Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) can cause serious health problems, as shown in studies about drug-related hospitalizations. To build knowledge of and raise awareness about ADRs among healthcare professionals, more education in the field of ADRs and pharmacovigilance (PV) is needed. No standard exists for teaching PV at universities for medical, pharmacy, dentistry and nursing students, so a core curriculum needs to be developed to teach important aspects of PV to students. In September 2016, a stakeholders’ meeting was initiated on behalf of the World Health Organization (WHO) and organized by the Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb. This meeting addressed and agreed on the PV competencies students need to develop and what key aspects of the subject should be taught. Five key aspects were identified: understanding the importance of PV in the context of pharmacotherapy, and preventing, recognizing, managing and reporting ADRs. Since time and resources for PV education are limited, elements of the WHO PV core curriculum for university teaching were designed to be integrated into existing courses but can be used as a stand-alone programme. The basis of and outline for the WHO PV core curriculum for university teaching are addressed in this paper. It is expected that PV competencies for students are vital for their contribution to safe use of medicines in the future. In addition, this article aims to stimulate discussion on this subject and promote collaboration between universities, national PV centres and other stakeholders to integrate key aspects of PV in their educational programmes.

This study demonstrates the differences in reported information between ADR reports of patients and HCPs. Patient reports are more focused on patient-related information and the impact of the reported ADRs, whereas reports from HCPs provide more clinically related information.

IntroductionThere is little information as to what extent adverse drug reactions (ADRs) influence patients’ health-related quality of life (HR-QOL). From a pharmacovigilance perspective, capturing and making the best use of this information remains a challenge. The Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb received about 1800 reports after the packaging of the drug Thyrax® (levothyroxine; Aspen Pharma Trading Limited, Dublin, Ireland) changed from a brown glass bottle to a blister package in the Netherlands.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to explore the impact of ADRs on HR-QOL in patients who reported a possible ADR to Lareb in relation to the change in the packaging of the drug Thyrax®. A secondary objective was to explore factors correlated with change in HR-QOL.MethodsPatients who reported an ADR in relation to the Thyrax® packaging change were included in this study. A web-based adapted version of the COOP/WONCA questionnaire was sent to explore the HR-QOL before versus during the ADR, expressed on a 5-point scale from no impact (1) to high impact (5). Multivariable linear regression analysis was used to identify factors correlated with change in HR-QOL.ResultsOverall, 1167 patients returned the questionnaire (71.2 % response rate). The difference in HR-QOL was −0.8 for physical, −1.2 for mental, −1.4 for daily activities, −1.3 for social, and −1.3 for overall health status (p < 0.001 for each domain). Age, sex, educational level of the patient, and absence from work due to an ADR were correlated with at least one domain, while severity of the ADR was found to be correlated with all domains of HR-QOL.ConclusionPatients who reported possible ADRs after the Thyrax® packaging change experienced a significant decrease in HR-QOL. This impact was highest for the domains ‘daily activities’, ‘overall health status’, and ‘mental health’ and lowest for ‘physical fitness’.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40264-016-0422-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

IntroductionClinical information is needed to assess the causal relationship between a drug and an adverse drug reaction (ADR) in a reliable way. Little is known about the level of relevant clinical information about the ADRs reported by patients.ObjectiveThe aim was to determine to what extent patients report relevant clinical information about an ADR compared with their healthcare professional.MethodsA retrospective analysis of all ADR reports on the same case, i.e., cases with a report from both the patient and the patient’s healthcare professional, selected from the database of the Dutch Pharmacovigilance Center Lareb, was conducted. The extent to which relevant clinical information was reported was assessed by trained pharmacovigilance assessors, using a structured tool. The following four domains were assessed: ADR, chronology, suspected drug, and patient characteristics. For each domain, the proportion of reported information in relation to information deemed relevant was calculated. An average score of all relevant domains was determined and categorized as poorly (≤45%), moderately (from 46 to 74%) or well (≥75%) reported. Data were analyzed using a paired sample t test and Wilcoxon signed rank test.ResultsA total of 197 cases were included. In 107 cases (54.3%), patients and healthcare professionals reported a similar level of clinical information. Statistical analysis demonstrated no overall differences between the groups (p = 0.126).ConclusionsIn a unique study of cases of ADRs reported by patients and healthcare professionals, we found that patients report clinical information at a similar level as their healthcare professional. For an optimal pharmacovigilance, both healthcare professionals and patient should be encouraged to report.

IntroductionPharmacovigilance, the monitoring of drug safety after marketing approval, highly depends on the adequate reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs). To improve pharmacovigilance awareness and future ADR reporting among medical students, we developed and evaluated a student-run pharmacovigilance programme.MethodsIn this project, teams of medical students (first- to fifth-year) assessed real ADR reports, as submitted to the national pharmacovigilance centre. After assessment of causality, including identification of a potential pharmacological explanation for the ADR, the students wrote a personalized feedback letter to the reporter, as well as a summary for the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and World Health Organization (WHO) pharmacovigilance databases. This student assessment was then verified and evaluated by staff from The Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb (Lareb), using an e-questionnaire. Student attitudes, intentions, skills, and knowledge of ADR reporting were evaluated using the e-questionnaire, before and after participation in the programme.ResultsFrom May 2014 to January 2015, a total of 43 students assessed 100 different ADR reports selected by Lareb staff (n = 3). Student assessments were rated as useful (93%), scientifically substantiated (90%), accurate (92%), and complete (92%), and, on average, did not cost Lareb staff extra time. Medical students were positive about ADR reporting, and their awareness of ADR reporting increased significantly following participation in the programme (p < 0.05). After participation in the programme, the students intended to report serious ADRs in their future practice, and their knowledge of pharmacovigilance and ADR reporting showed they had a high overall level of pharmacological understanding.ConclusionThe student-run pharmacovigilance programme is a win–win venture. It offers students a valuable ‘pharmacovigilance experience’, creates awareness in future doctors, and has the potential to increase pharmacovigilance skills and knowledge.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40264-016-0502-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Objectives To explore factors that are associated with reactogenicity in general and systemic after the first dose of COVID-19 vaccine in the Netherlands. Design A web-based prospective cohort design using patient reported outcomes (PROs). Setting Any person who has been vaccinated with any brand of COVID-19 vaccine in the Dutch COVID immunization programme. Participants 22,184 participants. Of these, 13,959 (62.9%) experienced reactogenicity in general and 11,979 (54.0%) systemic reactogenicity within 7 days after vaccination. Main outcome measures Factors that are associated with the occurrence of reactogenicity after COVID-19 vaccination. Results Compared to the Comirnaty® vaccine, the highest odds ratio (OR) for developing reactogenicity was for the Vaxzevria® vaccine (OR 5.18) followed by Spikevax® (OR 2.16), and Janssen (OR 1.65). Participants with a history of COVID-19 disease had a 3.10 increased odds for reactogenicity. Women had a 2.08 increased odds compared to men. Older participants experienced less reactogenicity. Compared to the age group <50, the ORs for the age groups 50-60, 61-79, and ≥80 were 0.36, 0.15, and 0.10 respectively. The use of an antipyretic drug, or a drug for nervous system disorders gave an increased odds of 1.34 and 1.16 respectively. A body mass index of 25.0-29.9 and over 30 was negatively associated with reactogenicity (OR 0.87 and OR 0.72 respectively). Comorbidities that were associated with reactogenicity were cardiac disorders (OR 1.26), respiratory disorders (OR 1.31), psychiatric disorders (1.37), reproductive disorders (OR 1.54), and eye disorders (OR 1.55). The factors associated with systemic reactogenicity were mostly comparable, but there were differences for comorbidities, drug use, and the strength of the regression coefficient. Conclusions This extensive study with over 22,000 vaccine recipients in the Netherlands demonstrated that, taken into account all factors in the model, the Comirnaty® vaccine gave the least and the Vaxzevria® vaccine the most reactogenicity in general and systemic after the first dose. Also a person with a history of COVID-19 disease, female sex and younger age had an increased odds for experiencing reactogenicity after vaccination.

Patients reported that the severity of ADRs and their impact on daily life were important subjects. In the interviews with HCPs, either reporters or assessors, the focus was mainly on causality. The correctness of the given information is considered by ADR assessors to be very important. Regarding patient reporting the overall view was positive. Because HCPs and patients have different views regarding ADR reporting, in daily practice it is important to receive reports from both groups to assess the true nature of the ADR.

AimsTo explore if there is a difference between patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs) in time to reporting drug–adverse drug reaction (ADR) associations that led to drug safety signals.MethodsThis was a retrospective comparison of time to reporting selected drug–ADR associations which led to drug safety signals between patients and HCPs. ADR reports were selected from the World Health Organization Global database of individual case safety reports, VigiBase. Reports were selected based on drug–ADR associations of actual drug safety signals. Primary outcome was the difference in time to reporting between patients and HCPs. The date of the first report for each individual signal was used as time zero. The difference in time between the date of the reports and time zero was calculated. Statistical differences in timing were analysed on the corresponding survival curves using a Mann–Whitney U test.ResultsIn total, 2822 reports were included, of which 52.7% were patient reports, with a median of 25% for all included signals. For all signals, median time to signal detection was 10.4 years. Overall, HCPs reported earlier than patients: median 7.0 vs. 8.3 years (P < 0.001).ConclusionsPatients contributed a large proportion of reports on drug–ADR pairs that eventually became signals. HCPs reported 1.3 year earlier than patients. These findings strengthen the evidence on the value of patient reporting in signal detection and highlight an opportunity to encourage patients to report suspected ADRs even earlier in the future.