Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Feb;83(2):227-246.
doi: 10.1111/bcp.13098. Epub 2016 Oct 12.

The value of patient reporting to the pharmacovigilance system: a systematic review

Affiliations

The value of patient reporting to the pharmacovigilance system: a systematic review

Pedro Inácio et al. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2017 Feb.

Abstract

Aims: Current trends in pharmacovigilance systems are veering towards patient involvement in spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs). The aim of the current systematic review was to identify what is known and what remains unknown with respect to patient reporting to pharmacovigilance systems.

Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, CINAHL, Journals@Ovid and the Cochrane Library. Studies were included if they contained: (i) reviews about patient reporting; (ii) evaluation of patient reports to national or supranational pharmacovigilance authorities; (iii) a comparison between patient and healthcare professional (HCP) reports submitted to pharmacovigilance authorities; and (iv) surveys of patient experiences, opinions and awareness about reporting ADRs. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed according to principles of Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE).

Results: A total of thirty four studies were included. Five of the studies were reviews (two of which systematic reviews), fourteen retrospective observational studies, nine surveys and six applied mixed research methods. Patient reporting has the advantages of bringing novel information about ADRs. It provides a more detailed description of ADRs, and reports about different drugs and system organ classes when compared with HCP reporting. In addition, patients describe the severity and impact of ADRs on daily life, complementing information derived from HCPs. Patient reporting is relatively rare in most countries.

Conclusions: Patient reporting adds new information, and perspective about ADRs in a way otherwise unavailable. This can contribute to better decision-making processes in regulatory activities. The present review identified gaps in knowledge that should be addressed to improve our understanding of the full potential and drawbacks of patient reporting.

Keywords: adverse drug reaction reporting systems; drug monitoring; drug-related side effects and adverse reactions; patients; pharmacovigilance.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow diagram of study selection

References

    1. Lopes P, Nunes T, Campos D, Furlong LI, Bauer‐Mehren A, Sanz F, et al. Gathering and exploring scientific knowledge in pharmacovigilance. PLoS One 2013; 8: e83016. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lazarou J, Pomeranz BH, Corey PN. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a meta‐analysis of prospective studies. JAMA 1998; 279: 1200–1205. - PubMed
    1. Silverman SL. From randomized controlled trials to observational studies. Am J Med 2009; 122: 114–120. - PubMed
    1. Alves C, Macedo AF, Marques FB. Sources of information used by regulatory agencies on the generation of drug safety alerts. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2013; 69: 2083–2094. - PubMed
    1. Pal SN, Duncombe C, Falzon D, Olsson S. WHO strategy for collecting safety data in public health programmes: complementing spontaneous reporting systems. Drug Saf 2013; 36: 75–81. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms