Comparing patients' and healthcare professionals' ADR reports after media attention: The broadcast of a Dutch television programme about the benefits and risks of statins as an example

British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

Volumn 67, Issue 5, 2009, Pages 558-564

  Van Hunsel, Florence ^a,b   Passier, Anneke ^a   Van Grootheest, Kees ^a,b  

^a NETHERLANDS PHARMACOVIGILANCE CENTRE LAREB   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Adverse drug reactions; Consumers; Media exposure; Patients; Pharmacovigilance; Statins

Indexed keywords

HYDROXYMETHYLGLUTARYL COENZYME A REDUCTASE INHIBITOR;

ALOPECIA; ARTHRALGIA; ARTICLE; CONSUMER HEALTH INFORMATION; DEPRESSION; DIZZINESS; DRUG INDUCED HEADACHE; DRUG SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM; DRUG WITHDRAWAL; ERECTILE DYSFUNCTION; FATIGUE; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE PERSONNEL; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; HUMAN; INFORMATION CENTER; INSOMNIA; MALE; MEMORY DISORDER; MUSCLE SPASM; MUSCLE WEAKNESS; MYALGIA; PARESTHESIA; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PERIPHERAL EDEMA; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGNOSIS; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; TELEVISION;

ADVERSE DRUG REACTION REPORTING SYSTEMS; ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; COMMUNICATIONS MEDIA; DRUG MONITORING; EVALUATION STUDIES AS TOPIC; FEMALE; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HEART DISEASES; HUMANS; HYDROXYMETHYLGLUTARYL-COA REDUCTASE INHIBITORS; MALE; NETHERLANDS; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS; PHYSICIAN-PATIENT RELATIONS; QUALITY OF LIFE; RISK FACTORS;

EID: 65349101658     PISSN: 03065251     EISSN: 13652125     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2009.03400.x     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Blenkinsopp A, Wilkie P, Wang M, Routledge PA. Patient reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions: a review of published literature and international experience. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2007 63 : 148 56.
2. van Grootheest AC, Passier JL, van Puijenbroek EP Direct reporting of side effects by the patient: favourable experience in the first year Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 2005 149 : 529 33.
3. de Lange J, van Hunsel F, Passier A, de Jong-van den Berg L, van Grootheest K. Adverse drug reaction reporting by patients in the Netherlands: three years of experience. Drug Saf 2008 31 : 515 24.
4. van Grootheest K, de Jong-van den Berg L. Patients' role in reporting adverse drug reactions. Expert Opin Drug Saf 2004 3 : 363 8.
5. Sheldon T. Television show questions statins to boost ratings, Dutch doctors claim. BMJ 2007 334 : 604 5.
6. Waller PC, Evans SJ, Beard K. Drug safety and the media. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2006 61 : 123 6.
7. de Jong-van den Berg L, Tobi H, Bijker B, van den Berg P. Influence of the third generation pill controversy on prescriptions for oral contraceptives among first time users: population based study. BMJ 2003 326 : 254.
8. Medawar C, Herxheimer A, Bell A, Jofre S. Paroxetine, Panorama and user reporting of ADRs: consumer intelligence matters in clinical practice and post-marketing drug surveillance. Int J Risk Saf Med 2002 15 : 161 9.
9. Taylor D, Stewart S, Connolly A. Antidepressant withdrawal symptoms - telephone calls to a national medication helpline. J Affect Disord 2006 95 : 129 33.
10. Martin RM, May M, Gunnell D. Did intense adverse media publicity impact on prescribing of paroxetine and the notification of suspected adverse drug reactions? Analysis of routine databases, 2001-2004. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2006 61 : 224 8.
11. Foundation for Pharmaceutical Statistics. Statins: starting and stopping. Pharm Weekbl 2007 142 : 17.
12. Foundation for Pharmaceutical Statistics. Radar effect temporary. Pharm Weekbl 2008 143 : 13.
13. Britten N, Jones R, Murphy E, Stacy R. Qualitative research methods in general practice and primary care. Fam Pract 1995 12 : 104 14.
14. Medawar C, Herxheimer A. A comparison of adverse drug reaction reports from professionals and users, relating to risk of dependence and suicidal behaviour with paroxetine. Int J Risk Saf Med 2004 16 : 5 19.
15. WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology. The ATC/DDD system. Available at http://www.whocc.no/atcddd/ (last accessed 11 February 2008).
16. Brown EG. Effects of coding dictionary on signal generation: a consideration of use of MedDRA compared with WHO-ART. Drug Saf 2002 25 : 445 52.
17. Brown EG, Wood L, Wood S. The medical dictionary for regulatory activities (MedDRA). Drug Saf 1999 20 : 109 17.
18. International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH). MedDRA® term selection: points to consider. Available at http://www.meddramsso.com/MSSOWeb/ document-library/TermSelPTC-R3.8.pdf (last accessed 18 April 2008).
19. CIOMS Working Group IV. Benefit-risk Balance for Marketed Drugs: Evaluating Safety Signals. Geneva : CIOMS Working Group IV, 1998.
20. Pope C, Ziebland S, Mays N. Qualitative research in health care. Analysing qualitative data. BMJ 2000 320 : 114 6.
21. Borja J, Donado E, Souto M. Seriousness of adverse events: medical judgment is important. BMJ 2004 329 : 1405.
22. Edwards IR. Spontaneous reporting - of what? Clinical concerns about drugs. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1999 48 : 138 41.
23. Frankenfeld C Serious' and 'severe' adverse drug reactions need defining. BMJ 2004 329 : 573.
24. Golomb BA, McGraw JJ, Evans MA, Dimsdale JE. Physician response to patient reports of adverse drug effects: implications for patient-targeted adverse effect surveillance. Drug Saf 2007 30 : 669 75.
25. De Bruin ML, van Puijenbroek EP, Egberts AC, Hoes AW, Leufkens HG. Non-sedating antihistamine drugs and cardiac arrhythmias - biased risk estimates from spontaneous reporting systems? Br J Clin Pharmacol 2002 53 : 370 4.