International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy

, Volume 40, Issue 4, pp 754–757 | Cite as

Current trends in pharmacovigilance: value and gaps of patient reporting

  • Pedro InácioEmail author
  • Afonso Cavaco
  • Marja Airaksinen


The World Health Organization (WHO) defines pharmacovigilance as the science and activities relating to the detection, assessment, understanding and prevention of adverse effects or any drug-related problems [1]. Broadly speaking, this definition relates to a system used for adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting and, having detected a potential problem, minimize its impact in the population. This is done using the spontaneous reporting system (SRS), in which a healthcare professional (HCP) or patient sends an unsolicited communication to competent authorities or pharmaceutical companies describing one or more ADRs [2]. However, pharmacovigilance is much more than just spontaneous reporting (SR) [2]. Its scope has grown considerably in the past few decades, encompassing not only ADR reporting but as well medication errors (ME), counterfeit or substandard medicines, lack of efficacy or drug–drug interactions [1]. Currently, pharmacovigilance covers the life-cycle of a...



No funding was provided for the completion of this commentary.

Conflicts of interest

Authors have completed the conflict of interest disclosure form and declare no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work. There are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work. Authors have no support from any organization for the submitted work.


  1. 1.
    World Health Organization. The Importance of Pharmacovigilance: safety monitoring of medicinal products (2002). Assessed 19 Dec 2017.
  2. 2.
    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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    van Grootheest K, de Graaf L, de Jong-van den Berg LTW. Consumer adverse drug reaction reporting: a new step in pharmacovigilance? Drug Saf. 2003;26:211–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Banovac M, Candore G, Slattery J, Houÿez F, Haerry D, Genov G, et al. Patient reporting in the EU: analysis of eudravigilance data. Drug Saf. 2017;40:629–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Borg J-J, Aislaitner G, Pirozynski M, Mifsud S. Strengthening and rationalizing pharmacovigilance in the EU: where is Europe heading to? Drug Saf. 2011;34:187–97.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Matos C, Härmark L, van Hunsel F. Patient reporting of adverse drug reactions: an international survey of national competent authorities’ views and needs. Drug Saf. 2016;39:1105–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Arlett PR, Kurz X. New approaches to strengthen pharmacovigilance. Drug Discov Today Technol. 2011;8:e15–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Inácio P, Cavaco A, Airaksinen M. The value of patient reporting to the pharmacovigilance system: a systematic review. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2017;83:227–46.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    van Hunsel F, de Waal S, Härmark L. The contribution of direct patient reported ADRs to drug safety signals in the Netherlands from 2010 to 2015. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2017;26:977–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Watson S, Chandler RE, Taavola H, Härmark L, Grundmark B, Zekarias A, et al. Safety concerns reported by patients identified in a collaborative signal detection workshop using vigibase: results and reflections from lareb and uppsala monitoring centre. Drug Saf. 2018;41:203–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Inch J, Watson MC, Anakwe-Umeh S. Patient versus healthcare professional spontaneous adverse drug reaction reporting. Drug Saf. 2012;35:807–18.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rolfes L, van Hunsel F, Taxis K, van Puijenbroek E. the impact of experiencing adverse drug reactions on the patient’s quality of life: a retrospective cross-sectional study in the Netherlands. Drug Saf. 2016;39:769–76.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rolfes L, van Hunsel F, van der Linden L, Taxis K, van Puijenbroek E. The quality of clinical information in adverse drug reaction reports by patients and healthcare professionals: a retrospective comparative analysis. Drug Saf. 2017;40:607–14.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Al Dweik R, Stacey D, Kohen D, Yaya S. Factors affecting patient reporting of adverse drug reactions: a systematic review. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2017;83:875–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jadeja M, Inglefield P. An evaluation of the EU wide social media campaign to raise awareness of national spontaneous ADR reporting systems (2017). Assessed 14 Dec 2017.
  16. 16.
    Kaeding M, Schmälter J, Klika C. Pharmacovigilance in the European Union. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden; 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    van Hunsel F, Härmark L, Pal S, Olsson S, van Grootheest K. Experiences with adverse drug reaction reporting by patients: an 11-country survey. Drug Saf. 2012;35:45–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Durrieu G, Jacquot J, Mège M, Bondon-Guitton E, Rousseau V, Montastruc F, et al. Completeness of spontaneous adverse drug reaction reports sent by general practitioners to a regional pharmacovigilance centre: a descriptive study. Drug Saf. 2016;39:1189–95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kheloufi F, Default A, Rouby F, Laugier-Castellan D, Boyer M, Rodrigues B, et al. Informativeness of patient initial reports of adverse drug reactions. Can it be improved by a pharmacovigilance centre? Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2017;73:1009–18.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Inácio P, Cavaco A, Allan E, Airaksinen M. Key pharmacovigilance stakeholders’ experiences of direct patient reporting of adverse drug reactions and their prospects of future development in the European Union. Public Health. 2018;155:119–28.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Martins SF, van Mil JWF, da Costa FA. The organizational framework of community pharmacies in Europe. Int J Clin Pharm. 2015;37:896–905.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Leone R, Moretti U, D’Incau P, Conforti A, Magro L, Lora R, et al. effect of pharmacist involvement on patient reporting of adverse drug reactions: first Italian study. Drug Saf. 2013;36:267–76.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Parretta E, Rafaniello C, Magro L, Coggiola Pittoni A, Sportiello L, Ferrajolo C, et al. Improvement of patient adverse drug reaction reporting through a community pharmacist-based intervention in the Campania region of Italy. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2014;13:21–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bigi C, Bocci G. The key role of clinical and community health nurses in pharmacovigilance. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2017;73:1379–87.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Härmark L, van Grootheest K. Web-based intensive monitoring: from passive to active drug surveillance. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2012;11:45–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bhattacharya M, Snyder S, Malin M, Truffa MM, Marinic S, Engelmann R, et al. Using social media data in routine pharmacovigilance: a pilot study to identify safety signals and patient perspectives. Pharm Med. 2017;31:167–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Defer G, Le Caignec F, Fedrizzi S, Montastruc F, Chevanne D, Parienti J-J, et al. Dedicated mobile application for drug adverse reaction reporting by patients with relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis (Vigip-SEP study): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials BioMed Cent. 2018;19:174.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Clinical Pharmacy Group, Division of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, Faculty of PharmacyUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland
  2. 2.iMed.ULisboa Research Institute for Medicines and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Faculty of PharmacyUniversity of LisbonLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations