Pharmacy World and Science

, Volume 26, Issue 3, pp 155–159 | Cite as

Do pharmacists' reports of adverse drug reactions reflect patients' concerns?

  • Kees van Grootheest
  • Eugène P. van Puijenbroek
  • Lolkje T.W. de Jong-van den Berg


Aim: The aim of the present study was to investigate whether the concerns patients express to a Drug Information Line about possible adverse drug reactions (ADRs) they have experienced, are sufficiently reflected by the ADR reports submitted by pharmacists to the Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb with regard to the type of ADRs and the drug groups involved.

Methods: ADR-related questions patients addressed to the Dutch Drugs Information Line were compared with the ADR reports pharmacists sent in to Lareb in the same period. The similarities and differences between the characteristics of the suspected ADRs and the kinds of drugs mentioned were investigated, as well as the severity of the reported ADRs. To compare the two data sets and to establish whether significant differences were present, a logistic regression analysis was conducted on the reported drugs and ADRs.

Results: Analysis of the content of the phone calls yielded 1168 (14.6%) calls concerning possible experienced ADRs. The suspected ADRs pharmacists reported to the Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb in the same period included 1734 reports. There were only slight differences between the queries patients put to the Drug Information Line regarding possible adverse drug reactions and the reports on suspected ADRs pharmacists submitted to the pharmacovigilance centre. With respect to possible ADRs in the psychiatric spectrum and ADRs associated with the use of antidepressants, there seems to be a deficiency in the reporting by pharmacists.

Conclusion: The ADRs pharmacists report to the national pharmacovigilance centre reflect patients' concerns about ADRs they experience in relation to the medication they are taking.

Adverse drug reaction Drug Information Line Patient reporting Pharmacist Pharmacovigilance 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bouvy ML, Berkel van J, Roos-Huisman de CM, Meijboom RHB. Patients' drug-information needs: a brief view on questions asked by telephone and on the internet. Pharm World Sci 2002; 24: 43–5.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dumoiseaux V. Evaluatie-onderzoek Geneesmiddel-Infolijn [Evaluation Study Drug Information Line]. The Hague: KNMP, 1995.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Grootheest van AC, Puijenbroek van EP. Pharmacovigilance in the Netherlands. In: Mann RD, Andrew EB, editors. Pharmacovigilance. Chicester: John Wiley & Sons, 2002.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Grootheest van AC, Puijenbroek EP van, Jong-van den Berg de LTW. Contribution of pharmacists to the reporting of adverse drug reactions. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2002; 11: 205–10.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Grootheest van AC, Mess K, Jong-van den Berg de LTW. Attitude of community pharmacists toward ADR reporting in the Netherlands. Int J Pharm Pract 2002; 10: 267–72.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Buurma H, de Smet PA, van den Hoff OP, Egberts AC. Nature, frequency and determinants of prescription modifications in Dutch community pharmacies. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2001; 52: 285–91.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Improving ADR reporting (editorial). Lancet 2002; 360: 1435.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Grootheest van AC, Graaf de L, Jong-van den Berg de LTW. Consumer reporting: a new step in pharmacovigilance? An overview. Drug Safety 2003; 26: 211–7.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wouters J. Patiëntenervaringen, een bron van informatie rijker! [Experiences of patients, one more source of information!]. Utrecht: Wetenschapswinkel Farmacie, 1998.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Egberts ACG, Smulders M, Koning de GHP, Meyboom RHB, Leufkens HGM. Can adverse drug reactions be detected earlier? A comparison of reports by patients and professionals. BMJ 1996; 313: 530–1.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    The importance of pharmacovigilance, safety monitoring of medicinal products. Geneva/Uppsala: World Health Organisation, 2002.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Toom van der E, Pasman M, Hielema AP, Vos R, Jong-van den Berg de LTW. De Geneesmiddel-Infolijn, een bron van informatie, niet alleen voor patiënten [The Drug Information Line, a source of information, not only for patients]. Pharm Weekbl 1994; 129: 1131–8.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Egberts ACG, Koning FHP, Meyboom RHB, Leufkens HGM. ADR-related questions received by a telephone medicines information service and ADRs received by a spontaneous ADR reporting System: a comparison regarding patients and drug. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Safety 1997; 6: 269–76.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    WHO adverse drug reaction dictionary. Uppsala: WHO Uppsala Monitoring Centre, 1996.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Anatomical Therapeutical Chemical (ATC) Classification Index. Oslo: WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology, 1994.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lindquist M, Edwards IR, Fucik H, Nunes HM, Ståhl M. From association to alert — a revised approach to international signal analyses. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Safety, 1999; 8: S15–25.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jong-van den Berg de LTW. Vrouw en geneesmiddel. [Women and drug use.] Pharm Weekbl 2001; 136: 1624–8.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rijcken CAW, Dekens-Konter JAM, Knegtering H, Jong-van den Berg de LTW. Reporting sexual function disorders caused by antipsychotic drugs: is there a role for the community pharmacy? Pharm World Sci 2001; 23: 169–72.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kees van Grootheest
    • 1
  • Eugène P. van Puijenbroek
    • 1
  • Lolkje T.W. de Jong-van den Berg
    • 2
  1. 1.Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb, Goudsbloemvallei 7's-HertogenboschThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Social Pharmacy and Pharmacoepidemiology, GUIDEGroningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations