Promoting adverse drug reaction reporting: comparison of different approaches

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Ribeiro-Vaz,Inês
Data de Publicação: 2016
Outros Autores: Santos,Cristina Costa, Cruz-Correia,Ricardo
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Revista de Saúde Pública
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-89102016000100212
Resumo: ABSTRACT OBJECTIVE To describe different approaches to promote adverse drug reaction reporting among health care professionals, determining their cost-effectiveness. METHODS We analyzed and compared several approaches taken by the Northern Pharmacovigilance Centre (Portugal) to promote adverse drug reaction reporting. Approaches were compared regarding the number and relevance of adverse drug reaction reports obtained and costs involved. Costs by report were estimated by adding the initial costs and the running costs of each intervention. These costs were divided by the number of reports obtained with each intervention, to assess its cost-effectiveness. RESULTS All the approaches seem to have increased the number of adverse drug reaction reports. We noted the biggest increase with protocols (321 reports, costing 1.96 € each), followed by first educational approach (265 reports, 20.31 €/report) and by the hyperlink approach (136 reports, 15.59 €/report). Regarding the severity of adverse drug reactions, protocols were the most efficient approach, costing 2.29 €/report, followed by hyperlinks (30.28 €/report, having no running costs). Concerning unexpected adverse drug reactions, the best result was obtained with protocols (5.12 €/report), followed by first educational approach (38.79 €/report). CONCLUSIONS We recommend implementing protocols in other pharmacovigilance centers. They seem to be the most efficient intervention, allowing receiving adverse drug reactions reports at lower costs. The increase applied not only to the total number of reports, but also to the severity, unexpectedness and high degree of causality attributed to the adverse drug reactions. Still, hyperlinks have the advantage of not involving running costs, showing the second best performance in cost per adverse drug reactions report.
id USP-23_7d0eeac31c1675a36bfd5b1dfa78a50e
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S0034-89102016000100212
network_acronym_str USP-23
network_name_str Revista de Saúde Pública
repository_id_str
spelling Promoting adverse drug reaction reporting: comparison of different approachesDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsForms and Records ControlDrug MonitoringAdverse Drug Reaction Reporting SystemsPharmacovigilanceABSTRACT OBJECTIVE To describe different approaches to promote adverse drug reaction reporting among health care professionals, determining their cost-effectiveness. METHODS We analyzed and compared several approaches taken by the Northern Pharmacovigilance Centre (Portugal) to promote adverse drug reaction reporting. Approaches were compared regarding the number and relevance of adverse drug reaction reports obtained and costs involved. Costs by report were estimated by adding the initial costs and the running costs of each intervention. These costs were divided by the number of reports obtained with each intervention, to assess its cost-effectiveness. RESULTS All the approaches seem to have increased the number of adverse drug reaction reports. We noted the biggest increase with protocols (321 reports, costing 1.96 € each), followed by first educational approach (265 reports, 20.31 €/report) and by the hyperlink approach (136 reports, 15.59 €/report). Regarding the severity of adverse drug reactions, protocols were the most efficient approach, costing 2.29 €/report, followed by hyperlinks (30.28 €/report, having no running costs). Concerning unexpected adverse drug reactions, the best result was obtained with protocols (5.12 €/report), followed by first educational approach (38.79 €/report). CONCLUSIONS We recommend implementing protocols in other pharmacovigilance centers. They seem to be the most efficient intervention, allowing receiving adverse drug reactions reports at lower costs. The increase applied not only to the total number of reports, but also to the severity, unexpectedness and high degree of causality attributed to the adverse drug reactions. Still, hyperlinks have the advantage of not involving running costs, showing the second best performance in cost per adverse drug reactions report.Faculdade de Saúde Pública da Universidade de São Paulo2016-01-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-89102016000100212Revista de Saúde Pública v.50 2016reponame:Revista de Saúde Públicainstname:Universidade de São Paulo (USP)instacron:USP10.1590/S1518-8787.2016050006122info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessRibeiro-Vaz,InêsSantos,Cristina CostaCruz-Correia,Ricardoeng2016-07-08T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S0034-89102016000100212Revistahttp://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_serial&pid=0034-8910&lng=pt&nrm=isoONGhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.phprevsp@org.usp.br||revsp1@usp.br1518-87870034-8910opendoar:2016-07-08T00:00Revista de Saúde Pública - Universidade de São Paulo (USP)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Promoting adverse drug reaction reporting: comparison of different approaches
title Promoting adverse drug reaction reporting: comparison of different approaches
spellingShingle Promoting adverse drug reaction reporting: comparison of different approaches
Ribeiro-Vaz,Inês
Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions
Forms and Records Control
Drug Monitoring
Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems
Pharmacovigilance
title_short Promoting adverse drug reaction reporting: comparison of different approaches
title_full Promoting adverse drug reaction reporting: comparison of different approaches
title_fullStr Promoting adverse drug reaction reporting: comparison of different approaches
title_full_unstemmed Promoting adverse drug reaction reporting: comparison of different approaches
title_sort Promoting adverse drug reaction reporting: comparison of different approaches
author Ribeiro-Vaz,Inês
author_facet Ribeiro-Vaz,Inês
Santos,Cristina Costa
Cruz-Correia,Ricardo
author_role author
author2 Santos,Cristina Costa
Cruz-Correia,Ricardo
author2_role author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Ribeiro-Vaz,Inês
Santos,Cristina Costa
Cruz-Correia,Ricardo
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions
Forms and Records Control
Drug Monitoring
Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems
Pharmacovigilance
topic Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions
Forms and Records Control
Drug Monitoring
Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems
Pharmacovigilance
description ABSTRACT OBJECTIVE To describe different approaches to promote adverse drug reaction reporting among health care professionals, determining their cost-effectiveness. METHODS We analyzed and compared several approaches taken by the Northern Pharmacovigilance Centre (Portugal) to promote adverse drug reaction reporting. Approaches were compared regarding the number and relevance of adverse drug reaction reports obtained and costs involved. Costs by report were estimated by adding the initial costs and the running costs of each intervention. These costs were divided by the number of reports obtained with each intervention, to assess its cost-effectiveness. RESULTS All the approaches seem to have increased the number of adverse drug reaction reports. We noted the biggest increase with protocols (321 reports, costing 1.96 € each), followed by first educational approach (265 reports, 20.31 €/report) and by the hyperlink approach (136 reports, 15.59 €/report). Regarding the severity of adverse drug reactions, protocols were the most efficient approach, costing 2.29 €/report, followed by hyperlinks (30.28 €/report, having no running costs). Concerning unexpected adverse drug reactions, the best result was obtained with protocols (5.12 €/report), followed by first educational approach (38.79 €/report). CONCLUSIONS We recommend implementing protocols in other pharmacovigilance centers. They seem to be the most efficient intervention, allowing receiving adverse drug reactions reports at lower costs. The increase applied not only to the total number of reports, but also to the severity, unexpectedness and high degree of causality attributed to the adverse drug reactions. Still, hyperlinks have the advantage of not involving running costs, showing the second best performance in cost per adverse drug reactions report.
publishDate 2016
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2016-01-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-89102016000100212
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-89102016000100212
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1590/S1518-8787.2016050006122
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Faculdade de Saúde Pública da Universidade de São Paulo
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Faculdade de Saúde Pública da Universidade de São Paulo
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Revista de Saúde Pública v.50 2016
reponame:Revista de Saúde Pública
instname:Universidade de São Paulo (USP)
instacron:USP
instname_str Universidade de São Paulo (USP)
instacron_str USP
institution USP
reponame_str Revista de Saúde Pública
collection Revista de Saúde Pública
repository.name.fl_str_mv Revista de Saúde Pública - Universidade de São Paulo (USP)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv revsp@org.usp.br||revsp1@usp.br
_version_ 1748936503343448064