Advertisement

Drug Safety

, Volume 42, Issue 4, pp 547–557 | Cite as

The Role of European Patient Organizations in Pharmacovigilance

  • Cristiano MatosEmail author
  • Gerda Weits
  • Florence van Hunsel
Original Research Article

Abstract

Introduction

Patient organizations have a privileged position to be active agents for promoting pharmacovigilance and patient engagement, encouraging direct patient reporting and improving the awareness of pharmacovigilance.

Aim

The objective of this study was to understand the role of European patient organizations as stakeholders to optimize patient involvement in pharmacovigilance.

Methods

A descriptive correlational study was conducted to investigate the opinions and attitudes of patient organizations regarding general patient involvement in pharmacovigilance, and their initiatives to support drug safety through a web-based questionnaire during the months of March and April 2018.

Results

A total of 1898 patient organizations were invited to participate in the survey, including 89 pan-European organizations. In total, 337 questionnaires (17.76%) were collected from 31 countries, including 297 complete answers (88.31%). A large number of organizations stated that they would like to increase the awareness of patients regarding specific adverse drug reactions (ADRs) related to their medicines (43.19%, n  = 130); however, 38.54% (n  = 116) declared they do not have any pharmacovigilance goals. Barriers to supporting pharmacovigilance activities include low budget to promote pharmacovigilance among members (45.45%, n  = 135), lack of resources to participate in pharmacovigilance activities (43.77%, n  = 130), or lack of support from the National Competent Authorities (33.33%, n  = 99). Organizations inform patients to report ADRs (40.40%; n  = 120), information regarding new ADRs related to their medicines (40.07%; n  = 119), or when a new drug is marketed (30.98%; n  = 92); however, more than one-third indicated that they never had any involvement in pharmacovigilance (34.68%; n  = 103).

Conclusion

Bringing pharmacovigilance stakeholders and patient organizations together could create a more optimal reporting culture. Patient organizations appear to have an important role in encouraging patients to talk with their doctors/pharmacists about ADRs experienced, or to help him/her report the ADRs to the pharmacovigilance systems. Lack of resources, budget, and support from NCAs are seen as the main barriers to being involved in pharmacovigilance awareness.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Kaisa Immonen and Kostas Aligiannis from the European Patient Forum, and Allan Wilsdorf from F-CRIN/EUPATI-France, for dissemination of the questionnaire among their members.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding

No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this article.

Conflict of Interest

Cristiano Matos, Gerda Weits and Florence van Hunsel have no conflicts of interest to declare that are directly relevant to the content of this study.

Supplementary material

40264_2018_748_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (502 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 501 kb)
40264_2018_748_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (327 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (PDF 327 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Anderson C, Krska J, Murphy E, Avery A. The importance of direct patient reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions: a patient perspective. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2011;72(5):806–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    McLernon DJ, Bond CM, Lee AJ, Watson MC, Hannaford PC, Fortnum H, et al. Patient views and experiences of making adverse drug reaction reports to the Yellow Card Scheme in the UK. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2011;20(5):523–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    van Hunsel F, Härmark L, Pal S, Olsson S, van Grootheest K. Experiences with Adverse drug reaction reporting by patients. Drug Saf. 2012;35(1):45–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    van Hunsel F, van der Welle C, Passier A, van Puijenbroek E, van Grootheest K. Motives for reporting adverse drug reactions by patient-reporters in the Netherlands. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2010;66(11):1143–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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(7):607–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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(8):769–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rolfes L, Hunsel F, Wilkes S, Grootheest K, Puijenbroek E. Adverse drug reaction reports of patients and healthcare professionals: differences in reported information. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2015;24(2):152–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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(11):1105–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hunsel F, 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(8):977–83.CrossRefGoogle 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(2):203–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Avery AJ, Anderson C, Bond CM, Fortnum H, Gifford A, Hannaford PC, et al. Evaluation of patient reporting of adverse drug reactions to the UK “Yellow Card Scheme”: literature review, descriptive and qualitative analyses, and questionnaire surveys. Health Technol Assess. 2011;15(20):1–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Härmark L, van Hunsel F, Grundmark B. ADR reporting by the general public: lessons learnt from the Dutch and Swedish systems. Drug Saf. 2015;38(4):337–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Blenkinsopp A, Wilkie P, Wang M, Routledge PA. Patient reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions: a review of published literature and international experience. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2007;63(2):148–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    World Health Organization. The importance of pharmacovigilance: safety monitoring of medicinal products. Geneva World Health Organization; 2002. pp. 1–48.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    World Health Organization. Safety monitoring of medicinal products: reporting system for the general public. Geneva World Health Organization; 2012.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    European Patients’ Forum. The new EU pharmacovigilance legislation: Directive 2010/84/EU and Regulation No. 1235/2010—Guidance for Patient Organisations. 2012.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Aymé S, Kole A, Groft S. Empowerment of patients: lessons from the rare diseases community. Lancet. 2008;371(9629):2048–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mavris M, Le Cam Y. Involvement of patient organisations in research and development of orphan drugs for rare diseases in Europe. Mol Syndromol. 2012;3(5):237–43.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Boon W, Broekgaarden R. The role of patient advocacy organisations in neuromuscular disease R&D—the case of the Dutch neuromuscular disease association VSN. Neuromuscul Disord. 2010;20(2):148–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Parkinson K. The involvement of patients in developing clinical guidelines. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2012;7(2):A13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Menon D, Stafinski T, Dunn A, Short H. Involving patients in reducing decision uncertainties around orphan and ultra-orphan drugs: a rare opportunity? Patient. 2015;8(1):29–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Borup G, Bach KF, Schmiegelow M, Wallach-Kildemoes H, Bjerrum OJ, Westergaard N. A paradigm shift towards patient involvement in medicines development and regulatory science: workshop proceedings and commentary. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2016;50(3):304–11.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nasrallah-Irles D, Castot A, Thomas L, Babai S, Delorme B, Le-Louët H. Signalement d’événements indésirables par les patients: étude pilote réalisée avec la collaboration d’associations de patients. Thérapie. 2008;63(5):385–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    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(8):1009–1018.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Smith MY, Benattia I. The patient’s voice in pharmacovigilance: pragmatic approaches to building a patient-centric drug safety organization. Drug Saf. 2016;39(9):779–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bahk CY, Goshgarian M, Donahue K, Freifeld CC, Menone CM, Pierce CE, et al. Increasing patient engagement in pharmacovigilance through online community outreach and mobile reporting applications: an analysis of adverse event reporting for the Essure device in the US. Pharmaceut Med. 2015;29(6):331–40.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    World Health Organization. Reporting and learning systems for medication errors: the role of pharmacovigilance centres. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2014.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Härmark L, Raine J, Leufkens H, Edwards IR, Moretti U, Sarinic VM, et al. Patient-reported safety information: a renaissance of pharmacovigilance? Drug Saf. 2016;39(10):883–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Danese S, Fiorino G, Michetti P. Viewpoint: knowledge and viewpoints on biosimilar monoclonal antibodies among members of the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organization. J Crohn’s Colitis. 2014;8(11):1548–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Weigmann K. Consumer reporting of adverse drug reactions. EMBO Rep. 2016;e201642616.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    European Medicines Agency. Eligible patients and consumers organisations [cited 29 Jan 2018]. http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/partners_and_networks/q_and_a/q_and_a_detail_000082.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac0580035bf2.
  32. 32.
    European Patients’ Forum. EPF Members [cited 29 Jan 2018]. http://www.eu-patient.eu/Members/The-EPF-Members/.
  33. 33.
    Bolarinwa OA. Principles and methods of validity and reliability testing of questionnaires used in social and health science researches. Niger Postgrad Med J. 2015;22(4):195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lafond J. Pharmacovigilance implemented by patients: a necessity in the 21st century. Thérapie. 2016;71(2):245–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    EC. Directive 2010/84/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2010 amending, as regards pharmacovigilance. Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinalproducts for human use. 2010. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:348:0074:0099:EN:PDF. Accessed 19 Oct 2018.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Pharmacology, Faculty of PharmacyUniversity of SevilleSevilleSpain
  2. 2.Instituto Politécnico De CoimbraESTESC-Coimbra Health SchoolCoimbraPortugal
  3. 3.Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb’s-HertogenboschThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations