Dataset Information

The Impact of Mandatory Reporting of Non-Serious Safety Reports to EudraVigilance on the Detection of Adverse Reactions.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction and objective

European Union legislation has mandated the submission of European Economic Area non-serious reports to the EudraVigilance database since November 2017. As spontaneous reports of suspected adverse reactions to medicines represent a key source of safety signals, the European Medicines Agency has undertaken this work to assess the effects of this requirement on the characteristics of the reports submitted to EudraVigilance and on the detection of adverse drug reactions through routine analyses of the database.

Methods

Changes in the numbers of serious and non-serious reports transmitted to EudraVigilance were examined over the period during which the legislation was implemented. The numbers and nature of potential safety signals emerging from established statistical algorithms used at the European Medicines Agency applied either to only the serious reports or to all reports in EudraVigilance were compared.

Results

Up to November 2017, less than 25% of European Economic Area reports in EudraVigilance were classified as non-serious, since than this figure was slightly above 60%. This change accompanied an increase in the total number of reports received. Addition of non-serious reports to the signal detection process resulted in a small overall increase in signals of disproportionate reporting with some new signals of disproportionate reporting appearing and some existing signals of disproportionate reporting disappearing; the sensitivity of the signal detection system was slightly increased and the proportion of signals of disproportionate reporting that corresponded to known adverse drug reactions (a measure of efficiency) was unchanged.

Conclusions

The change in legislation has led to a small increase in sensitivity, without affecting the efficiency of the routine statistical measures used. The number of non-serious reports as a proportion of reports in EudraVigilance is likely to increase over time and further monitoring of the impact on signal detection is required. Further work is also required on the qualitative impact of non-serious reports on the nature of signals detected and on their evaluation.

SUBMITTER: Candore G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8763735 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background:The Protecting Canadians from Unsafe Drugs Act will eventually require institutions to report all serious adverse drug reactions (ADRs), although the proposed regulations do not yet define what will need to be reported and by whom. Knowledge about the occurrence of serious ADRs in the hospital setting is needed to optimize the effectiveness of reporting and to determine the potential implications of mandatory reporting. Objectives:To quantify and characterize suspected serious ADRs in patients admitted to a general medicine service, to assess the likelihood of causality, and to determine inter-rater agreement for identification of ADRs and assessment of their likelihood. Methods:This prospective observational study involved 60 consecutive patients admitted to a general medicine service at a tertiary care teaching centre starting on March 28, 2016. The primary outcome was the number of serious ADRs, defined by Health Canada as ADRs that result in hospital admission, congenital malformation, persistent or significant disability or incapacity, or death; that are life-threatening; or that require significant intervention to prevent one of these outcomes. Medical records were reviewed independently by pairs of pharmacists for serious ADRs, and the likelihood of causality was assessed using the World Health Organization-Uppsala Monitoring Centre system. Inter-rater agreement was calculated using the kappa score, and disagreements were resolved by discussion and consensus. Results:Twenty-three serious ADRs occurred in the sample of 60 patients. The proportion of patients experiencing a serious ADR that contributed to the original hospital admission was 19/60 (32%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 20%-43%), and 4 patients (7%, 95% CI 0%-13%) experienced a serious ADR during their hospital stay. Inter-rater agreement for occurrence of serious ADRs was moderate (kappa 0.58, 95% CI 0.35-0.76). Conclusion:Reportable serious ADRs were common among patients admitted to a general medicine service. Canadian hospitals would face difficulties reporting all serious ADRs because of the frequency of their occurrence and the subjectivity of their identification.

Project description:Oncology-associated adverse drug/device reactions can be fatal. Some clinicians who treat single patients with severe oncology-associated toxicities have researched case series and published this information. We investigated motivations and experiences of select individuals leading such efforts. Clinicians treating individual patients who developed oncology-associated serious adverse drug events were asked to participate. Inclusion criteria included having index patient information, reporting case series, and being collaborative with investigators from two National Institutes of Health funded pharmacovigilance networks. Thirty-minute interviews addressed investigational motivation, feedback from pharmaceutical manufacturers, FDA personnel, and academic leadership, and recommendations for improving pharmacovigilance. Responses were analyzed using constant comparative methods of qualitative analysis. Overall, 18 clinicians met inclusion criteria and 14 interviewees are included. Primary motivations were scientific curiosity, expressed by six clinicians. A less common theme was public health related (three clinicians). Six clinicians received feedback characterized as supportive from academic leaders, while four clinicians received feedback characterized as negative. Three clinicians reported that following the case series publication they were invited to speak at academic institutions worldwide. Responses from pharmaceutical manufacturers were characterized as negative by 12 clinicians. One clinician's wife called the post-reporting time the "Maalox month," while another clinician reported that the manufacturer collaboratively offered to identify additional cases of the toxicity. Responses from FDA employees were characterized as collaborative for two clinicians, neutral for five clinicians, unresponsive for negative by six clinicians. Three clinicians endorsed developing improved reporting mechanisms for individual physicians, while 11 clinicians endorsed safety activities that should be undertaken by persons other than a motivated clinician who personally treats a patient with a severe adverse drug/device reaction. Our study provides some of the first reports of clinician motivations and experiences with reporting serious or potentially fatal oncology-associated adverse drug or device reactions. Overall, it appears that negative feedback from pharmaceutical manufacturers and mixed feedback from the academic community and/or the FDA were reported. Big data, registries, Data Safety Monitoring Boards, and pharmacogenetic studies may facilitate improved pharmacovigilance efforts for oncology-associated adverse drug reactions. These initiatives overcome concerns related to complacency, indifference, ignorance, and system-level problems as barriers to documenting and reporting adverse drug events- barriers that have been previously reported for clinician reporting of serious adverse drug reactions.

Project description:BackgroundSpontaneous 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.MethodsAll 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.ResultsBefore 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.ConclusionsThis 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.