Dataset Information

Discrepancy between patient- and healthcare provider-reported adverse drug reactions in inflammatory bowel disease patients on biological therapy.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Only limited data is available on the extent and burden of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to biological therapy in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients in daily practice, especially from a patient's perspective.

Objective

The aim of this study was to systematically assess patient-reported ADRs during biological therapy in IBD patients and compare these with healthcare provider (HCP)-reported ADRs.

Methods

This multicentre, prospective, event monitoring study enrolled IBD patients on biological therapy. Patients completed bimonthly comprehensive web-based questionnaires regarding description of biological induced ADRs, follow-up of previous ADRs and experienced burden of the ADR using a five-point Likert scale. The relationship between patient-reported ADRs and biological therapy was assessed. HCP-reported ADRs were extracted from the electronic healthcare records.

Results

In total, 182 patients (female 51%, mean age 42.2 [standard deviation 14.2] years, Crohn's disease 77%) were included and completed 728 questionnaires. At baseline, 60% of patients used infliximab, 30% adalimumab, 9% vedolizumab and 1% ustekinumab. Fifty percent of participants reported at least one ADR with a total of 239 unique ADRs. Fatigue (n = 26) and headache (n = 20) resulted in the highest burden and a correlation in time with the administration of the biological was described in 56% and 85% respectively. Out of 239 ADRs, 115 were considered biological-related. HCPs reported 119 ADRs. Agreement between patient-reported ADRs and HCP-reported ADRs was only 13%.

Conclusion

IBD patients often report ADRs during biological therapy. We observed an important significant difference between the type and frequency of patient-reported ADRs versus HCP-reported ADRs, leading to an underestimation of more subjective ADRs and patients' ADR-related burden.

SUBMITTER: Thomas PWA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8498403 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDigital patient reported outcomes are used increasingly in daily care and treatment of inflammatory bowel disease. Their purpose includes increased focus on patient wellbeing, reduction in avoidable follow-up consultations and increased patient self-management. However, implementation issues occur and studies indicate patients may have concerns, particularly regarding having fewer face-to-face consultations. This study aims to explore patients' perspectives of use and non-use of digital patient reported outcomes and to understand the mechanisms underpinning patient reluctance to engage with this health technology.ResultsSixteen patients with inflammatory bowel disease at a regional hospital in Denmark were interviewed about their experiences of, and perspectives on, digital patient reported outcomes. A certain level of eHealth literacy was found to be a fundamental condition for use, while other factors were barriers or facilitators for use of digital PROs. Patients' main concerns were about potential consequences for their care and relationship with the clinic. Most patients in stable remission were satisfied with the hospital being a "life-line" if their symptoms worsened, and perceived digital patient reported outcomes to be an efficient tool to establish that "life-line". Patients with severe symptoms and a high degree of emotional distress related to their disease valued the potential for digital patient reported outcomes to increase their clinicians' focus on mental health and extra-intestinal symptoms.ConclusionThis study found that if patients had sufficient digital literacy, they perceived digital patient reported outcomes to be a useful replacement for face-to-face consultations. However, they were concerned about digital patient reported outcomes' effect on the patient-clinician relationship and its ability to detect worsening of symptoms. These concerns may be mitigated by good patient-clinician relationships, and the option for patients to maintain direct telephone contact with their gastroenterology specialist.

Project description:BackgroundLack of adequate detail compromises analysis of reported suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs). We investigated how comprehensively Ugandan healthcare professionals (HCPs) described their most recent previous-month suspected ADR, and determined the characteristics of HCPs who provided comprehensive ADR descriptions. We also identified rare, serious, and unanticipated suspected ADR descriptions with medication safety-alerting potential.MethodsDuring 2012/13, this survey was conducted in purposively selected Ugandan health facilities (public/private) including the national referral and six regional referral hospitals representative of all regions. District hospitals, health centres II to IV, and private health facilities in the catchment areas of the regional referral hospitals were conveniently selected. Healthcare professionals involved in prescribing, transcribing, dispensing, and administration of medications were approached and invited to self-complete a questionnaire on ADR reporting. Two-thirds of issued questionnaires (1,345/2,000) were returned.ResultsNinety per cent (241/268) of HCPs who suspected ADRs in the previous month provided information on five higher-level descriptors as follows: body site (206), drug class (203), route of administration (127), patient age (133), and ADR severity (128). Comprehensiveness (explicit provision of at least four higher-level descriptors) was achieved by at least two-fifths (46%, 124/268) of HCPs. Received descriptions were more likely to be comprehensive from HCPs in private health facilities, regions other than central, and those not involved in teaching medical students. Overall, 106 serious and 51 rare previous-month suspected ADRs were described. The commonest serious and rare ADR was Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS); mostly associated with oral nevirapine or cotrimoxazole, but haemoptysis after diclofenac analgesia and paralysis after quinine injection were also described.ConclusionSurveyed Ugandan HCPs who had suspected at least one ADR in the previous month competently provided comprehensive ADR descriptions: more, indeed, than are received per annum nationally. Properly analyzed, and with local feed-back, voluntary ADR reports by HCPs could be an essential alerting tool for identifying rare and serious suspected ADRs in Uganda.