Current trends in pharmacovigilance: value and gaps of patient reporting

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.


  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Arlett PR, Kurz X. New approaches to strengthen pharmacovigilance. Drug Discov Today Technol. 2011;8:e15–9.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    CAS  Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    CAS  Article  Google 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.

    CAS  Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    CAS  Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


No funding was provided for the completion of this commentary.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pedro Inácio.

Ethics declarations

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.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Inácio, P., Cavaco, A. & Airaksinen, M. Current trends in pharmacovigilance: value and gaps of patient reporting. Int J Clin Pharm 40, 754–757 (2018).

Download citation