Neurologists’ Knowledge, Practice, and Attitudes towards Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions Reporting Process in Epileptic Patients—Comparative Analysis from Poland and Egypt

Abstract

Objectives: To compare neurologists’ knowledge, practice, and barriers of pharmacovigilance (PV) process among patients with epilepsy in Poland and Egypt. Methods: It was an international study that used an online questionnaire e-mailed to neurologists registered to practice in Poland and Egypt. Results: Most of the neurologists were familiar with the definition of PV and adverse drug reactions (ADRs), but relatively few neurologists knew where to report ADRs, especially the Egyptian neurologists. Only 31.11% of the neurologists from Egypt and 39.90% neurologists from Poland declared that they had reported ADRs at least once during their professional practice, and few of them declared the regular reporting of such incidents. The main reason for the neurologists not reporting ADRs was the lack of time and a conviction that reporting ADRs would be an additional burden that would generate extra work. Conclusion: The standards of pharmacovigilance process, safety control, and quality are not the same throughout the world. System-regulated PV stabilization in a country translates into the practice of maintaining PV. Monitoring the safety of pharmacotherapy and knowledge of risks associated with ADRs should be included in the academic curricula of physician courses.

Pharmacovigilance practice among pediatric neurologists from Poland and Germany

“…Besides, to strengthen the value of the study, the results were gathered from two countries- Poland and Germany, and comparison analysis was performed. The presented study is a continuation of a larger study [ 11 ] whose aim was to assess whether the effect of a “well-established PV position” in the existing healthcare system influences compliance with the obligation to participate in national PV and ADR reporting by pediatric neurologists.…”

“…Neurologists who did not complete the questionnaire within 3 weeks from the initial mailing were contacted a second time by e-mail. After the reminder, the questionnaire was e-mailed a second time to any remaining non-responders [ 11 ].…”