Advertisement

Drug Safety

, Volume 31, Issue 4, pp 335–344 | Cite as

Improving the Reporting of Adverse Drug Reactions

A Cluster-Randomized Trial Among Pharmacists in Portugal
  • Maria T. Herdeiro
  • Jorge Polónia
  • Juan J. Gestal-Otero
  • Adolfo Figueiras
Original Research Article

Abstract

Background: Adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting systems are the basic component for comprehensive postmarketing surveillance of the risk of drug-induced adverse effects. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of educational outreach visits aimed at improving ADR reporting by pharmacists.

Methods: The study population comprised all pharmacists working in a catchment area covered by Portugal’s Northern Regional Health Authority. Using unequal randomization, four spatial-clusters were assigned to the intervention group (n = 342) and eleven to the control group (n = 1091). The intervention took the form of 1-hour long educational outreach visits tailored to training needs detected in a previous study, with a 13- to 16-month follow-up period (March–June 2004 through June 2005). This study is registered as an international standard randomized controlled trial, number ISRCTN45 894687.

Results: At baseline, ADR reporting rates (per 1000 pharmacist-years) did not differ significantly between the intervention and control groups (32.28 vs 29.16). The adjusted increase in ADR reporting attributable to the intervention was 275.63 per 1000 pharmacist-years (95% CI 162.15, 389.12; relative risk RR] = 5.87, 95% CI 1.98, 17.39). The intervention succeeded in multiplying the reporting rate of: serious ADRs, 10-fold (RR = 9.79; 95% CI 2.24, 42.66); unexpected ADRs, 4-fold (RR = 4.41; 95% CI 1.11, 17.53); high-causality ADRs, 9-fold (RR = 8.67; 95% CI 2.12, 35.42); and new drug-related ADRs, 9-fold (RR = 9.33; 95% CI 2.53, 34.40). While the greatest effect was registered during the first 4 months post-intervention, differences remained statistically significant for 8 months.

Conclusions: Educational outreach visits improve ADR reporting by pharmacists in terms of quantity and relevance.

Keywords

Educational Intervention Community Pharmacy Reporting Rate Community Pharmacist Hospital Pharmacist 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to express their sincere thanks to the Program for the Educational Development in Portugal (PRODEP) for funding the study; all members of staff at the Northern Pharmacosurveillance Unit in Portugal; the National Association of Pharmacies; the Hospital Pharmaceutical Association; the pharmacists who took part in the intervention and Michael Benedict for his help with the English version of this paper. Professor Dr Adolfo Figueiras’ work on this project was in part funded by Health Research Fund (Fondo de Investigación Sanitaria) grants 99/1189 from the Spanish Ministry of Health, and by CIBER of Epidemiology and Public Health. The authors have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this study.

References

  1. 1.
    Pirmohamed M, Park BK, Breckenridge AM. Adverse drug reactions. BMJ 1998; 316: 1295–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Johnson JA, Bootman JL. Drug-related morbidity and mortality: a cost-of-illness model. Arch Intern Med 1995; 155: 1949–56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hazell L, Shakir SA. Under-reporting of adverse drug reactions: a systematic review. Drug Saf 2006; 29: 385–96PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    van Grootheest AC, Van Puijenbroek EP, Jong-van den Berg LTW. Contribution of pharmacists to the reporting of adverse drug reactions. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2002; 11: 205–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Green CG, Mottram DR, Raval D, et al. Community pharmacists’ attitudes to adverse drug reaction reporting. Int J Pharm Pract 1999; 7: 92–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Emerson A, Martin RM, Tomlin M, et al. Prospective cohort study of adverse events monitored by hospital pharmacists. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2001; 10: 95–103PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Forster AJ, Halil RB, Tierney MG. Pharmacist surveillance of adverse drug events. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2004; 61: 1466–72PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Generali JA, Danish MA, Rosenbaum SE. Knowledge of and attitudes about adverse drug reaction reporting among Rhode Island pharmacists. Ann Pharmacother 1995; 29: 365–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lee KKC, Chan TYK, Raymond K, et al. Pharmacists’ attitudes toward adverse drug reaction reporting in Hong Kong. Ann Pharmacother 1994; 28: 1400–3PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Roberts PI, Wolfson DJ, Booth TG. The role of pharmacists in adverse drug reaction reporting. Drug Saf 1994; 11: 7–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    van Grootheest K, Olsson S, Couper M, et al. Pharmacists’ role in reporting adverse drug reactions in an international perspective. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2004; 13: 457–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nazario M, Feliu JF, Rivera GC. Adverse drug reactions: the San Juan Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center experience. Hosp Pharm 1994: 244–6, 249–250Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fincham J. A statewide program to stimulate reporting of adverse drug reactions. J Pharm Pract 1989; 2: 239–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kimelblatt BJ, Young SH, Heywood PM, et al. Improved reporting of adverse drug reactions. Am J Hosp Pharm 1988; 45: 1086–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Herdeiro MT, Figueiras A, Polónia J, et al. Influence of pharmacists’ attitudes on adverse drug reaction reporting: a case-control study in Portugal. Drug Saf 2006; 29: 331–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Torgerson DJ, Campbell MK. Use of unequal randomisation to aid the economic efficiency of clinical trials. BMJ 2000; 321: 759PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pocock SJ. Clinical trials: a practical approach. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 1983: 87Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Grimshaw JM, Shirran L, Thomas R, et al. Changing provider behavior: an overview of systematic reviews of interventions. Med Care 2001; 39: II2–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Inman WHW. Assessment of drug safety problems. In: Gent M, Shigematsu I, editors. Epidemiological issues in reported drug-induced illnesses. Hamilton (ON): McMaster University Library Press, 1976: 17–24Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Figueiras A, Herdeiro MT, Polonia J, et al. An educational intervention to improve physician reporting of adverse drug reactions: a cluster-randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2006; 296: 1086–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    The European Agency for the Evaluation of Medical Products. International Conference on Harmonisation (Step 5) Guideline for Good Clinical Practice. Ambler (PA): Drug Information Association, 1997Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Heeley E, Riley J, Layton D, et al. Prescription-event monitoring and reporting of adverse drug reactions. Lancet 2001; 358: 1872–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Anon. The use of the WHO-UMC system for standardised case causality assessment online]. Available from URL: http://www.who-umc.org/graphics/4409.pdf Accessed 2006 Jan 27]
  24. 24.
    Edwards IR, Biriell C. Harmonisation in pharmacovigilance. Drug Saf 1994; 10: 93–102PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Instituto Nacional da Farmácia e do Medicamento (Portugal). Farmacovigilância em Portugal. Lisbon: INFARMED, 2003Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Edwards IR, Aronson JK. Adverse drug reactions: definitions, diagnosis, and management. Lancet 2000; 356: 1255–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Brown HK, Prescott RJ. Applied mixed models in medicine. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, 1999Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Whitley E, Ball J. Statistics review 4: sample size calculations. Crit Care 2002; 6: 335–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ukoumunne OC, Gulliford MC, Chinn S, et al. Methods for evaluating area-wide and organisation-based interventions in health and health care: a systematic review. Health Technol Assess 1999; 3: iii–92PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hollis S, Campbell F. What is meant by intention to treat analysis? Survey of published randomised controlled trials. BMJ 1999; 319: 670–4 344PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Heo M, Leon AC. Comparison of statistical methods for analysis of clustered binary observations. Stat Med 2005; 24: 911–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Granas AG, Buajordet M, Stenberg-Nilsen H, et al. Pharmacists’ attitudes towards the reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions in Norway. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2007; 16(4): 429–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Major E. The yellow card scheme and the role of pharmacists as reporters. Pharm J 2002; 269: 25–26Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Davis DA, Thomson MA, Oxman AD, et al. Changing physician performance: a systematic review of the effect of continuing medical education strategies. JAMA 1995; 274: 700–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Thomson O’Brien MA, Oxman AD, Davis DA, et al. Educational outreach visits: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2000; (2): CD000409Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Avorn J, Soumerai SB. Improving drug-therapy decisions through educational outreach: a randomized controlled trial of academically based “detailing”. N Engl J Med 1983; 308: 1457–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Schlienger RG, Luscher TF, Schoenenberger RA, et al. Academic detailing improves identification and reporting of adverse drug events. Pharm Worl Sci 1999; 21: 110–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Fletcher AP. Spontaneous adverse drug reaction reporting vs event monitoring: a comparison. J R Soc Med 1991; 84: 341–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Committee on safety of medicines. Annual report for 2003 online]. Available from URL: http://medicines.mhra.gov.uk/aboutagency/regframework/csm/csm_ar.pdf. Accessed 2005 Jul 28]
  40. 40.
    Klarl N, Darlington G. Methods for modelling change in cluster randomization trials. Statist Med 2004; 23: 2341–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Thomson O’Brien MA, Freemantle N, Oxman AD, et al. Continuing education meetings and workshops: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2001; (2): CD003030Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Richards D, Toop L, Graham P. Do clinical practice education groups result in sustained change in GP prescribing? Fam Pract 2003; 20: 199–206Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Couzin J. Drug safety: gaps in the safety net. Science 2005; 307: 196–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Fontanarosa PB, Rennie D, DeAngelis CD. Postmarketing surveillance: lack of vigilance, lack of trust. JAMA 2004; 292: 2647–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Horton R. Safety concerns at the FDA editorial]. Lancet 2004; 365Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maria T. Herdeiro
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jorge Polónia
    • 3
  • Juan J. Gestal-Otero
    • 1
    • 4
    • 5
  • Adolfo Figueiras
    • 1
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Preventive Medicine and Public HealthUniversity of Santiago de CompostelaSantiago de CompostelaSpain
  2. 2.Northern Polytechnic Health Institute (Cooperativa de Ensino Superior Politécnico e Universitário — CESPU)GandraPortugal
  3. 3.Northern Pharmacosurveillance Unit, Faculty of MedicineUniversity of PortoPortoPortugal
  4. 4.Preventive Medicine ServiceUniversity Hospital of Santiago de CompostelaSantiago de CompostelaSpain
  5. 5.CIBER en Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP)MadridSpain

Personalised recommendations