A Comparative Study of Active and Passive Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems in Terms of False Reporting Rate
Abstract
Background: World Health Organisation Uppsala Monitoring Centre (WHO-UMC) was set up in 1968 to collect Adverse Drug Reactions (ADRs) periodically for all drugs across the globe. It identifies two main approaches to pharmacovigilance: active (intensive) and passive (spontaneous). However, very few studies are available to compare these two methods of adverse drug reaction reporting.
Methods: A prospective observational study was done on 303 newly diagnosed patients with tuberculosis receiving directly observed therapy short-course (DOTS) in the Sawai Man Singh (SMS) Hospital, Jaipur between 1 January 2019 and 31 December 2019. They were randomly divided into groups A (150 patients) and B (153 patients). Group A patients were followed actively at fixed intervals of time for ADRs till next six months through electronic conversation or personal interview. Group B patients were required to report spontaneously for any ADRs to pharmacovigilance centre. After data collection causality assessment was done using the WHO-UMC scale to identify false reporting and finally results were analysed statistically by means of the t-test using Minitab 14 software Pennsylvania, USA.
Results: 153 ADRs were reported in active and 39 in passive group. Hence the yield of ADR was four times more in active method. After causality assessment, 31 in group A and 12 in group B were found to be falsely related (unlikely) to antitubercular drugs. Two sample t-test revealed active method reported more false ADR (p = 0.005).
Conclusion: Although active method of surveillance identifies more ADRs than passive method, it is also more prone to false reporting. Hence its benefits should be weighed against its cost before adopting it for countries with limited resources.
References
Syed Hussain F, Sathyanarayanan V, Jamuna Rani R. Analysis of adverse drug reactions encountered in a tertiary care hospital: a cross sectional study. Int J Basic Clin Pharmacol 2018 Jun;7(6):1164-8.
Lindquist M, Edwards I. The WHO Programme for International Drug Monitoring, its database, and the technical support of the Uppsala Monitoring Center. J Rheumatol 2001;28:1180-7.
World Health Organization. Essential medicines and health products, pharmacovigilance [Cited on 2020 Oct 26]. Availble from: https://www.who.int/medicines/areas/quality_safety/safety_efficacy/pharmvigi/en/.
Weaver J, Willy M, Avigan M. Informatic tools and approaches in postmarketing pharmacovigilance used by FDA. AAPS J 2008 Mar 1;10(1):35-41.
Huang YL, Moon J, Segal JB. A comparison of active adverse event surveillance systems worldwide. Drug Saf 2014 Aug 1;37(8):581-96.
Baron S, Goutard F, Nguon K, Tarantola A. Use of a text message-based pharmacovigilance tool in Cambodia: pilot study. J Med Internet Res 2013;15(4):e68. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2477.
Suke SG, Kosta P, Negi H. Role of pharmacovigilance in India: an overview. Online J Public Health Inform 2015 Jul 1;7(2):e223. doi: 10.5210/ojphi.v7i2.5595.
Matsuda S, Aoki K, Kawamata T, Kimotsuki T, Kobayashi T, Kuriki H, et al. Bias in spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions in Japan. PLoS One 2015 May 1;10(5):e0126413. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0126413.
Norén GN, Edwards IR. Modern methods of pharmacovigilance: detecting adverse effects of drugs. Clin Med (Lond) 2009 Oct;9(5):486-9.
Inácio P, Cavaco A, Airaksinen M. The value of patient reporting to the pharmacovigilance system: a systematic review. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2017 Feb;83(2):227-46.
Gliklich RE, Dreyer NA, Leavy MB, eds. Adverse event detection, processing, and reporting. In: Registries for evaluating patient outcomes: a user's guide [Internet]. 3rd edition. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2014.
Wu T, Gao CC, Lin JS, Zha JL. Active monitoring of adverse drug reactions with neural network technology. Chin Med J (Engl) 2017 Jun 20;130(12):1498-501.
World Health Organisation. Active TB drug-safety monitoring and management (aDSM ) [cited on 2020 Oct 26] Available from: https://www.who.int/tb/areas-of-work/drug-resistant-tb/treatment/adsm_factsheet_2018.pdf
Abdellaoui R, Schück S, Texier N, Burgun A. Filtering entities to optimize identification of adverse drug reaction from social media: how can the number of words between entities in the messages help? JMIR Public Health Surveill 2017 Jun 22;3(2):e36. doi: 10.2196/publichealth.6577.
Varallo FR, Planeta CS, Herdeiro MT, Mastroianni PC. Imputation of adverse drug reactions: Causality assessment in hospitals. PloS One 2017 Feb 6;12(2):e0171470. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0171470.
Srinivasan R, Ramya G. Adverse drug reaction-causality assessment. Int J Res Pharm Chem 2011;1(3):606-12.
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. India TB Report 2020. [cited on 2020 Oct 26]. Available from: https://tbcindia.gov.in/showfile.php?lid=3538.
Tandon VR, Mahajan V, Khajuria V, Gillani Z. Under-reporting of adverse drug reactions: a challenge for pharmacovigilance in India. Indian J Pharmacol 2015;47(1):65–71.
Jha AK, Kuperman GJ, Teich JM, Leape L, Shea B, Rittenberg E, et al. Identifying adverse drug events: development of a computer-based monitor and comparison with chart review and stimulated voluntary report. J Am Med Inform Assoc1998 May 1;5(3):305-14.
Yun IS, Koo MJ, Park EH, Kim SE, Lee JH, Park JW, et al. A comparison of active surveillance programs including a spontaneous reporting model for phamacovigilance of adverse drug events in a hospital. Korean J Intern Med 2012 Dec;27(4):443-50.
Berry LL, Segal R, Sherrin TP, Fudge KA. Sensitivity and specificity of three methods of detecting adverse drug reactions. Am J Hosp Pharm 1988 Jul 1;45(7):1534-9.
Lynn RM, Riding K, McIntosh N. The use of electronic reporting to aid surveillance of ADRs in children: a proof of concept study. Arch Dis Child 2010 Apr 1;95(4):262-5.
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).