IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/drugsa/v46y2023i12d10.1007_s40264-023-01355-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparative Analysis of Information Provided in German Adverse Drug Reaction Reports Sent by Physicians, Pharmacists and Consumers

Author

Listed:
  • Patrick Christ

    (Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices
    University Hospital of Bonn)

  • Diana Dubrall

    (Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices
    University Hospital of Bonn)

  • Matthias Schmid

    (University Hospital of Bonn)

  • Bernhardt Sachs

    (Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices
    University Hospital RWTH Aachen)

Abstract

Introduction Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) can be reported by Health Care Professionals (HCPs; e.g., physicians, pharmacists) and non-Health Care Professionals (non-HCPs; e.g., consumers). Previous studies investigating differences between reports from HCPs and non-HCPs rarely considered the completeness of information provided. In addition, they mostly did not distinguish between physicians and pharmacists or were performed years ago. The aim of our study was to analyse and compare the completeness of information provided in reports from physicians, pharmacists and consumers from Germany in a more recent dataset. Materials and methods We analysed all spontaneous reports from Germany received between 2018 and 2021 in the ADR database EudraVigilance exclusively reported by physicians (n = 69,976), pharmacists (n = 42,396) or consumers (n = 121,144). Demographical parameters of the patients were analysed descriptively. Completeness of reports was evaluated applying an established score (vigiGrade). Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using logistic regression analysis in order to identify report, patient, drug or ADR-specific information provided more often in reports from physicians, pharmacists or consumers. Results Within the study period the number of reports per year by physicians and pharmacists decreased steadily, while an opposite trend was observed for consumer reports. The proportion of female patients was higher in reports from pharmacists (64.4%) and consumers (64.8%) compared to those from physicians (55.3%). On average, patients in reports from pharmacists (58.7) were older compared to those from physicians (53.5) and consumers (52.6). As an example for the presence of specific information, the time to onset of the ADR could be calculated more often in consumer compared to physician (OR 1.9 [1.8–1.9]) and pharmacist reports (OR 1.7 [1.6–1.7]). In contrast, pharmacist (OR 0.5 [0.4–0.5]) and consumer (OR 0.5 [0.5–0.5]) reports included the indication of the suspected drug less often than physician reports. Physician reports on average (mean = 0.5) were slightly more complete according to the vigiGrade score compared to reports from consumers (mean = 0.4) and pharmacists (mean = 0.4). Conclusion The ADR reports from consumers were comparable with regard to the completeness score with those from physicians and pharmacists underlining their value. Differences in completeness of specific information between the reporter types were found, suggesting that a common reporting of interactions between the three reporters may further improve the completeness of ADR reports. Furthermore, stratified analysis of ADR reports per reporter type may be helpful for certain objectives in scientific research.

Suggested Citation

  • Patrick Christ & Diana Dubrall & Matthias Schmid & Bernhardt Sachs, 2023. "Comparative Analysis of Information Provided in German Adverse Drug Reaction Reports Sent by Physicians, Pharmacists and Consumers," Drug Safety, Springer, vol. 46(12), pages 1363-1379, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:drugsa:v:46:y:2023:i:12:d:10.1007_s40264-023-01355-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s40264-023-01355-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40264-023-01355-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40264-023-01355-8?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:spr:drugsa:v:46:y:2023:i:12:d:10.1007_s40264-023-01355-8. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40264 .

    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.