due to adverse drug reactions in France: the EMIR study. Fundam Clin Pharmacol. 2015;29:106–11.
Pirmohamed M, James S, Meakin S, Green C, Scott AK, Walley J, et al. Adverse drug reactions as cause of admission to hospital: prospective analysis of 18,820 patients. BMJ. 2004;329:15–9.
Biron P. Les maladies médicamenteuses, ces oubliées du cursus des études médicales. Médecine. 2014;10:244–6.
Moore JM, Furberg CD, Mattison, Cohen MR. Completeness of serious adverse drug event reports received by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2014. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2016;25:713–8.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Funding
No funding was received for this study.
Conflict of interest
Geneviève Durrieu, Julien Jacquot, Mathilde Mège, Emmanuelle Bondon-Guitton, Vanessa Rousseau, François Montastruc and Jean-Louis Montastruc have no conflicts of interest.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Durrieu, G., Jacquot, J., Mège, M. et al. Completeness of Spontaneous Adverse Drug Reaction Reports Sent by General Practitioners to a Regional Pharmacovigilance Centre: A Descriptive Study. Drug Saf 39, 1189–1195 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-016-0463-4
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-016-0463-4