2016Current Drug SafetyRequires access

An Evaluation of Indian Consumers’ Reporting of Suspected Adverse Drug Reactions with a Designated Reporting Form

Harmeet Singh Rehan, Ravinder K. Sah, Anubhuti Gupta, Parvesh Nagar

Open publisher page 2 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Pharmacovigilance Program of India recently initiated a process for direct patient reporting of Adverse Drug Reactions (ADRs) with a designated form. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A survey of 200 patients reporting ADRs filling the form. Forms were analysed for patient data, the suspected medication(s), ADRs and possible causality. RESULTS: 54.3% of respondents provided their contact information; the implicated medicine was mentioned in 60% and the description of ADRs in 80% although 46.2% were not interpretable. The severity of ADRs was mentioned in 73.5%. No responder filled the expiry date component of the implicated modification and a causality assessment from most forms was unclassifiable (57%) or unclassified (26%). Details of concomitant drugs were missing. CONCLUSION: Missing information was a deterrent in analysing the consumer ADR reports for signal detection. It is recommended that the following fields are highlighted in the form: consumer's initials, address, date suspected reaction started, description of event, name, dose, and the reason for the use the medication as well as its expiry date. These should be mandatory in the existing form and new fields added for weight and height, batch number for vaccines and biological products, de challenge and rechallenge results to the suspected medicine and concomitantly used medicines. To improve the quality of information in the consumer reporting form an awareness campaign is also suggested.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

BACKGROUND: The Pharmacovigilance Program of India recently initiated a process for direct patient reporting of Adverse Drug Reactions (ADRs) with a designated form. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A survey of 200 patients reporting ADRs filling the form. Forms were analysed for patient data, the suspected medication(s), ADRs and possible causality. RESULTS: 54.3% of respondents provided their contact information; the implicated medicine was mentioned in 60% and the description of ADRs in 80% although 46.2% were not interpretable. The severity of ADRs was mentioned in 73.5%. No responder filled the expiry date component of the implicated modification and a causality assessment from most forms was unclassifiable (57%) or unclassified (26%). Details of concomitant drugs were missing. CONCLUSION: Missing information was a deterrent in analysing the consumer ADR reports for signal detection. It is recommended that the following fields are highlighted in the form: consumer's initials, address, date suspected reaction started, description of event, name, dose, and the reason for the use the medication as well as its expiry date. These should be mandatory in the existing form and new fields added for weight and height, batch number for vaccines and biological products, de challenge and rechallenge results to the suspected medicine and concomitantly used medicines. To improve the quality of information in the consumer reporting form an awareness campaign is also suggested.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 2 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

BACKGROUND: The Pharmacovigilance Program of India recently initiated a process for direct patient reporting of Adverse Drug Reactions (ADRs) with a designated form. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A survey of 200 patients reporting ADRs filling the form. Forms were analysed for patient data, the suspected medication(s), ADRs and possible causality. RESULTS: 54.3% of respondents provided their contact information; the implicated medicine was mentioned in 60% and the description of ADRs in 80% although 46.2% were not interpretable. The severity of ADRs was mentioned in 73.5%. No responder filled the expiry date component of the implicated modification and a causality assessment from most forms was unclassifiable (57%) or unclassified (26%). Details of concomitant drugs were missing. CONCLUSION: Missing information was a deterrent in analysing the consumer ADR reports for signal detection. It is recommended that the following fields are highlighted in the form: consumer's initials, address, date suspected reaction started, description of event, name, dose, and the reason for the use the medication as well as its expiry date. These should be mandatory in the existing form and new fields added for weight and height, batch number for vaccines and biological products, de challenge and rechallenge results to the suspected medicine and concomitantly used medicines. To improve the quality of information in the consumer reporting form an awareness campaign is also suggested.

Key concepts: Medicine, Drug reaction, Adverse drug reaction, Drug, Adverse effect, Medical emergency, Pharmacovigilance, Intensive care medicine

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
An Evaluation of Indian Consumers’ Reporting of Suspected Adverse Drug Reactions with a Designated Reporting Form — Research Paper | ScholarLens