Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting by Patients in the Netherlands Three Years of Experience

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
Drug Safety Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background: There has been discussion about the acceptance of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) reported by patients to spontaneous reporting systems. Lack of experience with patient reporting in real life was one of the main drawbacks in this debate. This study covers 3 years of experience with patient reporting in daily practice. We compared patient reports with reports from healthcare professionals. Although patients have the opportunity to report ADRs in several countries, little is published in the literature about the contribution that patient reports have in practice. To our knowledge, this paper is the first to describe long-term experiences with patient reporting as part of a spontaneous reporting system.

Methods: The number of reports received, age and sex of the reporters, characteristics of the most frequently reported drugs and characteristics of the ADRs (most frequently reported ADRs, seriousness, outcome) in a 3-year period (April 2004–April 2007) were compared between patient reports and reports from healthcare professionals.

Findings: During this 3-year period, the Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb received 2522 reports directly from patients, concerning 5401 ADRs. In the same period, healthcare professionals submitted 10 635 reports, concerning 16 722 ADRs. Differences were found in the categories of seriousness and outcome of the reported ADRs between patients and healthcare professionals. Conversely, similarities between patient reports and reports from healthcare professionals were found in age, sex, most frequently reported ADRs and most frequently reported drugs.

Interpretation: Our study highlights clearly that valuable differences between ADR reports from patients and reports from healthcare professionals exist. Differences in interpretation by patients and healthcare professionals may cause the observed disparities in seriousness and outcome of reported ADRs. However, the similarities between patient reports and reports from healthcare professionals in most frequently reported ADRs and most frequently reported drugs are striking. After 3 years of experience with patient reporting, we conclude that patient reporting in spontaneous reporting systems is feasible and that it contributes significantly to a reliable pharmacovigilance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Table I
Table II
Table III
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1The use of trade names is for product identification purposes only and does not imply endorsement.

References

  1. Mitchell AS, Henry DA, Hennrikus D, et al. Adverse drug reactions: can consumers provide early warning? Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 1994; 3: 257–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. van Grootheest AC, van Puijenbroek EP, de Jong-van den Berg LTW. Contribution of pharmacists to the reporting of adverse drug reactions. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2002; 11: 205–10

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Morrison-Griffiths S, Walley TJ, Park BK, et al. Reporting of adverse drug reactions by nurses. Lancet 2003; 361: 1347–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. van Grootheest K, de Graaf L, de Jong-van den Berg LTW LTW. Consumer adverse drug reaction reporting: a new step in pharmacovigilance? Drug Saf 2003; 26: 211–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. BMA board of science. Reporting adverse drug reactions: a guide for healthcare professionals 2006 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/content/AdverseDrugRe-actions [Accessed 2007 Sep 17]

  6. Blenkinsopp A, Wilkie P, Wang M. Patient reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions: a review of published literature and international experience. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2006; 63: 148–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. van Grootheest AC, Passier JLM, van Puijenbroek EP. Direct reporting of side effects by the patient: favourable experience in the first year. Ned Tijdschr Geneesk 2005; 149: 529–33

    Google Scholar 

  8. Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences. International reporting of adverse drug reactions. CIOMS working group report. Geneva: World Health Organisation, 1987

    Google Scholar 

  9. The ATC/DDD system 2007 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.whocc.no/atcddd/ [Accessed 2007 Sep 17]

  10. Brown EG, Wood L, Wood S. The medical dictionary for regulatory activities (MedDRA). Drug Saf 1999; 20: 109–17

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Brown EG. Effects of coding dictionary on signal generation: a consideration of use of MedDRA compared with WHO-ART. Drug Saf 2002; 25: 445–52

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. van Grootheest K, de Jong-van den Berg L. Patients’ role in reporting adverse drug reactions. Expert Opin Drug Saf 2004; 3: 363–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. De Bruin ML, van Puijenbroek EP, Bracke M, et al. Pharmacogenetics of drug-induced arrhythmias: a feasibility study using spontaneous adverse drug reactions reporting data. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2006 Feb; 15(2): 99–105

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. de Jong-van den Berg LTW. Women and drug use. Pharm Weekbl 2001; 136: 1624–8

    Google Scholar 

  15. Medawar C, Herxheimer A, Bell A, et al. Paroxetine, panorama and user reporting of ADRs: consumer intelligence matters in clinical practice and post-marketing drug surveillance. Int J Risk Saf Med 2002; 13: 161–9

    Google Scholar 

  16. Golomb B, Evans M. Risk factors for rhabdomyolysis with simvastatin and atorvastatin. Drug Saf 2006; 29(12): 1191–2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Passier JLM, Srivastava N, van Puijenbroek EP. Isotretinoin-induced inflammatory bowel disease. Neth J Med 2006; 64(2): 52–4

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Passier JLM. Lithium and hyperparathyroidism. Geneesmid-delenbulletin 2005; 39(11): 131–2

    Google Scholar 

  19. van Grootheest AC, de Graaf L. Pergolide en gokverslaving. Geneesmiddelenbulletin 2006; 40(8): 86–7

    Google Scholar 

  20. Dutch SPC. Permax® [online]. Available from URL: http://www.cbg-meb.nl/IB-teksten/h14587-h14588-h14589.pdf [Accessed 2000 Jan 2]

  21. Dutch SPC. Sandostatin® [online]. Available from URL: http://www.cbg-meb.nl/IB-teksten/h12612-h12613-h12614-h1499-7.pdf [Accessed 2007 Oct 25]

  22. US SPC. Sandostatin® [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/cder/foi/label/2005/019667s050lbl.pdf [Accessed 2007 Oct 25]

  23. May A, Lederbogen S, Diener HC. Octreotide dependency and headache: a case report. Cephalalgia 1994; 14(4): 303–4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Donangelo I, Rodacki M, Peixoto MC, et al. Dependency and analgesia related to treatment with subcutaneous octreotide in patients with growth hormone-secreting tumors. Endocr Pract 2004; 10(2): 107–11

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Levy MJ, Goadsby PJ. Octreotide dependency: a cautionary tale [abstract]. Endocrine Abstracts 2004; 7: 110

    Google Scholar 

  26. Levy MJ, Matharu MS, Meeran K, et al. The clinical characteristics of headache in patients with pituitary tumours. Brain 2005; 128 (Pt 8): 1921–30

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

No funding was received for the conduct of this study or the preparation of this report.

The authors have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this manuscript. Joyce de Langen, Florence van Hunsel, Anneke Passier and Kees van Grootheest contributed to the design of the study, the analysis and interpretation of data, and writing and revising the manuscript. Lolkje de Jong-van den Berg critically reviewed the manuscript. Kees van Grootheest took overall responsibility for the study and the manuscript. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb, ’s-Hertogenbosch, Goudsbloemvallei 7, 5237, MH’s-Hertogenbosch, the Netherlands

    Joyce de Langen, Florence van Hunsel, Anneke Passier &  Kees van Grootheest

  2. Department of Pharmacy, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands

    Lolkje de Jong-van den Berg &  Kees van Grootheest

Authors
  1. Joyce de Langen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Florence van Hunsel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anneke Passier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lolkje de Jong-van den Berg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kees van Grootheest
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kees van Grootheest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

de Langen, J., van Hunsel, F., Passier, A. et al. Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting by Patients in the Netherlands Three Years of Experience. Drug-Safety 31, 515–524 (2008). https://doi.org/10.2165/00002018-200831060-00006

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00002018-200831060-00006

Keywords

Search

Navigation