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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marin Banovac & Gianmario Candore & Jim Slattery & Francois Houÿez & David Haerry & Georgy Genov & Peter Arlett, 2017. "Patient Reporting in the EU: Analysis of EudraVigilance Data," Drug Safety, Springer, vol. 40(7), pages 629-645, July.
    2. Cristiano Matos & Linda Härmark & Florence Hunsel, 2016. "Patient Reporting of Adverse Drug Reactions: An International Survey of National Competent Authorities’ Views and Needs," Drug Safety, Springer, vol. 39(11), pages 1105-1116, November.
    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. Eyob Alemayehu Gebreyohannes & Christopher Thornton & Myra Thiessen & Sieta T. Vries & Gretchen Coombs & Indae Hwang & Renly Lim, 2025. "Views on the Development and Use of a New Digital Adverse Drug Event Reporting Platform in Australia: A Qualitative Study," Drug Safety, Springer, vol. 48(2), pages 179-190, February.
    2. Gilles Defer & Sophie Fedrizzi & Damien Chevanne & François Montastruc & Anais R. Briant & Jean-Jacques Parienti & Laure Peyro-Saint-Paul, 2021. "Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Using a Mobile Device Application by Persons with Multiple Sclerosis: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial," Drug Safety, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 223-233, February.
    3. George Tsey Sabblah & Delese Mimi Darko & Hudu Mogtari & Linda Härmark & Eugène Puijenbroek, 2017. "Patients’ Perspectives on Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting in a Developing Country: A Case Study from Ghana," Drug Safety, Springer, vol. 40(10), pages 911-921, October.
    4. Wiwan Worakunphanich & Sitaporn Youngkong & Wimon Suwankesawong & Claire Anderson & Montarat Thavorncharoensap, 2022. "Comparison of Patient Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems in Nine Selected Countries," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(8), pages 1-12, April.
    5. Inácio, Pedro & Gomes, João José & Airaksinen, Marja & Cavaco, Afonso, 2018. "Exploring sociodemographic and economic factors that promote adverse drug reactions reporting by patients," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(3), pages 263-268.
    6. Lotte A. Minnema & Thijs J. Giezen & Patrick C. Souverein & Toine C. G. Egberts & Hubert G. M. Leufkens & Helga Gardarsdottir, 2019. "Exploring the Association between Monoclonal Antibodies and Depression and Suicidal Ideation and Behavior: A VigiBase Study," Drug Safety, Springer, vol. 42(7), pages 887-895, July.
    7. Sieta T. de Vries & Judy Harrison & Patrick Revelle & Alicia Ptaszynska-Neophytou & Anna Radecka & Gowthamei Ragunathan & Phil Tregunno & Petra Denig & Peter G. M. Mol, 2019. "Use of a Patient-Friendly Terms List in the Adverse Drug Reaction Report Form: A Database Study," Drug Safety, Springer, vol. 42(7), pages 881-886, July.
    8. Cristiano Matos & Gerda Weits & Florence Hunsel, 2019. "The Role of European Patient Organizations in Pharmacovigilance," Drug Safety, Springer, vol. 42(4), pages 547-557, April.
    9. Kamila Sienkiewicz & Monika Burzyńska & Izabela Rydlewska-Liszkowska & Jacek Sienkiewicz & Ewelina Gaszyńska, 2021. "The Importance of Direct Patient Reporting of Adverse Drug Reactions in the Safety Monitoring Process," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(1), pages 1-16, December.

    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.

    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: 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.