Adverse drug reaction reporting in the UK

a retrospective observational comparison of Yellow Card reports submitted by patients and healthcare professionals

Yellow Card Collaboration

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

60 Citations (Scopus)

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.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)775-788
Number of pages14
JournalDrug Safety
Volume33
Issue number9
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Sep 2010

Fingerprint

Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions
Delivery of Health Care
Pharmaceutical Preparations
Medicine
Hospitalization
Observational Studies
Cause of Death
Retrospective Studies

Cite this

Adverse drug reaction reporting in the UK : a retrospective observational comparison of Yellow Card reports submitted by patients and healthcare professionals. / Yellow Card Collaboration.

In: Drug Safety, Vol. 33, No. 9, 01.09.2010, p. 775-788.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{584496363feb40818c2a9f56dea5f073,
title = "Adverse drug reaction reporting in the UK: a retrospective observational comparison of Yellow Card reports submitted by patients and healthcare professionals",
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.",
author = "McLernon, {David J} and Bond, {Christine M} and Hannaford, {Philip C} and Watson, {Margaret C} and Lee, {Amanda J} and Lorna Hazell and Anthony Avery and {Yellow Card Collaboration}",
year = "2010",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.2165/11536510-000000000-00000",
language = "English",
volume = "33",
pages = "775--788",
journal = "Drug Safety",
issn = "0114-5916",
publisher = "Adis International Ltd",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Adverse drug reaction reporting in the UK

T2 - a retrospective observational comparison of Yellow Card reports submitted by patients and healthcare professionals

AU - McLernon, David J

AU - Bond, Christine M

AU - Hannaford, Philip C

AU - Watson, Margaret C

AU - Lee, Amanda J

AU - Hazell, Lorna

AU - Avery, Anthony

AU - Yellow Card Collaboration

PY - 2010/9/1

Y1 - 2010/9/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

U2 - 10.2165/11536510-000000000-00000

DO - 10.2165/11536510-000000000-00000

M3 - Article

VL - 33

SP - 775

EP - 788

JO - Drug Safety

JF - Drug Safety

SN - 0114-5916

IS - 9

ER -