Treatment complexity was related to non-adherence in general. Beliefs about necessity were not strongly associated with non-adherence, while patients' concern beliefs may be associated with intentional non-adherence. However, the role of these determinants differs per therapeutic group.

Aims We aimed to assess and characterize sex differences in adverse drug reactions (ADRs) reported to the national pharmacovigilance centre in the Netherlands while considering differences in drug use. Methods ADRs spontaneously reported by healthcare professionals and patients to the Netherlands pharmacovigilance centre Lareb were used. Drug–ADR combinations reported at least 10 times between 2003–2016 for drugs used by ≥10,000 persons in that period were included. Data about the number of drug users was obtained from the National Health Care Institute. Sex‐specific ADRs, like gynaecological problems, were excluded. Sex differences in specific drug–ADR combinations were tested using bivariate logistic regression analyses in which the number of drug users per sex was taken into account. Results In total, 2483 drug–ADR combinations were analysed. Possibly relevant sex differences were shown in 363 combinations (15%). Most of these drug–ADR combinations were reported more often for women (322 combinations). Drugs with the highest number of ADRs that were more often reported for women included thyroid hormones (32 combinations) and antidepressants (16 combinations for the centrally acting sympathomimetics; 14 combinations for other antidepressants). Some ADRs were predominantly reported for women across a range of drugs such as headache and dizziness whereas other ADRs such as tendon ruptures and aggression were reported more often for men. Conclusions Identified sex differences in reported ADRs often referred to women. These differences may have various causes, including pharmacological and behavioural causes, which need to be further assessed. The results may ultimately lead to sex‐specific prescribing or monitoring recommendations.

IntroductionA mobile app may increase the reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and improve the communication of new drug safety information. Factors that influence the use of an app for such two-way risk communication need to be considered at the development stage.ObjectiveOur aim was to reveal the factors that may influence healthcare professionals (HCPs) and patients to use an app for two-way risk communication.MethodsFocus group discussions and face-to-face interviews were conducted in the Netherlands, Spain and the UK. Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, patients with a rare disease or their caregivers and adolescents with health conditions were eligible to participate. HCPs included pharmacists, paediatricians, general practitioners, internists, practice nurses and professionals caring for patients with a rare disease. Patients and HCPs were recruited through various channels. The recorded discussions and interviews were transcribed verbatim. The dataset was analysed using thematic analysis and arranged according to the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology.ResultsSeven focus group discussions and 13 interviews were conducted. In total, 21 HCPs and 50 patients participated. Identified factors that may influence the use of the app were the type of feedback given on reported ADRs, how ADR reports are stored and the type of drug news. Also mentioned were other functions of the app, ease of use, type of language, the source of safety information provided through the app, security of the app, layout, the operating systems on which the app can be used and the costs.ConclusionsFurther research is needed to assess associations between user characteristics and the direction (positive or negative) of the factors potentially influencing app use.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40264-016-0494-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

IntroductionNational competent authorities (NCAs) for medicines coordinate communication relating to the safety of medicines in Europe. The effectiveness of current communication practices has been questioned, particularly with regard to reaching general practitioners (GPs).ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to assess current European NCA safety communication practices and to investigate European GPs’ awareness of and preferences for safety communications on medicines.MethodsWeb-based surveys were distributed among European NCAs and healthcare professionals (HCPs). The survey among regulators was emailed to a representative of each of the 27 European countries participating in the Strengthening Collaboration for Operating Pharmacovigilance in Europe (SCOPE) Joint Action. HCPs from nine European countries (Denmark, Spain, Croatia, Ireland, Italy, The Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the UK) were asked about their preferences through a link to the survey on websites, in newsletters, and/or in a direct email. From this survey, data from GPs were used and descriptive analyses were conducted.ResultsCurrent NCA practices were reported for 26 countries. In 23 countries (88%), NCAs published direct healthcare professional communications (DHPCs, i.e. urgent communication letters for serious safety issues) on their website in addition to distribution to individual HCPs. Educational materials were available on the NCA’s website in 10 countries (40%), and 21 NCAs (81%) indicated they had their own bulletin/newsletter, which is often presented on the NCA’s website (15 countries; 60%). More than 90% of the 1766 GPs who completed the survey were aware of DHPCs. The most preferred senders of safety information were NCAs and professional bodies, while the preferred channels for keeping up to date with safety information were medicines reference books and clinical guidelines. GPs found the repetition of safety issues useful (range of 80% in the UK to 97% in Italy). Preference for an electronic copy rather than a hardcopy varied per country (36% in Sweden to 72% in Spain).ConclusionsNCAs use similar methods for safety communications on medicines. Most GPs were aware of urgent communications and preferred similar senders of safety communications; however, their preferences towards the format differed per country.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40264-017-0535-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Over a period of 3 years, the European Union’s Innovative Medicines Initiative WEB-RADR (Recognising Adverse Drug Reactions; https://web-radr.eu/ ) project explored the value of two digital tools for pharmacovigilance (PV): mobile applications (apps) for reporting the adverse effects of drugs and social media data for its contribution to safety signalling. The ultimate intent of WEB-RADR was to provide policy, technical and ethical recommendations on how to develop and implement such digital tools to enhance patient safety. Recommendations relating to the use of mobile apps for PV are summarised in this paper. There is a presumption amongst at least some patients and healthcare professionals that information ought to be accessed and reported from any setting, including mobile apps. WEB-RADR has focused on the use of such technology for reporting suspected adverse drug reactions and for broadcasting safety information to its users, i.e. two-way risk communication. Three apps were developed and publicly launched within Europe as part of the WEB-RADR project and subsequently assessed by a range of stakeholders to determine their value as effective tools for improving patient safety; a fourth generic app was later piloted in two African countries. The recommendations from the development and evaluation of the European apps are presented here with supporting considerations, rationales and caveats as well as suggested areas for further research.

Background Direct patient reporting of adverse drug events (ADEs) is relevant for the evaluation of drug safety. To collect such data in clinical trials and postmarketing studies, a valid questionnaire is needed that can measure all possible ADEs experienced by patients. Objective Our aim was to develop and test a generic questionnaire to identify ADEs and quantify their nature and causality as reported by patients. Methods We created a draft list of common ADEs in layterms, which were classified in body categories and mapped to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA Ò ) terminology. Questions about the nature and causality were derived from existing questionnaires and causality scales. Content validity was tested through cognitive debriefing, revising the questionnaire in an iterative process. Feasibility and reliability were assessed using a Web-based version of the questionnaire. Patients received the questionnaire twice. Feasibility was assessed by the reported time needed for completion and ease of use. Reliability was calculated using Cohen's kappa and proportion of positive agreement (PPA) on: (1) any ADE at patient level; (2) similar ADEs at MedDRA Ò System Organ Class level; and (3) the same ADE at ADE-specific level.Results In the development phase, 28 patients with type 2 diabetes or asthma/chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) participated. Questions and answer options were rephrased, layout was improved, and changes were made in the classification of ADEs. The final questionnaire consisted of 252 ADEs organized in 16 body categories, and included 14 questions per reported ADE. A total of 135 patients using a median of five different drugs completed the Web-based questionnaire twice. The median completion time was 15 min for patients not reporting any ADE, and 30 min for patients reporting at least one ADE. Three quarters of the patients found the questionnaire easy to use. Test-retest reliability was acceptable at patient level (j = 0.50, PPA 0.64) and at MedDRA Ò System Organ Class level (j = 0.52, PPA 0.54), but was low at ADEspecific level (j = 0.38, PPA 0.38). Conclusion We developed a generic patient-reported ADE questionnaire and confirmed its content validity. The questionnaire was feasible and reliable for reporting any ADE and similar ADEs at MedDRA Ò System Organ Class level. Additional work is, however, needed to reliably quantify specific ADEs reported by patients.

IntroductionPreviously, an app has been developed for healthcare professionals (HCPs) and patients to report adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to national medicines agencies and to receive drug safety information.ObjectiveThis study aimed to assess (1) European HCPs’ and patients’ interest in an app for this two-way risk communication; (2) their preferences and perceptions towards specific app characteristics; and (3) which HCPs and patients are particularly interested in the app. In addition, these aspects were studied specifically for the countries where such an app was already available, i.e. Croatia, The Netherlands, and The UK.MethodsEuropean HCPs and patients were asked to complete a web-based survey developed in the context of the Web-Recognizing Adverse Drug Reactions (Web-RADR) project. Data on app interest and preferences and perceptions towards app characteristics were analysed descriptively. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to assess the association of HCP characteristics and patient characteristics on the level of interest in the app (i.e. very interested vs. not/somewhat interested).ResultsIn total, 399 HCPs and 656 patients completed the survey. About half of the patients (48%; ranging from 38% from The Netherlands to 54% from The UK), and 61% of the HCPs (ranging from 42% from The Netherlands to 54% from The UK) were very interested in the app. A faster means of reporting ADRs and easier access to the reporting form were the main perceived benefits. HCPs and patients who already use a health app were particularly interested in the app (HCPs: odds ratio [OR] 3.52; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.96–6.30, patients: OR 1.64; 95% CI 1.19–2.27).ConclusionsAn app is positively perceived by HCPs and patients for reporting ADRs quickly and for receiving drug safety information from national medicines agencies. In particular, HCPs and patients who already use other health apps were interested in the app.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s40264-018-0648-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Introduction In general, women more often experience metformin-associated adverse drug reactions (ADRs) than men. Objectives We aimed to assess whether sex differences in reported ADRs for metformin are observed at different times after initiation, and to explore their concurrence with sex differences in the dose of metformin over time. This may guide future studies in assessing the involved mechanisms of sex differences in metformin-associated ADRs and may guide sex-specific management of ADRs in clinical practice. Methods This study has a longitudinal design using data about patients initiating metformin collected by the Dutch National Pharmacovigilance Center Lareb through their Intensive Monitoring program. Patients were asked to complete a web-based questionnaire six times after initiation (i.e., at 2 weeks, 6 weeks and at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months). The outcome variables were the proportion of patients reporting any ADR (primary) and the dose of metformin (secondary). Sex differences in the proportions of ADRs and in the dose were tested at each assessment using Pearson Chi-Squared tests and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, respectively. Using Bonferroni adjustment for multiple testing, a p value < 0.01 was considered statistically significant. Results The number of included patients was 1712 (40.9% women). Women reported an ADR more often than men, which was statistically significant at the assessment at 2 weeks (34% vs 25%, p < 0.001), and 6 weeks (37% vs 28%, p = 0.001) after initiation. In general, women were reported to be prescribed a lower dose than men, which became statistically significant at the 9-month assessment (p < 0.01). Conclusions Sex differences in reported ADRs were seen in the first weeks after metformin initiation, whereas statistically significant differences in self-reported prescribed dosing were observed after several months. Patients, in particular women, might benefit from being prescribed lower metformin doses at treatment initiation.