The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Adverse drug reaction reporting in the UK: A retrospective observational comparison of yellow card reports submitted by patients and healthcare professionals

Adverse drug reaction reporting in the UK: A retrospective observational comparison of yellow card reports submitted by patients and healthcare professionals
Adverse drug reaction reporting in the UK: A retrospective observational comparison of yellow card reports submitted by patients and healthcare professionals

Background: In the UK, spontaneous reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) by healthcare professionals has been in operation since 1964 through the Yellow Card Scheme (YCS). From 2005, patients themselves have been able to submit Yellow Card reports. Objective: To compare patient characteristics, suspected drugs and suspected ADRs reported by patients with those reported by healthcare professionals using the YCS. Design and Setting: Retrospective observational study in the UK. Methods: Participants were patients reported to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), either by themselves, a representative or a healthcare professional, as having one or more suspected ADRs between October 2005 and September 2007. The main outcome measures were ADRs and time taken to report. Results: In total, 26 129 Yellow Card reports from patients and healthcare professionals were received from the MHRA for the 2-year study period (19.8% patient and 80.2% healthcare professional). More Yellow Card reports were made for female than male patients (p < 0.001). Patients reported a significantly higher number of suspected ADRs per report than healthcare professionals (median [interquartile range {IQR}] of 3 [2-5] vs 2 [1-3], respectively; p < 0.001). A higher proportion of patient reports (16.1%) contained more than one suspect drug than healthcare professional reports (9%; p < 0.001). Healthcare professional reports had a higher proportion of ADRs that caused hospitalization (18.8% vs 12.9%), were life threatening (11.1% vs 6.2%) or caused death (2.6% vs 0.7%) than patient reports (all p < 0.001). Patient reporters took a significantly longer time to report their reaction than healthcare professionals (median [IQR] of 104 [27-463] vs 28 [13-75] days respectively; p < 0.001). Direct comparisons of the seriousness of the ADRs were not possible because of important differences between patient and healthcare professional versions of the Yellow Cards. Conclusions: This is the first substantial, published study in the UK to compare Yellow Card reports from patients and healthcare professionals. Whilst patients report more suspected ADRs to more suspect drugs than healthcare professionals, healthcare professionals tend to report more serious reactions that result in hospitalization, are life threatening or cause death. Further research is required to investigate the extent to which the extra information from patient reporters contributes to signal identification when assessing drug safety.

adverse-reaction-monitoring, pharmacovigilance, postmarketing-surveillance
0114-5916
775-788
McLernon, David J.
efe3567f-dea6-47ba-9d20-4cdd1739c8df
Bond, Christine M.
2ec7e8c8-7084-4c4d-9a1e-c88060728c51
Hannaford, Philip C.
b3b54676-6dd4-4367-bc2d-684ab6ac9709
Watson, Margaret C.
3e886781-fe98-4092-81c6-511cc827b86d
Lee, Amanda J.
3afa2ed8-1c54-4529-b238-c6b1131a733b
Hazell, Lorna
1c9036d8-13c0-4fe1-88be-9a926dc003b5
Avery, Anthony
91f1a50a-2f6e-465c-a860-460797840d4d
McLernon, David J.
efe3567f-dea6-47ba-9d20-4cdd1739c8df
Bond, Christine M.
2ec7e8c8-7084-4c4d-9a1e-c88060728c51
Hannaford, Philip C.
b3b54676-6dd4-4367-bc2d-684ab6ac9709
Watson, Margaret C.
3e886781-fe98-4092-81c6-511cc827b86d
Lee, Amanda J.
3afa2ed8-1c54-4529-b238-c6b1131a733b
Hazell, Lorna
1c9036d8-13c0-4fe1-88be-9a926dc003b5
Avery, Anthony
91f1a50a-2f6e-465c-a860-460797840d4d

McLernon, David J., Bond, Christine M., Hannaford, Philip C., Watson, Margaret C., Lee, Amanda J., Hazell, Lorna and Avery, Anthony (2010) Adverse drug reaction reporting in the UK: A retrospective observational comparison of yellow card reports submitted by patients and healthcare professionals. Drug Safety, 33 (9), 775-788. (doi:10.2165/11536510-000000000-00000).

Record type: Article

Abstract

Background: In the UK, spontaneous reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) by healthcare professionals has been in operation since 1964 through the Yellow Card Scheme (YCS). From 2005, patients themselves have been able to submit Yellow Card reports. Objective: To compare patient characteristics, suspected drugs and suspected ADRs reported by patients with those reported by healthcare professionals using the YCS. Design and Setting: Retrospective observational study in the UK. Methods: Participants were patients reported to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), either by themselves, a representative or a healthcare professional, as having one or more suspected ADRs between October 2005 and September 2007. The main outcome measures were ADRs and time taken to report. Results: In total, 26 129 Yellow Card reports from patients and healthcare professionals were received from the MHRA for the 2-year study period (19.8% patient and 80.2% healthcare professional). More Yellow Card reports were made for female than male patients (p < 0.001). Patients reported a significantly higher number of suspected ADRs per report than healthcare professionals (median [interquartile range {IQR}] of 3 [2-5] vs 2 [1-3], respectively; p < 0.001). A higher proportion of patient reports (16.1%) contained more than one suspect drug than healthcare professional reports (9%; p < 0.001). Healthcare professional reports had a higher proportion of ADRs that caused hospitalization (18.8% vs 12.9%), were life threatening (11.1% vs 6.2%) or caused death (2.6% vs 0.7%) than patient reports (all p < 0.001). Patient reporters took a significantly longer time to report their reaction than healthcare professionals (median [IQR] of 104 [27-463] vs 28 [13-75] days respectively; p < 0.001). Direct comparisons of the seriousness of the ADRs were not possible because of important differences between patient and healthcare professional versions of the Yellow Cards. Conclusions: This is the first substantial, published study in the UK to compare Yellow Card reports from patients and healthcare professionals. Whilst patients report more suspected ADRs to more suspect drugs than healthcare professionals, healthcare professionals tend to report more serious reactions that result in hospitalization, are life threatening or cause death. Further research is required to investigate the extent to which the extra information from patient reporters contributes to signal identification when assessing drug safety.

This record has no associated files available for download.

More information

Published date: 19 August 2010
Keywords: adverse-reaction-monitoring, pharmacovigilance, postmarketing-surveillance

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 439083
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/439083
ISSN: 0114-5916
PURE UUID: 4664fe27-fc82-4859-9b00-7cfd6a3fa108
ORCID for Lorna Hazell: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-5962-0648

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 02 Apr 2020 16:35
Last modified: 17 Mar 2024 12:38

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: David J. McLernon
Author: Christine M. Bond
Author: Philip C. Hannaford
Author: Margaret C. Watson
Author: Amanda J. Lee
Author: Lorna Hazell ORCID iD
Author: Anthony Avery

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×