Developing a consumer reporting program in Malaysia: a novel initiative to improve pharmacovigilance
Commentary
First Online:
- 123 Downloads
- 1 Citations
Abstract
The national pharmacovigilance program in Malaysia is limited to very few centers and under-reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) is a major limitation. Studies from developed countries have documented the importance and usefulness of consumer reporting of ADRs. Involving consumers in ADR reporting can be very useful in improving the reporting rates in Malaysia. The present article highlights the proposed plan of initiating a consumer based pharmacovigilance program in University Wellness Center located inside the campus of the Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia.
Keywords
Adverse drug reactions Consumer reporting Malaysia PharmacovigilanceNotes
Conflict of interests
There was no conflict of interest influencing the publication of this article.
References
- 1.Davies EC, Green CF, Taylor S, Williamson PR, Mottram DR, Pirmohamed M. Adverse drug reactions in hospital in-patients: a prospective analysis of 3695 patient-episodes. PLoS One. 2009;4(2):e4439.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 2.Davies EC, Green CF, Mottram DR, Pirmohamed M. Adverse drug reactions in hospitals: a narrative review. Curr Drug Saf. 2007;2(1):79–87.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 3.World Health Organization. Requirements for adverse reaction reporting. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 1975.Google Scholar
- 4.World Health Organization. The importance of pharmacovigilance. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2002.Google Scholar
- 5.Haq ASM. Pharmacovigilance initiatives in Malaysia. Drug Info J. 2008;37:143 (S)–148 (S).Google Scholar
- 6.Aziz Z, Siang TC, Badarudin NS. Reporting of adverse drug reactions: predictors of under-reporting in Malaysia. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2007;16(2):223–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 7.Fernandopulle RBM, Weerasuriya K. What can consumer adverse drug reaction reporting add to existing health professional-based systems. Drug Saf. 2003;26:219–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 8.Langen J, van Hunsel F, Passier A, Van den Berg L, Van Grootheest K. Adverse drug reactions reporting by patients in the Netherlands. Drug Saf. 2008;31(6):515–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 9.Blenkinsopp A, Wilkie P, Wang M, Routledge PA. Patient reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions: a review of published literature and internationale experience. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2006;63(2):148–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Medawar C, Herxheimer A. A comparison of adverse drug reaction reports from professionals and users, relating to risk of dependence and suicidal behaviour with paroxetine. Int J Risk Saf Med. 2003;16:5–19.Google Scholar
- 11.Al-Haddad M, Izham MIM. The development of the discipline of social and administrative pharmacy at Universiti Sains Malaysia. South Med Rev. 2008;1:3–5.Google Scholar
- 12.Palaian S, Izham M, Mishra P. Monitoring adverse drug reactions using the community pharmacists: a preliminary study from Nepal. Drug Saf. 2008;31(10):885–960.Google Scholar
- 13.Naranjo CA, Busto U, Sellers EM, Sandor P, Ruiz I, Roberts EA, et al. A method for estimating the probability of adverse drug reactions. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1981;30:239–45.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 14.Hartwig SC, Siegel J, Schneider PJ. Preventability and severity assessment in reporting adverse drug reactions. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1992;49:2229–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 15.Schumock GT, Thornton JP. Focusing on the preventability of adverse drug reactions. Hosp Pharm. 1992;27:538.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Copyright information
© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009