Motives to Report Adverse Drug Reactions to the National Agency: A Survey Study among Healthcare Professionals and Patients in Croatia, The Netherlands, and the UK.

INTRODUCTION: Healthcare professionals (HCPs) and patients have various motives to report adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to their national agency. These motives may differ between countries. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess to what extent motives of HCPs and patients to report ADRs differ between countries. METHODS: HCPs and patients from Croatia (HR), The Netherlands (NL), and the UK were asked to complete a web-based survey containing questions regarding demographics and ADR reporting. HCPs and patients could select all motives for reporting that applied to them, with a total of 23 and 24 motives, respectively. Descriptive statistics are presented and Chi-square tests were used to test for differences across the countries, with effect sizes calculated using Cramer's V. RESULTS: In total, 296 HCPs and 423 patients were included (60% and 32% from Croatia, 19% and 44% from NL, and 21% and 24% from the UK, respectively). For most of the motives to report or not to report an ADR, there were no differences between countries. Most HCPs from all countries would be motivated to report an ADR if there was a strong suspicion of causality (89%), if it concerned a severe/serious ADR (86%), and if it concerned an ADR for a new, recently marketed drug (77%). Most patients from all countries agreed that they would report an ADR if it concerned a severe ADR (96%), if the ADR influenced their daily activities (91%), and if they were worried about their own situation (90%). Differences across the countries (p < 0.05 and V ≥ 0.21) were observed for three and four of the HCP and patient motives, respectively. For HCPs, these differences were seen in motives related to legal obligation (65% HR, 24% NL, 38% UK), black triangle medicines (27% HR, 4% NL, 77% UK), and the reporting of well-known ADRs (53% HR, 85% NL, 69% UK). For patients, these differences were seen in motives related to a linkage between the ADR report and the medical notes (59% HR, 60% NL, 30% UK), complexity and time taken to report (25% HR, 13% NL, 40% UK), medicines purchased on the internet (59% HR, 39% NL, 65% UK), and the reporting of embarrassing ADRs (32% HR, 11% NL, 35% UK). CONCLUSIONS: HCPs' and patients' motives to report or not to report ADRs to the national agency were mostly similar across the three countries. Such motives can be used in general strategies to promote and increase ADR reporting. The observed differences provide guidance to further fine-tune ADR reporting at a national level.

A retrospective review of paediatric adverse drug reactions reported in Lombardy and Croatia from 2005 to 2013.

OBJECTIVE: to characterise the adverse drugs reactions (ADRs) reported in the Lombard and Croatian paediatric population and to compare data to specific paediatric age groups, in terms of trend, pattern and severity of ADRs, increasing understanding of paediatric ADRs. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We selected and analysed all the spontaneous reports in which children were involved (0 < 18 years old) reported in the Lombardy and in Croatian pharmacovigilance databases from 1th March 2005 to 31th December 2013. RESULTS: 9175 ADR reports were reported in the Lombardy, 2457 were included in the Croatian database. The age groups most involved were 2-11 for both countries. The 13.2% and 40.3% of reports retrieved in Lombardy and Croatia were classified as serious, respectively. Fatalities account for 0.09% and 0.12% in Lombardy and Croatia, respectively. CONCLUSION: Data on serious reports reflect a similar scenario in terms of age range; strikingly different therapeutic subgroups were involved in reporting activity likely due to greater self-medication practices with penicillins and anti-inflammatory, analgesic and antipyretics drugs in Lombardy than in Croatia, highlighting the need to closely monitor this paediatric therapeutic area to ensure a safe use of these drugs.