Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Safety Information From Spontaneous and Literature Adverse Reaction Reports: A Comparison

  • Drug Safety
  • Published:
Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Marketing authorization holders should report adverse drug reactions (ADRs) derived from spontaneous case reports and literature for their medicinal products to competent authorities. Yet the difference in quality of data from both sources has never been analyzed. To this end, YES Pharmaceutical Development Services in cooperation with the German Medicines Manufacturers Association has conducted an analysis examining more than 25,100 spontaneous and literature cases that occurred between 2007 and 2008. Reporting rates of ADRs for specific drug substances (DSs), expectedness, and the system organ class (SOC) referred to were examined. It was found that the distribution of ADRs to specific SOCs differs between both groups for selected DSs. For more than 37% of the DSs being evaluated, a difference of 10% or more regarding reporting rates of unexpected ADRs was observed between both groups. These findings underline the substantial importance of regular literature reviews in addition to the spontaneous reporting system for a sufficient safety assessment of medicinal products.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hauben M. Signal detection in the pharmaceutical industry: integrating clinical and computational approaches. Drug Saf. 2007;30:627–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Hauben M, Reich L. A case report of rhabdomyolysis with pentamidine that prompted a retrospective evaluation of a pharmacovigilance tool under investigation. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2004;58:675–676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Newcombe RG. Interval estimation for the difference between independent proportions: comparison of eleven methods. Stat Med. 1998;17:873–890.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Haramburu F, Bégaud B, Moride Y. Temporal trends in spontaneous reporting of unlabelled adverse drug reactions. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1997;44:299–301.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Olivier P, Montastruc JL. The nature of the scientific evidence leading to drug withdrawals for pharmacovigilance reasons in France. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2006;15:808–812.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Tavassoli N, Lapeyre-Mestre M, Sommet A, Montastruc JL. Reporting rate of adverse drug reactions to the French pharmacovigilance system with three step 2 analgesic drugs: dextro-propoxyphene, tramadol and codeine (in combination with paracetamol). Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2009;68:422–426.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Kopečná E, Deščíková V, Vlček J, Mladá J. Adverse drug reaction reporting in the Czech Republic 2005–2009. Int J Clin Pharm. 2011;33:683–689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Pariente A, Gregoire F, Fourrier-Reglat A, Haramburu F, Moore N. Impact of safety alerts on measures of disproportionality in spontaneous reporting databases: the notoriety bias. Drug Saf. 2007;30:891–898.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kelly WN, Arellano FM, Barnes J, et al. Guidelines for submitting adverse event reports for publication. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2007;16:581–587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Impicciatore P, Mucci M. Completeness of published case reports on suspected adverse drug reactions: evaluation of 100 reports from a company safety database. Drug Saf. 2010;33:765–773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Thiessard F, Roux E, Miremont-Salamé G, et al. Trends in spontaneous adverse drug reaction reports to the French pharmacovigilance system (1986–2001). Drug Saf. 2005;28:731–740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Chang DF, Campbell JR. Intraoperative floppy iris syndrome associated with tamsulosin. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005;3:664–673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Janine Klose MD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Klose, J., Fröhling, S., Kroth, E. et al. Safety Information From Spontaneous and Literature Adverse Reaction Reports: A Comparison. Ther Innov Regul Sci 47, 248–255 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1177/0092861512463920

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0092861512463920

Keywords

Navigation