Information about ADRs explored by pharmacovigilance approaches: a qualitative review of studies on antibiotics, SSRIs and NSAIDs.
BACKGROUND
Despite surveillance efforts, unexpected and serious adverse drug reactions (ADRs) repeatedly occur after marketing. The aim of this article is to analyse ADRs reported by available ADR signal detection approaches and to explore which information about new and unexpected ADRs these approaches have detected.


METHODS
We selected three therapeutic cases for the review: antibiotics for systemic use, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medicines (NSAID) and selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRI). These groups are widely used and represent different therapeutic classes of medicines. The ADR studies were identified through literature search in Medline and Embase. The search was conducted in July 2007. For each therapeutic case, we analysed the time of publication, the strengths of the evidence of safety in the different approaches, reported ADRs and whether the studies have produced new information about ADRs compared to the information available at the time of marketing.


RESULTS
79 studies were eligible for inclusion in the analysis: 23 antibiotics studies, 35 NSAID studies, 20 SSRI studies. Studies were mainly published from the end of the 1990s and onwards. Although the drugs were launched in different decades, both analytical and observational approaches to ADR studies were similar for all three therapeutic cases: antibiotics, NSAIDs and SSRIs. The studies primarily dealt with analyses of ADRs of the type A and B and to a lesser extent C and D, cf. Rawlins' classification system. The therapeutic cases provided similar results with regard to detecting information about new ADRs despite different time periods and organs attacked. Approaches ranging higher in the evidence hierarchy provided information about risks of already known or expected ADRs, while information about new and previously unknown ADRs was only detected by case reports, the lowest ranking approach in the evidence hierarchy.


CONCLUSIONS
Although the medicines were launched in different decades, approaches to the ADR studies were similar for all three therapeutic cases: antibiotics, NSAIDs and SSRIs. Both descriptive and analytical designs were applied. Despite the fact that analytical studies rank higher in the evidence hierarchy, only the lower ranking descriptive case reports/spontaneous reports provided information about new and previously undetected ADRs. This review underscores the importance of systems for spontaneous reporting of ADRs. Therefore, spontaneous reporting should be encouraged further and the information in ADR databases should continuously be subjected to systematic analysis.
Aagaard
Lise
L
Department of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, Section for Social Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Denmark. laa@farma.ku.dk
Hansen
Ebba Holme
EH
D016907:Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems; D000900:Anti-Bacterial Agents / Q000009:adverse effects*; D000894:Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal / Q000009:adverse effects*; D016022:Case-Control Studies; D015331:Cohort Studies; D006801:Humans; D017367:Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors / Q000009:adverse effects*
D000900:Anti-Bacterial Agents; D000894:Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; D017367:Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors