Skip to main content
Log in

Physician Response to Patient Reports of Adverse Drug Effects

Implications For Patient-Targeted Adverse Effect Surveillance

  • Short Communication
  • Published:
Drug Safety Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective: Using a patient targeted survey, we sought to assess patient representations of how physicians responded when patients presented with possible adverse drug reactions (ADRs). As a demonstration case, we took one widely prescribed drug class, the HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (‘statins’). This information was used to assess whether a patient-targeted ADR surveillance approach may complement provider reporting, potentially fostering identification of additional patients with possible or probable ADRs.

Methods: A total of 650 adult patients taking statins with self-reported ADRs completed a survey. Depending on the problems reported, some patients completed additional surveys specific to the most commonly cited statin ADRs: muscle, cognitive or neuropathy related. Patients were asked to report drug, dose, ADR character, time course of onset with drug, recovery with discontinuation, recurrence with rechallenge, quality-of-life impact, and interactions with their physician in relation to the perceived ADR. This paper focuses on patients’ representation of the doctor-patient interaction and physicians’ attribution, when patients report perceived ADRs.

Results: Eighty-seven percent of patients reportedly spoke to their physician about the possible connection between statin use and their symptom. Patients reported that they and not the doctor most commonly initiated the discussion regarding the possible connection of drug to symptom (98% vs 2% cognition survey, 96% vs 4% neuropathy survey, 86% vs 14% muscle survey; p < 10−8 for each). Physicians were reportedly more likely to deny than affirm the possibility of a connection. Rejection of a possible connection was reported to occur even for symptoms with strong literature support for a drug connection, and even in patients for whom the symptom met presumptive literature-based criteria for probable or definite drug-adverse effect causality. Assuming that physicians would not likely report ADRs in these instances, these patient-submitted ADR reports suggest that targeting patients may boost the yield of ADR reporting systems.

Conclusions: Since low reporting rates are considered to contribute to delays in identification of ADRs, findings from this study suggest that additional putative cases may be identified by targeting patients as reporters, potentially speeding recognition of ADRs.

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

Table I
Table II

Notes

  1. 1General, muscle, cognitive and neuropathy ADR instruments comprised semi-structured surveys with 20, 55, 39 and 29 items, respectively (survey instruments available from author). More items pertained for patients citing more than one drug.

References

  1. Scott RS, Lintott CJ, Wilson MJ. Simvastatin and side effects. N Z Med J 1991; 104(924): 493–5

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Solomon DH, Avorn J. Coxibs, science, and the public trust. Arch Intern Med 2005 Jan 24; 165(2): 158–60

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Psaty BM, Furberg CD, Ray WA, et al. Potential for conflict of interest in the evaluation of suspected adverse drug reactions: use of cerivastatin and risk of rhabdomyolysis. JAMA 2004 Dec 1; 292(21): 2622–31

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. McNeil JJ, Grabsch EA, McDonald MM. Postmarketing surveillance: strengths and limitations. The flucloxacillin-dicloxacillin story. Med J Aust 1999; 170(6): 270–3

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Arnaiz JA, Carne X, Riba N, et al. The use of evidence in pharmacovigilance. Case reports as the reference source for drug withdrawals. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2001 Apr; 57(1): 89–91

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Goldman SA. Limitations and strengths of spontaneous reports data. Clin Ther 1998; 20 Suppl. C: C40–4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Lasser KE, Allen PD, Woolhandler SJ, et al. Timing of new black box warnings and withdrawals for prescription medications. JAMA 2002 May 1; 287(17): 2215–20

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Griffin GC, Parkinson RW, Woolley BH. Report every adverse drug reaction! We’re all in this together. Postgrad Med 1997 Apr; 101(4): 13–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Fontanarosa PB, Rennie D, DeAngelis CD. Postmarketing surveillance -lack of vigilance, lack of trust. JAMA 2004 Dec 1; 292(21): 2647–50

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Kennedy DL, Goldman SA. Monitoring for adverse drug events. Am Fam Physician 1997 Nov 1; 56(7): 1718, 1721

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. van Grootheest K, de Graaf L, de Jong-van den Berg LT. Consumer adverse drug reaction reporting: a new step in pharmacovigilance? Drug Saf 2003; 26(4): 211–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Golomb B, Yang E, Denenberg J, et al. Statin-associated muscle adverse effects. Circulation 2003 March 5, 107: e7028–9

    Google Scholar 

  13. Golomb BA, Kane T, Dimsdale JE. Severe irritability associated with statin cholesterol-lowering drugs. QJM 2004 Apr; 97(4): 229–35

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Phillips PS, Haas RH, Bannykh S, et al. Statin-associated myopathy with normal creatine kinase levels. Ann Intern Med 2002 Oct 1; 137(7): 581–5

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Sinzinger H, Lupattelli G, Chehne F, et al. Isoprostane 8-epi-PGF2alpha is frequently increased in patients with muscle pain and/or CK-elevation after HMG-co-enzyme-A-reductase inhibitor therapy. J Clin Pharm Ther 2001 Aug; 26(4): 303–10

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Muldoon MF, Barger SD, Ryan CM, et al. Effects of lovastatin on cognitive function and psychological well-being. Am J Med 2000; 108(7): 538–46

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Muldoon MF, Ryan CM, Sereika SM, et al. Randomized trial of the effects of simvastatin on cognitive functioning in hypercholesterolemic adults. Am J Med 2004 Dec 1; 117(11): 823–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Wagstaff LR, Mitton MW, Arvik BM, et al. Statin-associated memory loss: analysis of 60 case reports and review of the literature. Pharmacotherapy 2003 Jul; 23(7): 871–80

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Gaist D, Jeppesen U, Andersen M, et al. Statins and risk of polyneuropathy: a case-control study. Neurology 2002 May 14; 58(9): 1333–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Backes JM, Howard PA. Association of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors with neuropathy. Ann Pharmacother. 2003 Feb; 37(2): 274–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Phan T, McLeod JG, Pollard JD, et al. Peripheral neuropathy associated with simvastatin. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1995; 58(5): 625–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Naranjo CC, Busto U, Sellers EM, et al. A method for estimating the probability of adverse drug reactions. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1981; 30: 239–45

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Haney DQ. Cholesterol drug is very secret weapon. San Diego Union Tribune 1999 Aug 23; Sect. E2

  24. Brown D. Heart drug far surpasses expectations. Washington Post 2001 May 19; Sect. A1

  25. Dales MJM. Statination. Intern Med News 2000; Feb 1: 55

    Google Scholar 

  26. Roberts M. Statin-fortified drinking water? BBC News 2004 Aug 1

  27. Van Grootheest K, de Graaf L, de Jong-van den Berg LT. Consumer adverse drug reaction reporting: a new step in pharmacovigilance? Drug Saf 2003; 26(4): 211–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Coulter DM. The New Zealand Intensive Medicines Monitoring Programme. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 1998; 7(2): 79–90

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Coulter DM. Privacy issues and the monitoring of sumatriptan in the New Zealand Intensive Medicines Monitoring Programme. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2001; 10(7): 663–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. US Food and Drug Administration. MedWatch online voluntary reporting form (3500) [online]. Available from URL: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/medwatch/ [Accessed 2007 Jun4]

  31. Lyles A. Postmarketing drug surveillance and death by committee. Clin Ther 2006 Jun; 28(6): 962–3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Trontell A. Expecting the unexpected—drug safety, pharmacovigilance, and the prepared mind. N Engl J Med 2004 Sep 30; 351(14): 1385–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Goldman SA, Kennedy DL. MedWatch: FDA’s Medical Products Reporting Program. Postgrad Med 1998 Mar; 103(3): 13–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Rossi AC, Knapp DE. Discovery of new adverse drug reactions. A review of the Food and Drug Administration’s spontaneous reporting system. JAMA 1984 Aug 24–31; 252(8): 1030–3

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Janis Ritchie for administrative assistance; Marvin Hanashiro and all members of the University of California, San Diego, Statin Study and Statin Effects Study group who kindly assisted with this effort; and the study subjects, who generously gave of their time.

The authors have no conflicts of interest to report. This research was funded by a Robert Wood Johnson Generalist Physician Faculty Scholar award to Dr Golomb. The study sponsor did not participate in study design; in the collection, analysis or interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the paper for publication.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Beatrice A. Golomb.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Golomb, B.A., McGraw, J.J., Evans, M.A. et al. Physician Response to Patient Reports of Adverse Drug Effects. Drug-Safety 30, 669–675 (2007). https://doi.org/10.2165/00002018-200730080-00003

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00002018-200730080-00003

Keywords

Navigation