Pharmaceutical Medicine

, Volume 32, Issue 2, pp 131–141 | Cite as

Pharmacovigilance Rapid Alert System for Consumer Reporting (PRASCOR): A Look at Its Quantitative Contribution to Spontaneous Reporting in Nigeria from August 2012 to February 2017

  • Comfort Kunak Ogar
  • Ali Ibrahim
  • Adeline Ijeoma Osakwe
  • Fatima Jajere
  • Ashega Ademulegun Kigbu-Adekunle
  • Kemi Alonge
  • Yetunde Oni
Original Research Article



Direct patient reporting (DPR) is a system where patients report suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) directly to competent bodies. Studies have shown the added advantages of DPR of ADRs. In August 2012, the National Pharmacovigilance Centre (NPC) commenced implementation of a Pharmacovigilance Rapid Alert System for Consumer Reporting (PRASCOR) under the spontaneous reporting system, with the aim of facilitating direct consumer reporting of suspected ADRs to the drug regulatory authority.


This study aims to examine the performance of PRASCOR by determining its quantitative contribution to spontaneous reporting of ADRs in Nigeria from inception in August 2012 to February 2017.


In the PRASCOR system, consumers of medicines who experience an untoward effect are encouraged to send a prepaid short text message with the name of the medicine and the reaction to a short code (20543). This message with the consumer’s phone number is forwarded as an email alert to the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC) for follow-up. Logs of text messages from the PRASCOR system obtained from the service provider were reviewed to determine the number of consumer alerts and ‘reportable alerts’ received during the review period. Furthermore, the NPC local database was reviewed to determine the number of individual case safety reports (ICSRs) from PRASCOR and characterize them.


A total of 47,071 hits were logged by the PRASCOR server. There were 3594 ‘consumer complaints’, of which 94% were ‘reportable alerts’. Fifty-two per cent (n = 1758) of ‘reportable alerts’ contained information on both a medicine and a suspected ADR. A total of 353 ICSRs in the local database were attributed to PRASCOR, but only 247 (70%) of these were successfully matched to the originating PRASCOR alert. For the period under review, PRASCOR contributed 3.9% of reports in the NPC local database.


We conclude that, quantitatively, PRASCOR contributed minimally to the number of ADR reports received under the spontaneous reporting system, but has potential for performing better and adding value to the reporting of ADRs and pharmacovigilance in Nigeria.



We appreciate the support of the National Malaria Elimination Programme, principal recipient to the Global Fund for AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (GFATM), through which the funds for establishing the PRASCOR service was made available to NAFDAC as a sub-recipient in 2012. We also thank GFATM, whose continued funding of NAFDAC ensures that consumers continue to have a voice in their healthcare. We acknowledge Mr. Anthony Obieze, whose creative thinking coined the acronym PRASCOR, and finally, our thanks goes to all PV staff, including past and present interns and corp members, who go the extra mile to follow-up all reportable alerts with a call.

Authors’ contributions

CKO conceived the work, analysed the data and drafted the manuscript. CKO, AAKA and KA extracted and cleaned the data. AIO, AI, FJ, AAKA, KA and YO reviewed the manuscript.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

Comfort Ogar, Ali Ibrahim, Adeline Osakwe, Fatima Jajere, Ashega Kigbu-Adekunle, Kemi Alonge and Yetunde Oni have no conflicts of interest that are directly related to this review work and the content of this study.


No funding was received for conducting this work.

Supplementary material

40290_2018_228_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (328 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 328 kb)


  1. 1.
    Pal S, Dodoo A, Mantel A, Olsson S. The world medicines situation 2011. Pharmacovigilance and safety of medicines. Geneva: WHO; 2011.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Davies EC, Green CF, Taylor S, Williamson PR, Mottram DR, et al. Adverse drug reactions in hospital in-patients: a prospective analysis of 3695 patient-episodes. PLoS One. 2009;4(2):e4439. Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lazarou J, Pomeranz BH, Corey PN. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients. A meta analysis of prospective studies. JAMA. 1998;279:1200–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pirmohamed M, James S, Meakin S, Green C, Scott AK, Walley TJ, et al. Adverse drug reactions as cause of admission to hospital: prospective analysis of 18 820 patients. BMJ. 2004;329:15–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tumwikirize WA, Ogwal-Okeng JW, Vernby A, Anokbonggo WW, Gustafsson LL, Lundborg SC. Adverse drug reactions in patients admitted on internal medicine wards in a district and regional hospital in Uganda. Afr Health Sci. 2011;11(1):72–7.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mehta UC. Pharmacovigilance: the devastating consequences of not thinking about adverse drug reactions. CME. 2011;29(6). Accessed 28 Nov 2012.
  7. 7.
    Hazell L, Shakir SA. Under-reporting of adverse drug reactions: a systematic review. Drug Saf. 2006;29(5):385–96 (abstract).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Alvarez-Requejo A, Carvajal A, Bégaud B, Moride Y, Vega T, Arias LH. Under-reporting of adverse drug reactions. Estimate based on a spontaneous reporting scheme and a sentinel system. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1998;54(6):483–8 (abstract).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wiffen P, Gill M, Edwards J, Moore A. Adverse drug reactions in hospital patients: a systematic review of the prospective and retrospective studies. Bandolier Extra June 2002 from Accessed 28 Nov 2012.
  10. 10.
    Wu C, Bell CM, Wodchis WP. Incidence and economic burden of adverse drug reactions among elderly patients in Ontario emergency departments: a retrospective study. Drug Saf. 2012;35(9):769–81.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    van Hunsel F, Harmark L, Pal S, Olsson S, van Grootheest K. Experiences with adverse drug reaction reporting by patients: an 11-country survey. Drug Saf. 2012;35(1):45–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Herxheimer A, Crombag R, Alves TL. Direct patient reporting of adverse drug reactions: a fifteen-country survey and literature review [online]. Health Action International (Europe) Amsterdam, Netherlands. 2010. Accessed 5 May 2017.
  13. 13.
    World Health Organization. Safety monitoring of medical products: reporting system for the general public. Switzerland: WHO; 2012.Google Scholar
  14. 14. Santos. Direct Patient reporting in the European Union. A snapshot of reporting systems in seven member states. Health Action International, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Accessed 8 May 2017.
  15. 15.
    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, iii–iv.
  16. 16.
    Egberts TCG, Smulders M, de Koning FHP, Meyboom RHB, Leuflens HGM. Can adverse drug reactions be detected earlier? A comparison of reports by patients and professionals. BMJ. 1996;313:530–1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Farcas AM, Farah C, Bojita MT. Patients reporting of suspected adverse reactions to antidepressants. A pilot methodological study. Farmacia. 2010;58(3):255–63.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vihelmsson A, Svensson T, Meeuwisse A, Carlsten A. What can we learn from consumer reports on psychiatric adverse reports to a consumer association. BMC Clin Pharmacol. 2011;11:16.
  19. 19.
    van Hunsel F, van der Well C, Passier A, van Puijenbroek E, van Grootheest K. Motives for reporting adverse drug reactions by patients in The Netherlands. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2010. Scholar
  20. 20.
    de Langen J, van Hunsel F, Passier A, de Jong-van den Berg L, van Grootheest K. Adverse drug reaction reporting by patients in The Netherlands: three years of experience. Drug saf. 2008;31(6):515–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Durrieu G, Palmaro A, Pourcel L, Caillet C, Faucher A, Jacquet A, et al. First French experience of ADR reporting by patients after a mass immunization campaign with influenza A (H1N1) pandemic vaccination. A comparison of reports by patients and healthcare professionals. Drug Saf. 2012;35(10):845–54.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gawert L, Hierse F, Zink A, Strangfeld A. How well do patient reports reflect adverse drug reactions reported by rheumatologists? Agreement of physician-and patient—reported adverse events in patients with rheumatoid arthritis observed in the German biologics register. Rheumatol Adv Access. 2010. Accessed 22 Nov 2012.
  23. 23.
    eReporting. A new module for VigiFlow (2014). Accessed 4 April 2017.
  24. 24.
    Sabblah GT, Darko DM, Mogtari H, et al. Drug Saf. 2017;40:911. (abstract).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kiguba R, Karamagi C, Waako P, Ndagije HB, Bird SM. Recognition and reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions by surveyed healthcare professionals in Uganda: key determinants. BMJ Open. 2014;4(11):e005869. Scholar
  26. 26.
    Balogun SH, Adeleye OA. Patient reporting practices of suspected adverse drug reactions to antiretroviral drugs in a tertiary health facility in Nigeria. Niger Postgrad Med J. 2014;21(4):331–7 (abstract).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Federal Ministry of Health. Nigerian National Pharmacovigilance Policy and Implementation Framework. Abuja: Federal Ministry of Health; 2012. ISBN: 978-978-931-754-7.
  28. 28.
    Adeyemi Adepetun. Smart phone penetration hits 30% in Nigeria. The Guardian Business. 2016. Accessed 13 May 2017.
  29. 29.
    Cederholm S, Hill G, Asiimwe A, Bate A, Bhayat F, Persson Brobert G, et al. Structured assessment for prospective identification of safety signals in electronic medical records: evaluation in the health improvement network. Drug Saf. 2015;38(1):87–100. Scholar
  30. 30.
    Suku CK, Hill G, Sabblah G, Darko M, Muthuri G, Abwao E, Pandit J, Osakwe AI, Elagbaje C, Nyambayo P, Khoza S, Dodoo AN, Pal SN. Experiences and lessons from implementing cohort event monitoring programmes for antimalarials in four African countries: results of a questionnaire-based survey. Drug Saf. 2015. Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mohammed AA, Mohamed IMI, Subish P, Mohamed AAH. Importance of consumer reporting of adverse drug reactions in malaysia. Discipline of social and administrative pharmacy. Gelugor: School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia; 2010. ISBN 978-967-394019-6.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bahk CY, Goshgarian M, Donahue K, Freifeld CC, Menone CM, Pierce CE, Rodriguez H, Brownstein JS, Furberg R, Dasgupta N. 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. Pharm Med. 2015;29(6):331–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    de Vries ST, Wong L, Sutcliffe A, Houÿez F, Ruiz CL, Mol PGM. Factors influencing the use of a mobile app for reporting adverse drug reactions and receiving safety information: a qualitative study. Drug Saf. 2017;40:443–55. Scholar
  34. 34.
    National Population Commission (NPC) [Nigeria] and ICF International. Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey 2013. Abuja: NPC and ICF International; 2014.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Broadcasting Board of Governors. Contemporary media use in Nigeria. Accessed 8 Jan 2018.
  36. 36.
    National Malaria Elimination Programme (NMEP), National Population Commission (NPopC), National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), and ICF International. Nigeria Malaria Indicator Survey 2015. Abuja: NMEP, NPopC, and ICF International; 2016.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bassi PU, Osakwe AI, Suku C, Kalat M, Elagbaje C, Isah A, et al. Cohort event monitoring of patients treated for uncomplicated malaria with artemisinin-based combination therapies in selected hospitals and community pharmacies in Nigeria. Niger Postgrad Med J. 2016;23:172–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Roll Back Malaria. Community involvement in rolling back malaria. WHO/CDS/RBM/2002.42. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2002.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Beyeler N, Liu J, Sieverding M. A systematic review of the role of proprietary and patent medicine vendors in healthcare provision in Nigeria. PLoS One. 2015;10(1):e0117165. Scholar
  40. 40.
    Prach LM, Treleaven E, Isiguzo C, Liu J. Care-seeking at patent and proprietary medicine vendors in Nigeria. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015. Scholar
  41. 41.
    Liu J, Prach LM, Treleaven E, Hansen M, Anyanti J, Jagha T, Seaman V, Ajumobi O, Isiguzo C. The role of drug vendors in improving basic health-care services in Nigeria. Bull World Health Organ. 2016;94:267–75. Scholar
  42. 42.
    Eshiet UI, Essien EG, Effiong GS, Ekwueme C. Self-medication with antibiotics amongst civil servants in Uyo, Southern Nigeria. J Adv Med Pharm Sci. 2015;2(3):89–97 (article no.JAMPS.2015.012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Sanya TE, Titilayo OF, Adisa R, Segun JS. Use of antibiotics among non-medical students in a Nigerian university. Afr Health Sci. 2013;13(4):1149–55. Scholar
  44. 44.
    Akinyandenu O, Adeniyi A. Irrational use and non-prescription sale of antibiotics in Nigeria: a need for change. J Sci Innov Res. 2014;3(2):251–7.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Igbeneghu OA. Knowledge and practices in the use of antibiotics among a group of Nigerian university students. Int J Infect Control. 2013;v9:i1. Scholar
  46. 46.
    Yah SC, Yusuf OE, Eghafona NO. Pattern of antibiotic usage by adult populations in the city of Benin, Nigeria. Sci Res Essays. 2008;3(3):081–5.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Auta A, Banwat SB, David S, Dangiwa DA, Ogbole E, Tor-anyiin AJ. Antibiotic use in some Nigerian communities: knowledge and attitudes of consumers. Trop J Pharm Res. 2013;12(6):1087–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Oreagba IA, Oshikoya KA, Ogar C, Adefurin AO, Ibrahim A, Awodele O, Oni Y. Adverse reactions to fluoroquinolones in the Nigerian population: an audit of the reports submitted to the National Pharmacovigilance Centre from 2004 to 2016. Pharma Res Per. 2017;5(2):e00297. Scholar
  49. 49.
    Prajapati K, Desai M, Shah S, Panchal J, Kapadia J, Dikshit R. An analysis of serious adverse drug reactions at a tertiary care teaching hospital. Perspect Clin Res. 2016;7(4):181–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Jose J, Rao PG. Pattern of adverse drug reactions notified by spontaneous reporting in an Indian tertiary care teaching hospital. Pharmacol Res. 2006;54(3):226–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Comfort Kunak Ogar
    • 1
  • Ali Ibrahim
    • 1
  • Adeline Ijeoma Osakwe
    • 1
    • 3
  • Fatima Jajere
    • 1
  • Ashega Ademulegun Kigbu-Adekunle
    • 1
  • Kemi Alonge
    • 1
  • Yetunde Oni
    • 2
  1. 1.National Pharmacovigilance CentreNational Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC)AbujaNigeria
  2. 2.National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC)AbujaNigeria
  3. 3.University of Nigeria, Nsukka (UNN)NsukkaNigeria

Personalised recommendations