Review of national spontaneous reporting schemes. Strengths and weaknesses.

M Louise Hughes, Cate M C Whittlesea, David K Luscombe
{"title":"Review of national spontaneous reporting schemes. Strengths and weaknesses.","authors":"M Louise Hughes,&nbsp;Cate M C Whittlesea,&nbsp;David K Luscombe","doi":"10.1007/BF03256199","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To investigate and compare the operation of different national spontaneous reporting schemes for adverse drug reactions.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Drug safety agencies in 18 countries were contacted by letter to request information about their spontaneous reporting scheme for adverse drug reactions. This information related to the background of the scheme, operational aspects of the scheme and numbers of reports received.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Replies were received from 12 countries. Many differences were found between the schemes operating in different countries. Some schemes had been in operation for over 30 years, while others were more recently established. While most schemes rely on voluntary reports, in two countries (France and Spain), reporting is a legal requirement for healthcare professionals. Reports are accepted from doctors, dentists and pharmacists in all of the countries surveyed; however the role of other health professionals and the general public was found to vary. There were also differences in the types of reactions for which reports are requested, and the products covered by the schemes. In some countries (e.g. Denmark) reports of all reactions are sought, while other countries focus on only serious reactions or reactions to newly marketed products. In Australia, there is a separate scheme for drug-induced congenital malformations and Canada, South Africa and the US run separate schemes for reactions to vaccines. However, other countries include these reactions in the general spontaneous reporting schemes. The numbers of reports received by the countries also varies considerably--from a few hundred each year in South Africa to over 20,000 in the US.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While the schemes all operate on the basic principle of collecting reports of adverse reactions to identify potential hazards, they showed many different approaches to the spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions. Features of one scheme may serve to improve reporting rates for another. In addition, all 12 countries participate in the World Health Organization International Drug Monitoring Programme, thus helping to inform the whole international community of drug safety problems.</p>","PeriodicalId":7401,"journal":{"name":"Adverse drug reactions and toxicological reviews","volume":"21 4","pages":"231-41"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2002-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/BF03256199","citationCount":"18","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Adverse drug reactions and toxicological reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03256199","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 18

Abstract

Objective: To investigate and compare the operation of different national spontaneous reporting schemes for adverse drug reactions.

Design: Drug safety agencies in 18 countries were contacted by letter to request information about their spontaneous reporting scheme for adverse drug reactions. This information related to the background of the scheme, operational aspects of the scheme and numbers of reports received.

Results: Replies were received from 12 countries. Many differences were found between the schemes operating in different countries. Some schemes had been in operation for over 30 years, while others were more recently established. While most schemes rely on voluntary reports, in two countries (France and Spain), reporting is a legal requirement for healthcare professionals. Reports are accepted from doctors, dentists and pharmacists in all of the countries surveyed; however the role of other health professionals and the general public was found to vary. There were also differences in the types of reactions for which reports are requested, and the products covered by the schemes. In some countries (e.g. Denmark) reports of all reactions are sought, while other countries focus on only serious reactions or reactions to newly marketed products. In Australia, there is a separate scheme for drug-induced congenital malformations and Canada, South Africa and the US run separate schemes for reactions to vaccines. However, other countries include these reactions in the general spontaneous reporting schemes. The numbers of reports received by the countries also varies considerably--from a few hundred each year in South Africa to over 20,000 in the US.

Conclusion: While the schemes all operate on the basic principle of collecting reports of adverse reactions to identify potential hazards, they showed many different approaches to the spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions. Features of one scheme may serve to improve reporting rates for another. In addition, all 12 countries participate in the World Health Organization International Drug Monitoring Programme, thus helping to inform the whole international community of drug safety problems.

审查国家自发报告制度。优点和缺点。
目的:了解和比较不同国家药品不良反应自发报告制度的运行情况。设计:通过信函联系18个国家的药品安全机构,询问其药物不良反应自发报告机制的信息。这些资料涉及计划的背景、计划的运作方面和收到的报告数目。结果:收到了来自12个国家的回复。在不同国家实施的计划之间发现了许多差异。有些计划已经运作了30多年,而另一些计划则是最近才设立的。虽然大多数计划依赖于自愿报告,但在两个国家(法国和西班牙),报告是医疗保健专业人员的法律要求。接受所有被调查国家的医生、牙医和药剂师的报告;然而,发现其他卫生专业人员和一般公众的作用各不相同。在要求提交报告的反应类型和计划所涵盖的产品方面也存在差异。在一些国家(例如丹麦),要求报告所有的反应,而其他国家只注重严重反应或对新上市产品的反应。在澳大利亚,针对药物引起的先天性畸形有单独的计划,加拿大、南非和美国针对疫苗反应有单独的计划。然而,其他国家将这些反应纳入一般自发报告计划。各国收到的报告数量也有很大差异——从南非每年几百份到美国每年2万多份。结论:虽然这些方案都以收集不良反应报告来识别潜在危险为基本原则,但它们在药物不良反应的自发报告方面表现出许多不同的方法。一种方案的特点可能有助于提高另一种方案的报告率。此外,所有12个国家都参加了世界卫生组织国际药物监测方案,从而帮助整个国际社会了解药物安全问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信