Sustained Decline of Direct General Practitioner Reporting of Adverse Drug Reactions in Australia and Paucity in Details of Australian Reports in Safety Advisories

Abstract

Introduction

There have been substantial changes in the nature of reporting pathways and review of suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in Australia since the establishment of the now defunct Advisory Committee on Safety of Medicines early in 2010.

Objectives

The aim of this study was to (1) examine the reporting in Australia of suspected ADRs from various sources, including general practitioners (GPs), since 1990; (2) compare the reporting of Australian GPs with that in two other countries (New Zealand and the United Kingdom [UK]) with comparable safety monitoring programmes for the period 2007–2019; and (3) explore the extent to which Australian reporting of suspected adverse reactions has motivated communication to healthcare professionals in the period 1995–2019.

Methods

Annual reporting of sources of ADRs in Australia were obtained from Government reports, the Australian Statistics in Medicines and Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) websites. Details of the annual reporting by GPs in the UK were obtained from published sources and have been provided on request by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. Details of the annual reporting by GPs in New Zealand were provided on request from the Centre for Adverse Reaction Monitoring. All issues of the Australian Adverse Drug Reactions Bulletin were accessed from the National Library of Australia, and issues of the Medicines Safety Update from February 1995 to December 2019 were accessed online from the TGA website. Each issue was searched to identify and score safety advisories.

Results

From 1990 to 2002 in Australia, overall reporting gradually increased, and the three major groups of reporters (GPs, hospitals and sponsors) each contributed about 30%. The relative contributions to reporting changed in the period 2002 to 2009. There was then a steep fall in reporting from GPs and the start of a very marked increase in reporting from product sponsors. GP reporting in Australia was lower than the two other comparable countries (New Zealand and the UK), and continues to fall, while in the UK at least, GP reporting is rising. The analysis of safety advisories shows a relatively stable Australian content from 1995 to 2008, followed by a sharp decline, so that by 2019 and 2020 there was barely any Australian reporting-driven content. In 1995 and 1996, Australian reports of suspected adverse reactions were the sole apparent reason for the publication of safety advisories. From 1997 to about 2008, Australian reports of suspected adverse reactions were the major reason for publication, but after this time, Australian reports became less important. During this later period, the apparent motive for publication of the safety advisory shifted to being based primarily on a publication in the medical literature, or publicity, but was sometimes based on an overseas regulator’s advice or action, or action by a product sponsor.

Conclusion

It is our contention that the decline in GP reporting in Australia and the current paucity in details of Australian reports in safety advisories are closely linked.