IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i7p3754-d776491.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Quality of Spontaneous Reports of Adverse Drug Reactions Sent to a Regional Pharmacovigilance Unit

Author

Listed:
  • Mário Rui Salvador

    (Public Health Unit, Local Health Unit of Guarda, 6301-858 Guarda, Portugal
    Pharmacovigilance Unit of Beira Interior, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Beira Interior, 6200-506 Covilha, Portugal)

  • Cristina Monteiro

    (Pharmacovigilance Unit of Beira Interior, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Beira Interior, 6200-506 Covilha, Portugal)

  • Luísa Pereira

    (Department of Mathematics, University of Beira Interior, 6201-001 Covilha, Portugal)

  • Ana Paula Duarte

    (Pharmacovigilance Unit of Beira Interior, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Beira Interior, 6200-506 Covilha, Portugal
    The Health Science Research Centre, University of Beira Interior, 6200-506 Covilha, Portugal)

Abstract

Spontaneous reports (SRs) of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) remain the basis of pharmacovigilance systems. The main objective of this study was to evaluate the quality of SRs received by the Pharmacovigilance Unit of Beira Interior, in Central Portugal. The second objective was to identify factors associated with complete SRs. SRs received between 1 January 2017 and 31 October 2019 were analyzed. SR information was classified as “mandatory” or “recommended” criteria. SR were then grouped into three categories (well, slightly, and poorly documented). Association between “well documented” SR and confounding variables was estimated using a multiple logistic regression model. The results showed 22.4% of SRs are “well documented”, and 41.2% are “poorly documented”. Most of the complete SRs correspond to non-serious ADRs (55.8%), with a negative association between complete SRs and serious ADRs (OR = 0.595, [95% CI 0.362–0.977], p = 0.040). There is also a significant association between complete SRs and e-mail notification (OR = 1.876, [95% CI 1.060–3.321], p = 0.002). The results highlight the small amount of SR documentation sent to pharmacovigilance systems. There is an association between non-serious ADRs and complete SRs. These results reinforce the need for training for notification of ADRs and that these SRs include as much information as possible for an effective drug risk management.

Suggested Citation

  • Mário Rui Salvador & Cristina Monteiro & Luísa Pereira & Ana Paula Duarte, 2022. "Quality of Spontaneous Reports of Adverse Drug Reactions Sent to a Regional Pharmacovigilance Unit," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(7), pages 1-8, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:7:p:3754-:d:776491
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/7/3754/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/7/3754/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Geneviève Durrieu & Julien Jacquot & Mathilde Mège & Emmanuelle Bondon-Guitton & Vanessa Rousseau & François Montastruc & Jean-Louis Montastruc, 2016. "Completeness of Spontaneous Adverse Drug Reaction Reports Sent by General Practitioners to a Regional Pharmacovigilance Centre: A Descriptive Study," Drug Safety, Springer, vol. 39(12), pages 1189-1195, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Agne Valinciute-Jankauskiene & Loreta Kubiliene, 2021. "Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting by Patients in 12 European Countries," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(4), pages 1-8, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:7:p:3754-:d:776491. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.