ABSTRACT
In the original publication of the article, the trend line for non-EEA cases in figure 4 is incorrect. In this correction, the original Fig. 4 (Fig. 1) and the correct Fig. 4 (Fig. 2) are published.
ABSTRACT
Correction to: Drug Saf DOI 10.1007/s40264-017-0569-3.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Medication errors recently became the focus of regulatory guidance in pharmacovigilance to support reporting, evaluation and prevention of medication errors. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to characterise spontaneously reported cases of medication errors in EudraVigilance over the period 2002-2015 before the release of EU good practice guidance. METHODS: Case reports were identified through the adverse reaction section where a Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA®) term is reported and included in the Standardised MedDRA® Query (SMQ) for medication errors. These case reports were further categorised by MedDRA® terms, geographical region, patient age group and Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical classification system of suspect medicinal product(s). RESULTS: A total of 147,824 case reports were retrieved, 41,355 of which were from the European Economic Area (EEA). Approximately 60% of these case reports were retrieved with the narrow SMQ. The absolute number of medication error case reports and the proportion to the total number of reports in EudraVigilance increased during the study period, with peaks seen around 2005 and 2012 for cases with EEA origin. Fifty-two percent of case reports in which age was provided occurred in adults, 30% in the elderly and 18% in children, with almost half of these in children aged 2 months to 2 years. CONCLUSION: Case reports of medication errors in EudraVigilance steadily increased between 2005 and 2015, the reasons for which may be multifactorial, including increased awareness, changes to the MedDRA® terminology and the 2012 EU pharmacovigilance legislation and associated guidance for stakeholders, or a generally increased risk for errors as more medications become available.
Subject(s)
Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems/legislation & jurisprudence , Medication Errors/statistics & numerical data , Adolescent , Adult , Age Factors , Aged , Child , Child, Preschool , Europe , Female , Humans , Infant , Male , Medication Errors/prevention & control , Middle Aged , Pharmacovigilance , Young AdultABSTRACT
All suspected autoimmune disorders (AID) reported as adverse reactions to EudraVigilance from 1 October 2009 to 31 December 2010 for adjuvanted (Celtura™, Fluval P™, Focetria™ and Pandemrix™) and non-adjuvanted (Cantgrip™, Celvapan™ and Panenza™) pandemic Influenza A/H1N1 vaccines were analysed to determine whether adjuvanted vaccines were associated with higher reporting of AID than non-adjuvanted ones. AID were identified based on the corresponding MedDRA High Level Group Term. Reports of type 1 diabetes mellitus and multiple sclerosis were also included in the analysis. Causality was assessed based on WHO causality assessment for adverse events following immunisation and Brighton Collaboration criteria for Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura and acute disseminated encephalomyelitis. Of the 50,221 adverse reactions received in EudraVigilance for A/H1N1 vaccines (adjuvanted: 46,173, non-adjuvanted: 4048), 314 were AID (adjuvanted: 276, non-adjuvanted: 38). GBS was the AID with the highest number of reports (125, adjuvanted: 109, non-adjuvanted: 16). Reporting ratios as calculated by the percentages of AID amongst all reported adverse reactions were 0.60% (95% CI: 0.53-0.67) and 0.94% (95% CI: 0.64-1.24) for adjuvanted and non-adjuvanted vaccines, and were 0.26% (95% CI: 0.22-0.31) and 0.37% (95% CI: 0.18-0.56) in a restricted analysis based on diagnostic certainty, causal relationship and plausible temporal association. Reporting rates for all reports of AID using the estimated number of vaccinees as denominator were 6.87 (95% CI: 6.06-7.68) and 9.98 (95% CI: 6.81-13.16) per million for adjuvanted and non-adjuvanted vaccines, and 3.01 (95% CI: 2.47-3.55) and 3.94 (95% CI: 1.95-5.94) per million in the restricted analysis. These results do not suggest a difference in the reporting of AID between adjuvanted and non-adjuvanted A/H1N1 vaccines. In a literature review performed on 31 August 2011, GBS was also the AID the most frequently discussed in association with A/H1N1 vaccination; reporting rates were generally within expected background rates.
