Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Drug Safety 7/2017

01.07.2017 | Original Research Article

Patient Reporting in the EU: Analysis of EudraVigilance Data

verfasst von: Marin Banovac, Gianmario Candore, Jim Slattery, Francois Houÿez, David Haerry, Georgy Genov, Peter Arlett

Erschienen in: Drug Safety | Ausgabe 7/2017

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Introduction

New pharmacovigilance legislation was adopted in the EU in 2010 and became operational in July 2012. The legislation placed an obligation on all national competent authorities (NCAs) and marketing authorisation holders (MAHs) to record and report cases of suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) received from patients.

Objectives

This descriptive study aims to provide insight into patient reporting for the totality of the EU by querying the EudraVigilance (EV) database for the period of 3 years before the new pharmacovigilance legislation became operational and the 3 years after as well as comparing patient reports with those from healthcare professionals (HCPs) where feasible.

Methods

We queried the EV database for the following characteristics of patient and HCP reports: demographics (patient sex and age), seriousness, reported ADR terms, reported indications, number of ADRs per report, time to report an ADR, and most reported substances. Wherever feasible, direct comparisons between patient reports and HCP reports were performed using relative risks.

Results

The EV database contained a total of 53,130 patient reports in the 3 years preceding the legislation operation period and 113,371 in the 3 years after. Member states contributing the most patient reports to the EV database were the Netherlands, the UK, Germany, France and Italy. The results for indications and substances show that patients were more likely than HCPs to report for genitourinary, hormonal and reproductive indications. Patients reported more in general disorders and administration site conditions Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) System Organ Class (SOC), whereas HCPs reported more Preferred Terms (PTs) belonging in the Investigations SOC. However, 13 of the 20 reactions most frequently reported by patients were also among the top 20 reactions reported by HCPs.

Conclusion

Patient reporting complemented reporting by HCPs. Patients were motivated to report ADRs, especially those that affected their quality of life. Sharing these results with NCAs and patient associations can inform training and awareness on patient reporting.
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Fußnoten
1
E2B has been developed as a guideline to standardize the data elements for transmission of individual case safety reports. It is agreed within the scope of the ICH between the three medicines regulatory regions (EU, Japan and USA).
 
2
Only Patient is a subset of All Patient.
 
3
Note that a backlog of reports from industry that were submitted to EV in 2009 was excluded from the counts when trends were calculated (Table 1; Fig. 1) since those reports refer to the period before 2009 and distort the results. Furthermore, a high number of reports associated with the influenza pandemic was received from the Netherlands in 2009, and these reports were also excluded for trend analysis.
 
4
The highest proportion of newly authorised medicines in the EU were oncology products. In the 10-year period between July 2006 and July 2016, 23% of all new medicines authorisations in the EU were oncology medicines, followed by antiinfectives and nervous system medicines, accounting for 14% of authorisations.
 
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Pirmohamed M, James S, Meakin S, Green C, Scott AK, Walley TJ, et al. Adverse drug reactions as cause of admission to hospital: prospective analysis of 18 820 patients. BMJ. 2004;329(7456):15–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Pirmohamed M, James S, Meakin S, Green C, Scott AK, Walley TJ, et al. Adverse drug reactions as cause of admission to hospital: prospective analysis of 18 820 patients. BMJ. 2004;329(7456):15–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Beijer HJ, de Blaey CJ. Hospitalisations caused by adverse drug reactions (ADR): a meta-analysis of observational studies. Pharm World Sci. 2002;24(2):46–54.CrossRefPubMed Beijer HJ, de Blaey CJ. Hospitalisations caused by adverse drug reactions (ADR): a meta-analysis of observational studies. Pharm World Sci. 2002;24(2):46–54.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Kongkaew C, Noyce PR, Ashcroft DM. Hospital admissions associated with adverse drug reactions: a systematic review of prospective observational studies. Ann Pharmacother. 2008;42(7):1017–25.CrossRefPubMed Kongkaew C, Noyce PR, Ashcroft DM. Hospital admissions associated with adverse drug reactions: a systematic review of prospective observational studies. Ann Pharmacother. 2008;42(7):1017–25.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Zurück zum Zitat van Hunsel F, Harmark 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 van Hunsel F, Harmark 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
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Herxheimer A, Crombag R. Direct patient reporting of adverse drug reactions. A fifteen-country survey and literature briefing paper. Amsterdam: Health Action International (HAI) Europe; 2010. Herxheimer A, Crombag R. Direct patient reporting of adverse drug reactions. A fifteen-country survey and literature briefing paper. Amsterdam: Health Action International (HAI) Europe; 2010.
9.
Zurück zum Zitat van Grootheest K, de Graaf L, de Jong-van den Berg LT. Consumer adverse drug reaction reporting: a new step in pharmacovigilance? Drug Saf. 2003;26(4):211–7.CrossRefPubMed van Grootheest K, de Graaf L, de Jong-van den Berg LT. Consumer adverse drug reaction reporting: a new step in pharmacovigilance? Drug Saf. 2003;26(4):211–7.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Zurück zum Zitat 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 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
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Arnott J, Hesselgreaves H, Nunn AJ, Peak M, Pirmohamed M, Smyth RL, et al. What can we learn from parents about enhancing participation in pharmacovigilance? Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2013;75(4):1109–17.CrossRefPubMed Arnott J, Hesselgreaves H, Nunn AJ, Peak M, Pirmohamed M, Smyth RL, et al. What can we learn from parents about enhancing participation in pharmacovigilance? Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2013;75(4):1109–17.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Zurück zum Zitat 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 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
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Harmark L, Raine J, Leufkens H, Edwards IR, Moretti U, Sarinic VM, et al. Patient-reported safety information: a renaissance of pharmacovigilance? Drug Saf. 2016;39(10):883–90.CrossRefPubMed Harmark L, Raine J, Leufkens H, Edwards IR, Moretti U, Sarinic VM, et al. Patient-reported safety information: a renaissance of pharmacovigilance? Drug Saf. 2016;39(10):883–90.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Avery AJ, Anderson C, Bond CM, Fortnum H, Gifford A, Hannaford PC, et al. Evaluation of patient reporting of adverse drug reactions to the UK ‘Yellow Card Scheme’: literature review, descriptive and qualitative analyses, and questionnaire surveys. Health Technol Assess. 2011;15(20):1–234, iii–iv. Avery AJ, Anderson C, Bond CM, Fortnum H, Gifford A, Hannaford PC, et al. Evaluation of patient reporting of adverse drug reactions to the UK ‘Yellow Card Scheme’: literature review, descriptive and qualitative analyses, and questionnaire surveys. Health Technol Assess. 2011;15(20):1–234, iii–iv.
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Inacio P, Cavaco A, Airaksinen M. The value of patient reporting to the pharmacovigilance system: a systematic review. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2017;83(2):227–46.CrossRefPubMed Inacio P, Cavaco A, Airaksinen M. The value of patient reporting to the pharmacovigilance system: a systematic review. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2017;83(2):227–46.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Directive 2010/84/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council amending, as regards pharmacovigilance, Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use. Official J Eur Union. 2010;348/74. Directive 2010/84/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council amending, as regards pharmacovigilance, Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use. Official J Eur Union. 2010;348/74.
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Anderson C, Krska J, Murphy E, Avery A. Yellow Card Study Collaboration. The importance of direct patient reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions: a patient perspective. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2011;72(5):806–22.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Anderson C, Krska J, Murphy E, Avery A. Yellow Card Study Collaboration. The importance of direct patient reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions: a patient perspective. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2011;72(5):806–22.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
Zurück zum Zitat European Commission. Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 520/2012. Official J Eur Union. 2012;L156. European Commission. Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 520/2012. Official J Eur Union. 2012;L156.
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Rademaker M. Do women have more adverse drug reactions? Am J Clin Dermatol. 2001;2(6):349–51.CrossRefPubMed Rademaker M. Do women have more adverse drug reactions? Am J Clin Dermatol. 2001;2(6):349–51.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Anderson GD. Gender differences in pharmacological response. Int Rev Neurobiol. 2008;83:1–10.CrossRefPubMed Anderson GD. Gender differences in pharmacological response. Int Rev Neurobiol. 2008;83:1–10.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Metadaten
Titel
Patient Reporting in the EU: Analysis of EudraVigilance Data
verfasst von
Marin Banovac
Gianmario Candore
Jim Slattery
Francois Houÿez
David Haerry
Georgy Genov
Peter Arlett
Publikationsdatum
01.07.2017
Verlag
Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in
Drug Safety / Ausgabe 7/2017
Print ISSN: 0114-5916
Elektronische ISSN: 1179-1942
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-017-0534-1

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 7/2017

Drug Safety 7/2017 Zur Ausgabe