Dataset Information

Spontaneous adverse drug reaction reporting by community pharmacists: preparedness and barriers

ABSTRACT:

Background

Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are undesired, unintended responses to drugs, and are significantly underreported. Pharmacists are drug experts recognized as custodians of drug safety, who are expected to be prepared for and knowledgeable about ADR reporting.

Objectives

To identify Egyptian community pharmacists’ preparedness for and perceived barriers to spontaneous ADR reporting.

Methods

This cross-sectional study recruited a sample of community pharmacists across Egypt, who were invited to complete a self-administrated questionnaire during April 2020.

Results

A total of 923 pharmacists across Egypt responded to the questionnaire. Most pharmacists were knowledgeable about the definition of ADRs (93.9 %) and indicated they felt reporting ADRs benefits the patients (82.2%). Despite recognizing their public health value, only a small percentage of participants conveyed familiarity with the reporting process for both paper (19.2%) and electronic (30.4%) forms, indeed 56.6% of participants did not remember what the ADR report form looked like. Moreover, 75.4% of respondents said they felt that community pharmacies are not the right place for reporting, with 49% suggesting that reporting was the responsibility of physicians. However, only 32.1% reported having insufficient time being a barrier to ADR reporting.

Conclusions

Community pharmacists in Egypt are not well prepared for spontaneous ADR reporting due to a lack of knowledge about the formal process and not acknowledging their responsibility, although time was not a major barrier. Therefore, this highlights a clear opportunity for improvement likely involving targeted education.

SUBMITTER: Bahlol M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9315256 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSpontaneous reports of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) form an essential component of both drug safety monitoring and patient safety initiatives. Pharmacists are well positioned to report ADRs, but many barriers exist to their doing so. Over the past decade, substantial changes have occurred with regard to drug regulations and medication safety initiatives, and it is possible that knowledge-based interventions may be needed to enhance ADR reporting by pharmacists.ObjectiveTo determine whether ADR reporting behaviours of pharmacists improved after release of a revised policy on the reporting of medication incidents.MethodsA telephone survey was administered to pharmacists practising in the Canadian Forces Health Services Group. Self-reported behaviours and perceived barriers related to ADR reporting were compared before and 3 months after the updated policy was released. Accuracy in participants' self-assessed ADR reporting was evaluated using independently derived workload statistics.ResultsDuring the second survey phase (after release of the revised policy), a greater proportion of respondents reported awareness of institutional policies on ADR reporting and declared that they were able to complete all necessary ADR reports during their assigned work hours. However, the number of ADR reports submitted did not increase. Participants' recall of their ADR reporting behaviour was corroborated by workload data. During the second survey phase, there was a noticeable reduction in the number of free-form comments mentioning lack of staff as a barrier to ADR reporting.ConclusionsRelease of a more comprehensive policy was not associated with an increase in the number of ADR reports generated by pharmacists in the study setting. Interventions to strengthen the organization's work processes for detection of ADRs and submission of individual ADR reports should be strongly considered, to reinforce and enhance existing ADR reporting behaviours among pharmacists.

Project description:BackgroundAttitudes of healthcare professionals regarding spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in Japan are not well known, and Japan's unique system of surveillance, called early post-marketing phase vigilance (EPPV), may affect these reporting attitudes. Our objectives were to describe potential effects of EPPV and to test whether ADR seriousness, prominence, and frequency are related to changes in reporting over time.MethodsA manufacturer's database of spontaneous ADR reports was used to extract data from individual case safety reports for 5 drugs subject to EPPV. The trend of reporting and the time lag between ADR onset and reporting to the manufacturer were examined. The following indices for ADRs occurring with each drug were calculated and analyzed to assess reporting trends: Serious:Non-serious ratio, High prominence:Low prominence ratio, and High frequency:Low frequency ratio.ResultsFor all 5 drugs, the time lag between ADR onset and reporting to the manufacturer was shorter in the EPPV period than in the post-EPPV period. All drugs showed higher Serious:Non-serious ratios in the post-EPPV period. No specific patterns were observed for the High prominence:Low prominence ratio. The High frequency:Low frequency ratio for peginterferon alpha-2a and sevelamer hydrochloride decreased steadily throughout the study period.ConclusionsHealthcare professionals may be more likely to report serious ADRs than to report non-serious ADRs, but the effect of event prominence on reporting trends is still unclear. Factors associated with ADR reporting attitude in Japan might be different from those in other countries because of EPPV and the involvement of medical representatives in the spontaneous reporting process. Pharmacovigilance specialists should therefore be cautious when comparing data between different time periods or different countries. Further studies are needed to elucidate the underlying mechanism of spontaneous ADR reporting in Japan.

Project description:Background/Objective: Spontaneous reporting systems (SRS) such as the Korea Adverse Event Reporting System (KAERS) are limited in their ability to detect adverse drug reaction (ADR) signals due to their limited data on drug use. Conversely, the national health insurance claim (NHIC) data include drug use information for all qualifying residents. This study aimed to compare ADR signal profiles for antidepressants between KAERS and NHIC, evaluating the extent to which detected signals belong to common ADRs and labeling information. Materials and Methods: ADR signal detection in KAERS and NHIC databases, spanning January to December 2017, employed disproportionality analysis. Signal classes were determined based on System Organ Class (SOC) of the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA). Also, Common ADR Coverage (CAC), the proportion of detected signals deemed common ADRs, and labeling information coverage (LIC) represented by mean average precision (mAP) were calculated. Additionally, protopathic bias and relative risk (RR) evaluation were performed to check for signal robustness. Results: Signal detection revealed 51 and 62 signals in KAERS and NHIC databases, respectively. Both systems predominantly captured signals related to nervous system disorders, comprising 33.3% (N = 17) in KAERS and 50.8% (N = 31) in NHIC. Regarding the type of antidepressants, KAERS predominantly reported signals associated with tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) (N = 21, 41.2%), while NHIC produced most signals linked to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) (N = 22, 35.5%). KAERS exhibited higher CAC (68.63% vs. 29.03%) than NHIC. LIC was also higher in KAERS than in NHIC (mAP for EB05: 1.00 vs. 0.983); i.e., NHIC identified 5 signals not documented in drug labeling information, while KAERS found none. Among the unlabeled signals, one (Duloxetine-Myelopathy) was from protopathic bias, and two (duloxetine-myelopathy and tianeptine-osteomalacia) were statistically significant in RR. Conclusion: NHIC exhibited greater capability in detecting ADR signals associated with antidepressant use, encompassing unlabeled ADR signals, compared to KAERS. NHIC also demonstrated greater potential for identifying less common ADRs. Further investigation is needed for signals detected exclusively in NHIC but not covered by labeling information. This study underscores the value of integrating different sources of data, offering substantial regulatory insights and enriching the scope of pharmacovigilance.