Completeness of Spontaneous Adverse Drug Reaction Reports Sent by General Practitioners to a Regional Pharmacovigilance Centre: A Descriptive Study

Geneviève Durrieu (), Julien Jacquot, Mathilde Mège, Emmanuelle Bondon-Guitton, Vanessa Rousseau, François Montastruc and Jean-Louis Montastruc
Additional contact information
Geneviève Durrieu: Centre Hospitalier Universitaire et Faculté de Médecine de l’Université de Toulouse
Julien Jacquot: Centre Hospitalier Universitaire et Faculté de Médecine de l’Université de Toulouse
Mathilde Mège: Centre Hospitalier Universitaire et Faculté de Médecine de l’Université de Toulouse
Emmanuelle Bondon-Guitton: Centre Hospitalier Universitaire et Faculté de Médecine de l’Université de Toulouse
Vanessa Rousseau: Centre Hospitalier Universitaire et Faculté de Médecine de l’Université de Toulouse
François Montastruc: Centre Hospitalier Universitaire et Faculté de Médecine de l’Université de Toulouse
Jean-Louis Montastruc: Centre Hospitalier Universitaire et Faculté de Médecine de l’Université de Toulouse

Drug Safety, 2016, vol. 39, issue 12, No 5, 1189-1195

Abstract: Abstract Introduction Spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) remains the cornerstone of postmarketing drug safety surveillance (pharmacovigilance); however, one of its main limitations is incomplete data, thus limiting conclusions about causality assessment. Objective The primary aim of this study was to assess the completeness of ADR reports sent by general practitioners (GPs) to regional pharmacovigilance centres and the secondary objective was to identify factors associated with complete ADR reports. Methods All ADR reports sent by GPs to the Midi-Pyrénées Regional Pharmacovigilance Center (Toulouse, France) from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2013 were reviewed. Healthcare professionals and patients can forward an ADR using either an online form through the Pharmacology Information Bulletin website ( http://www.bip31.fr ) or ‘traditional’ ADR reports (i.e. email, letter or fax). According to information provided in ADR reports (i.e. patient identification, ADR, date of occurrence, clinical description, drugs, etc.), reports were classified into three groups: ‘well-documented’, ‘slightly documented’ or ‘poorly documented’. A multivariate logistic regression was performed to investigate potential factors associated with a ‘well-documented’ ADR report. Results During the study period, 613 ADR reports were analysed. Among these reports, only 12.7 % were classified as ‘well-documented’, 68.5 % as ‘slightly documented’ and 18.8 % as ‘poorly documented’. An association between a ‘well-documented’ ADR report and its ‘seriousness’ was found (odds ratio = 1.70 [95 % CI 1.04–2.76], p = 0.01). No association between report completeness (‘well-documented’ report) and GP practice location or mode of ADR reporting was found. Conclusions The study shows that only one out of eight ADR reports from GPs was ‘well-documented’. Therefore, it appears to be important to promote further information being available regarding the data required in ADR reports to optimise the evaluation of drug causality.

Date: 2016
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40264-016-0463-4 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:drugsa:v:39:y:2016:i:12:d:10.1007_s40264-016-0463-4

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/adis/journal/40264

DOI: 10.1007/s40264-016-0463-4

Access Statistics for this article

Drug Safety is currently edited by Nitin Joshi

More articles in Drug Safety from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().