Henok D Habtemariam, Henk-Jan Guchelaar, Lisanne E N Manson, Jesse J Swen, Agnes C Kant, Stefan Böhringer
{"title":"报告药物不良事件：在线患者工具与电话监测在荷兰社区药房患者的比较。","authors":"Henok D Habtemariam, Henk-Jan Guchelaar, Lisanne E N Manson, Jesse J Swen, Agnes C Kant, Stefan Böhringer","doi":"10.1007/s40264-025-01571-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Adverse drug events (ADEs) are events occurring after the administration of a drug. Several authorities are involved in capturing these ADEs to improve pharmacovigilance. These ADEs are reported directly to healthcare professionals or via the telephone, online, or e-mail and are crucial for maintaining drug safety.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Patient-reported adverse drug events (ADEs) are collected using various tools, though not much is known with regard to the comparability of these different methodologies. It is known that telephone-based surveys result in a higher report rate, although it is not known if this has an effect on the type of ADEs that are reported. In this prospective study, we aimed to investigate if there are differences in the number, type, and severity of ADEs reported via telephone and online in an event monitoring setting.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients included in Dutch community pharmacies were asked whether they experienced any ADEs via telephone and online (Lareb Intensive Monitoring) surveys as part of the PREPARE study. The PREPARE study was a multicenter study, researching the effect of genotype-guided dosing on the incidence of clinically relevant adverse drug reactions. With the paired data acquired in the PREPARE study, we investigated differences in the number, type, and severity of the reported ADEs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Patients (N = 525) completed both the telephone and online surveys. Of the 525 patients who completed both surveys, 326 reported ADEs via telephone and 239 online. A visual comparison showed a similar distribution in the type of ADEs among the methods except for less commonly reported types of ADEs and cardiac disorders. The perceived severity of ADEs were proportionally reported as more severe during the telephone survey versus the online survey.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our study showed a clear difference in the number of ADEs reported during telephone and online monitoring. Additionally, the differences in the type of ADEs and the severity distribution of both tools shows that the tools are not exchangeable (CT.gov identifier: NCT03093818).</p>","PeriodicalId":11382,"journal":{"name":"Drug Safety","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reporting Adverse Drug Events: A Comparison of an Online Patient Tool Versus Telephone-Based Monitoring in Community Pharmacy Patients in the Netherlands.\",\"authors\":\"Henok D Habtemariam, Henk-Jan Guchelaar, Lisanne E N Manson, Jesse J Swen, Agnes C Kant, Stefan Böhringer\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40264-025-01571-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Adverse drug events (ADEs) are events occurring after the administration of a drug. Several authorities are involved in capturing these ADEs to improve pharmacovigilance. These ADEs are reported directly to healthcare professionals or via the telephone, online, or e-mail and are crucial for maintaining drug safety.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Patient-reported adverse drug events (ADEs) are collected using various tools, though not much is known with regard to the comparability of these different methodologies. It is known that telephone-based surveys result in a higher report rate, although it is not known if this has an effect on the type of ADEs that are reported. In this prospective study, we aimed to investigate if there are differences in the number, type, and severity of ADEs reported via telephone and online in an event monitoring setting.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients included in Dutch community pharmacies were asked whether they experienced any ADEs via telephone and online (Lareb Intensive Monitoring) surveys as part of the PREPARE study. The PREPARE study was a multicenter study, researching the effect of genotype-guided dosing on the incidence of clinically relevant adverse drug reactions. With the paired data acquired in the PREPARE study, we investigated differences in the number, type, and severity of the reported ADEs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Patients (N = 525) completed both the telephone and online surveys. Of the 525 patients who completed both surveys, 326 reported ADEs via telephone and 239 online. A visual comparison showed a similar distribution in the type of ADEs among the methods except for less commonly reported types of ADEs and cardiac disorders. The perceived severity of ADEs were proportionally reported as more severe during the telephone survey versus the online survey.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our study showed a clear difference in the number of ADEs reported during telephone and online monitoring. Additionally, the differences in the type of ADEs and the severity distribution of both tools shows that the tools are not exchangeable (CT.gov identifier: NCT03093818).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11382,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Drug Safety\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Drug Safety\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-025-01571-4\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Drug Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-025-01571-4","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Reporting Adverse Drug Events: A Comparison of an Online Patient Tool Versus Telephone-Based Monitoring in Community Pharmacy Patients in the Netherlands.
Background: Adverse drug events (ADEs) are events occurring after the administration of a drug. Several authorities are involved in capturing these ADEs to improve pharmacovigilance. These ADEs are reported directly to healthcare professionals or via the telephone, online, or e-mail and are crucial for maintaining drug safety.
Objective: Patient-reported adverse drug events (ADEs) are collected using various tools, though not much is known with regard to the comparability of these different methodologies. It is known that telephone-based surveys result in a higher report rate, although it is not known if this has an effect on the type of ADEs that are reported. In this prospective study, we aimed to investigate if there are differences in the number, type, and severity of ADEs reported via telephone and online in an event monitoring setting.
Methods: Patients included in Dutch community pharmacies were asked whether they experienced any ADEs via telephone and online (Lareb Intensive Monitoring) surveys as part of the PREPARE study. The PREPARE study was a multicenter study, researching the effect of genotype-guided dosing on the incidence of clinically relevant adverse drug reactions. With the paired data acquired in the PREPARE study, we investigated differences in the number, type, and severity of the reported ADEs.
Results: Patients (N = 525) completed both the telephone and online surveys. Of the 525 patients who completed both surveys, 326 reported ADEs via telephone and 239 online. A visual comparison showed a similar distribution in the type of ADEs among the methods except for less commonly reported types of ADEs and cardiac disorders. The perceived severity of ADEs were proportionally reported as more severe during the telephone survey versus the online survey.
Conclusions: Our study showed a clear difference in the number of ADEs reported during telephone and online monitoring. Additionally, the differences in the type of ADEs and the severity distribution of both tools shows that the tools are not exchangeable (CT.gov identifier: NCT03093818).
期刊介绍：
Drug Safety is the official journal of the International Society of Pharmacovigilance. The journal includes:
Overviews of contentious or emerging issues.
Comprehensive narrative reviews that provide an authoritative source of information on epidemiology, clinical features, prevention and management of adverse effects of individual drugs and drug classes.
In-depth benefit-risk assessment of adverse effect and efficacy data for a drug in a defined therapeutic area.
Systematic reviews (with or without meta-analyses) that collate empirical evidence to answer a specific research question, using explicit, systematic methods as outlined by the PRISMA statement.
Original research articles reporting the results of well-designed studies in disciplines such as pharmacoepidemiology, pharmacovigilance, pharmacology and toxicology, and pharmacogenomics.
Editorials and commentaries on topical issues.
Additional digital features (including animated abstracts, video abstracts, slide decks, audio slides, instructional videos, infographics, podcasts and animations) can be published with articles; these are designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. In addition, articles published in Drug Safety Drugs may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist readers who have some knowledge of, but not in-depth expertise in, the area to understand important medical advances.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
