Author:
Adopo D.,Daynes P.,Benkebil M.,Debs A.,Jonville-Berra AP.,Polard E.,Micallef J.,Maison P.
Abstract
Abstract
Introduction
Because patients and patient organizations want to strengthen their role in the care pathway and drug evaluation and in order to improve pharmacovigilance activities, European competent authorities implemented regulations to allow direct reporting of adverse drug reactions related to medicinal products by patients in 2012.
Objectives
To describe evolution and analyze determinants of patient reporting activity in France in order to assess patient involvement in pharmacovigilance.
Method
Using the French national pharmacovigilance database, univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to compare the characteristics of adverse drug reaction (ADR) reports from patients and healthcare professionals (HCP) between 2011 and 2020. The relationship between regional patient ADR report activity and regional care provision and socio-professional characteristics was analyzed using the principal component analysis.
Results
A significant and higher increase in ADR reports over time from patients (r = 0.89, p < 0.001) compared to HCP (r = 0.27, p = 0.002) has been observed. Patient ADR report activities compared to HCP concerned more women (80% vs. 55%, p < 0.001), younger age classes (p < 0.001), reporting through web portal (83% vs. 17%, p < 0.001), and less serious events (26% vs. 63%, p < 0.001). In the principal component analysis, regional patient reporting activity was related to socio-professional categories, age classes, and densities of hospital beds and physicians.
Conclusion
Our results confirm an increasing involvement of patients in ADR report activities. The determinants of patient reporting activities are not only related to drug and medical factors but also to social factors. Digital tools may also play a role in health democracy in pharmacovigilance.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Pharmacology (medical),Pharmacology,General Medicine
Reference38 articles.
1. EMA (2018) Legal framework: Pharmacovigilance [Internet]. European Medicines Agency. [cited 4 Feb 2022]. Available from: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/overview/pharmacovigilance/legal-framework-pharmacovigilance
2. Bégaud B, Martin K, Haramburu F, Moore N (2002) Rates of spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions in France. JAMA 288(13):1588–1588
3. Section 2 : Déclarations obligatoires. (Articles R5144–8 à R5144–11) - Légifrance [Internet]. [cited 2 Mar 2021]. Available from: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/section_lc/LEGITEXT000006072665/LEGISCTA000006174544/1993-08-07/#LEGISCTA000006174544
4. Vial T (2016) Pharmacovigilance française : missions, organisation et perspectives. Therapies 71(2):135–142
5. Décret n° 2011–655 du (2011) relatif aux modalités de signalement par les patients ou les associations agréées de patients d’effets indésirables susceptibles d’être liés aux médicaments et produits mentionnés à l’article L. 5121–1 du code de la santé publique - Légifrance [Internet]. [cited 2 Mar 2021]. Available from: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/jorf/id/JORFTEXT000024153599