消费者、医疗保健专业人员和制药公司自发报告药物不良反应完整性的比较:对两个高收入国家数据库的评估。

IF 2.3 4区 医学 Q2 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Mohammed Gebre Dedefo, Gizat M Kassie, Eyob Alemayehu Gebreyohannes, Renly Lim, Elizabeth Roughead, Lisa Kalisch Ellett
{"title":"消费者、医疗保健专业人员和制药公司自发报告药物不良反应完整性的比较:对两个高收入国家数据库的评估。","authors":"Mohammed Gebre Dedefo, Gizat M Kassie, Eyob Alemayehu Gebreyohannes, Renly Lim, Elizabeth Roughead, Lisa Kalisch Ellett","doi":"10.1002/prp2.70164","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study assessed whether the completeness of spontaneously reported adverse drug reaction (ADR) reports differs between consumers and healthcare professionals when submitted directly to regulators, and how this compares to reports from pharmaceutical companies. ADR reports (2014-2023) were obtained from public databases in Canada and the United Kingdom (UK), focusing on the medicine classes sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists, and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors. ADR report completeness was assessed using vigiGrade tool variables. Descriptive statistics and chi-square tests were used for analysis. A total of 17 897 reports were analyzed-13 613 from the UK Yellow Card Scheme and 4284 from Canada. Most Canadian reports were submitted by pharmaceutical companies (55%), while in the UK, healthcare professionals submitted the majority (69%). Few reports were submitted directly by consumers in either Canada (4%) or the UK (7%). In Canada, the average completeness was 82% for consumer and healthcare professional reports and 57% for pharmaceutical companies. In the UK, completeness was 80% (consumers), 82% (healthcare professionals), and 69% (pharmaceutical companies). Canadian pharmaceutical company reports were significantly less complete for age, sex, outcome, dose, indication, and route of administration (all p < 0.001). In the UK, they were less complete for age, sex, and route of administration (all p < 0.001). In conclusion, reports submitted directly to regulators by consumers and healthcare professionals were more complete than those from pharmaceutical companies. The low consumer reporting rate, yet high completeness rate, highlights the need to encourage direct reporting to regulators to improve medicine safety monitoring.</p>","PeriodicalId":19948,"journal":{"name":"Pharmacology Research & Perspectives","volume":"13 4","pages":"e70164"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12332888/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of the Completeness of Spontaneously Reported Adverse Drug Reactions by Consumers, Healthcare Professionals, and Pharmaceutical Companies: An Evaluation of Databases From Two High-Income Countries.\",\"authors\":\"Mohammed Gebre Dedefo, Gizat M Kassie, Eyob Alemayehu Gebreyohannes, Renly Lim, Elizabeth Roughead, Lisa Kalisch Ellett\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/prp2.70164\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This study assessed whether the completeness of spontaneously reported adverse drug reaction (ADR) reports differs between consumers and healthcare professionals when submitted directly to regulators, and how this compares to reports from pharmaceutical companies. ADR reports (2014-2023) were obtained from public databases in Canada and the United Kingdom (UK), focusing on the medicine classes sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists, and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors. ADR report completeness was assessed using vigiGrade tool variables. Descriptive statistics and chi-square tests were used for analysis. A total of 17 897 reports were analyzed-13 613 from the UK Yellow Card Scheme and 4284 from Canada. Most Canadian reports were submitted by pharmaceutical companies (55%), while in the UK, healthcare professionals submitted the majority (69%). Few reports were submitted directly by consumers in either Canada (4%) or the UK (7%). In Canada, the average completeness was 82% for consumer and healthcare professional reports and 57% for pharmaceutical companies. In the UK, completeness was 80% (consumers), 82% (healthcare professionals), and 69% (pharmaceutical companies). Canadian pharmaceutical company reports were significantly less complete for age, sex, outcome, dose, indication, and route of administration (all p < 0.001). In the UK, they were less complete for age, sex, and route of administration (all p < 0.001). In conclusion, reports submitted directly to regulators by consumers and healthcare professionals were more complete than those from pharmaceutical companies. The low consumer reporting rate, yet high completeness rate, highlights the need to encourage direct reporting to regulators to improve medicine safety monitoring.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19948,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pharmacology Research & Perspectives\",\"volume\":\"13 4\",\"pages\":\"e70164\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12332888/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pharmacology Research & Perspectives\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/prp2.70164\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pharmacology Research & Perspectives","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/prp2.70164","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究评估了当消费者和医疗保健专业人员直接提交给监管机构时,自发报告的药物不良反应(ADR)报告的完整性是否存在差异,以及这与制药公司的报告相比如何。从加拿大和英国(UK)的公共数据库中获得2014-2023年的ADR报告,主要集中在钠-葡萄糖共转运蛋白2抑制剂、胰高血糖素样肽1受体激动剂和二肽基肽酶-4抑制剂等药物类别。使用viggrade工具变量评估ADR报告的完整性。采用描述性统计和卡方检验进行分析。总共分析了17897份报告,其中13613份来自英国黄卡计划,4284份来自加拿大。大多数加拿大报告由制药公司提交(55%),而在英国,医疗保健专业人员提交的报告占多数(69%)。在加拿大(4%)或英国(7%),很少有消费者直接提交报告。在加拿大,消费者和医疗保健专业人员报告的平均完整性为82%,制药公司报告的平均完整性为57%。在英国,完整性为80%(消费者)、82%(医疗保健专业人员)和69%(制药公司)。加拿大制药公司的报告在年龄、性别、结局、剂量、适应症和给药途径方面明显不完整
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Comparison of the Completeness of Spontaneously Reported Adverse Drug Reactions by Consumers, Healthcare Professionals, and Pharmaceutical Companies: An Evaluation of Databases From Two High-Income Countries.

Comparison of the Completeness of Spontaneously Reported Adverse Drug Reactions by Consumers, Healthcare Professionals, and Pharmaceutical Companies: An Evaluation of Databases From Two High-Income Countries.

Comparison of the Completeness of Spontaneously Reported Adverse Drug Reactions by Consumers, Healthcare Professionals, and Pharmaceutical Companies: An Evaluation of Databases From Two High-Income Countries.

This study assessed whether the completeness of spontaneously reported adverse drug reaction (ADR) reports differs between consumers and healthcare professionals when submitted directly to regulators, and how this compares to reports from pharmaceutical companies. ADR reports (2014-2023) were obtained from public databases in Canada and the United Kingdom (UK), focusing on the medicine classes sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists, and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors. ADR report completeness was assessed using vigiGrade tool variables. Descriptive statistics and chi-square tests were used for analysis. A total of 17 897 reports were analyzed-13 613 from the UK Yellow Card Scheme and 4284 from Canada. Most Canadian reports were submitted by pharmaceutical companies (55%), while in the UK, healthcare professionals submitted the majority (69%). Few reports were submitted directly by consumers in either Canada (4%) or the UK (7%). In Canada, the average completeness was 82% for consumer and healthcare professional reports and 57% for pharmaceutical companies. In the UK, completeness was 80% (consumers), 82% (healthcare professionals), and 69% (pharmaceutical companies). Canadian pharmaceutical company reports were significantly less complete for age, sex, outcome, dose, indication, and route of administration (all p < 0.001). In the UK, they were less complete for age, sex, and route of administration (all p < 0.001). In conclusion, reports submitted directly to regulators by consumers and healthcare professionals were more complete than those from pharmaceutical companies. The low consumer reporting rate, yet high completeness rate, highlights the need to encourage direct reporting to regulators to improve medicine safety monitoring.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Pharmacology Research & Perspectives
Pharmacology Research & Perspectives Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics-General Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
3.80%
发文量
120
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊介绍: PR&P is jointly published by the American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics (ASPET), the British Pharmacological Society (BPS), and Wiley. PR&P is a bi-monthly open access journal that publishes a range of article types, including: target validation (preclinical papers that show a hypothesis is incorrect or papers on drugs that have failed in early clinical development); drug discovery reviews (strategy, hypotheses, and data resulting in a successful therapeutic drug); frontiers in translational medicine (drug and target validation for an unmet therapeutic need); pharmacological hypotheses (reviews that are oriented to inform a novel hypothesis); and replication studies (work that refutes key findings [failed replication] and work that validates key findings). PR&P publishes papers submitted directly to the journal and those referred from the journals of ASPET and the BPS
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信