Impact of Geographic and Cross-Cultural Differences on Spontaneous Adverse Events Reporting

  • Hsiao-Hui Wu
  • Man FungEmail author
  • Ken Hornbuckle
  • Edmundo Muniz


A study was conducted to explore the potential difference in geographic and cross-cultural variation in safety adverse drug reaction reporting. Attempts were made in the study design to minimize genetic differences, market representation, age, and gender as confounding factors in affecting the findings. Six thousand spontaneous reports from five countries (France, Germany, United Kingdom, United States, and Canada) were randomly generated from our spontaneous safety database which covered a 15-year reporting period (March 1, 1983 to December 31, 1997). The reports were then reviewed and compared against each country for several factors of interest. Despite some limitations, there are interesting observations from the current study that are worth further review. For example, German reports seem more likely to be serious, related to death and life-threatening events, and may warrant more attention. The Canadian and American reports had the highest numbers in the category of lack of drug effect. When further analyzed using continent rather than country as a base, Europe was consistently higher in terms of number of serious reports, death/life-threatening events, and cases of overdose. The current study is limited to our experience and further research by other investigators to confirm these findings is warranted.

Key Words

Spontaneous reporting system Pharmacovigilance Cross-cultural differences Safety adverse event reporting 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Johnson JM, Tanner LA. Postmarketing surveil-lance: curriculum for the clinical pharmacologist. Part [[: Clinical and regulatory considerations. J Clin Pharmacol. 1993;33:1015–1022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Piazza-Hepp TD, Kennedy DL. Reporting of ad-verse events to MedWatch. Am J Health-System Pharm. 1995;52:1436–1439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rossi AC, Knapp DE. Discovery of new adverse drug reactions: a review of the Hood and Drug Administration’s spontaneous reporting system. JAMA. 1984;252:1030–1033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sills JM, Tanner JA, Milstien JM. Food and Drug Administration monitoring of adverse drug reactions. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1986;43:2764–2770.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Strom BL, Melmon KL. Can postmarketing surveillance help to effect optimal drug therapy? JAMA. 1979;242:2420–2423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lortie FM. Postmarketing surveillance of adverse drug reactions: problems and solutions. Canadian Med Assoc J. 1986;135:27–32.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Moore N, Biour M, Paux G, et al. Adverse drug reaction monitoring: doing it the French way. Lancet. 1985;2:1056–1058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Litovitz T. The TESS database. Use in product safety assessment. Drug Safety. 1998;18:9–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Finney DJ. The detection of adverse reactions to therapeutic drugs. Stat Med. 1982;1:153–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rossi AC, Bosco L, Faich GA, Tanner LA. The importance of adverse reaction reporting by physicians. JAMA. 1988;259:1203–1204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Clark JA. Zimmerman HJ, Tanner LA. Labetalol hepatotoxicity. Ann Intern Med. 1990;113:210–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Green L, Clark J. Fluoroquinolones and theophylline toxicity: Norfloxacin. JAMA. 1989:262:2383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jolson H, Tanner LA, Green L. Adverse reaction reporting of interactions between warfarin and fluoroquinolones. Arch Intern Med. 1991;151:1003–1004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Belton KJ. Attitude survey of adverse drug-reaction reporting by health care professionals across the European Union. The European Pharmacovigilance Research Group. European J Clin Pharmacol. 1997;52:423–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cosentino M, Leoni O, Banfi F, Lecchini S, Frigo G. Attitudes to adverse drug reaction reporting by medical practitioners in a Northern Italian district. Pharmacolog Res. 1997;35:85–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bateman DN, Sanders GL, Rawlins MD. Attitudes to adverse drug reaction reporting in the Northern Region. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1992;34:421–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Generali JA, Danish MA, Rosenbaum SE. Knowledge of and attitudes about adverse drug reaction reporting among Rhode Island pharmacists. Ann Pharmacother. 1995;29:365–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Brenner MH. Economic change, alcohol consumption and heart disease mortality in nine industrialized countries. Soc Sci Med. 1987;25:119–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Griffin JP. Survey of the spontaneous adverse drug reaction reporting schemes in fifteen countries. Br J Clin Pharmac. 1986;22(supplement):83S–100S.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Melnychuk D, Monde Y, Abenhaim L. Monitoring of drug utilization in public health surveillance activities: a conceptual framework. Can J Public Health. (Revue Canadienne de Sante Publique) 1993;84:45–49.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Albengres E. Features of the French postmarketing drug surveillance system. Application to cutaneous effects of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs. J Rheumatol. 1988;17(supplement):20–23.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Albengres E, Gauthier F, Tillement JP. Current French system of post-marketing drug surveillance. Int J Clin Pharmacol, Therapy, Toxicol. 1990;28:312–314.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kapp JF, Zentgraf R, Widmer A, Schopf E. A need to intensify drug surveillance in Germany. Klinische Wochenschrift. 1991;69:775–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bern JL, Breckeridge AM, Mann Rd, Rawlins MD. Review of yellow cards (1986): report to the committee on the safety of medicines. Br J Clin Pharmac. 1988;26:679–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Smith CC, Bennett PM, Pearce Hm, et al. Adverse drug reactions in a hospital general medical unit meriting notification to the Committee on Safety of Medicines. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1996;42:423–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    van Boxtel CJ, Wang G. Some observations on pharmacoepidemiology in Europe. Netherlands J Med. 1997;51:205–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Richard BW, Lasagna L. Drug regulation in the United States and the United Kingdom: the Depo-Provera story. Ann Int Med. 1987;106:886–891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Baum C, Kennedy DL, Forbes MB, Jones JK. Drug use in the United States in 1981. JAMA. 1984;251:1293–1297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Raehl CL, Bond CA, Pitterle ME. Pharmaceutical services in U.S. hospitals in 1989. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1992;49:323–346.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    O’Neil CK, Poirer TI. Impact of patient knowledge, patient-pharmacist relationship, and drug perceptions on adverse drug therapy outcomes. Pharmacother. 1998;18:333–340.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Poulton BC. Use of the consultation satisfaction questionnaire to examine patients’ satisfaction with general practitioners and community nurses: reliability, replicability and disciminant validity. Br J General Practice. 1996;46:26–31.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Drug Information Association, Inc 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hsiao-Hui Wu
    • 1
  • Man Fung
    • 2
    Email author
  • Ken Hornbuckle
    • 2
  • Edmundo Muniz
    • 2
  1. 1.Eli Lilly TaiwanTaipeiTaiwan
  2. 2.Worldwide Pharmacovigilance & EpidemiologyLilly Research Laboratories, DC 2531IndianapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations