title: Improving adverse drug reaction reporting in hospitals: results of the French Pharmacovigilance in Midi-Pyrénées region (PharmacoMIP) network 2-year pilot study.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) is fundamental to drug safety surveillance (pharmacovigilance); however, substantial under-reporting exists and is the main limitation of the system. Several factors could favour under-reporting.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  The aim of this pilot study was to assess the effect of regular visits of a Clinical Research Assistant (CRA) on the improvement of ADR reporting in non-university hospitals.
  
  
  METHODS
  We set up an ADR report collecting system that involved regular visits by a CRA to non-university hospitals, which was similar to a system that already existed in university hospitals in Toulouse, France. Two areas in our region were chosen: Haute Garonne and Gers. We compared firstly the reporting rate (number of reports/number of beds) of total ADRs (i.e. spontaneously reported ADRs plus solicited ADRs collected by the CRA) and secondly, the percentage of serious ADRs reported by non-university hospitals in these two areas, in 2005 (the year prior to CRA visits) and after the start of CRA visits (2006 until the end of December 2008). We also compared the reporting rate of total ADRs in Haute Garonne and Gers non-university hospitals with those reported during the same period with a control group (the Ariège area, which has a similar number of beds to Gers and that was not visited by the CRA). The characteristics of ADRs collected by the CRA were also described.
  
  
  RESULTS
  A total of 687 reports were collected by the CRA: 40% were classified as serious, including two deaths. The number of ADRs and the reporting rate increased significantly between 2005 and 2008 in non-university hospitals of Haute-Garonne and Gers, but not in Ariège. In Gers, the reporting rate was 3% in 2005 and 25% in 2008. In Haute-Garonne, the reporting rate was 11% in 2005 and 40% in 2008. The difference between the number of spontaneous and solicited reports also increased.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  This study shows that regular visits by a CRA increases the number of ADRs collected by a Regional Pharmacovigilance Centre. Another interesting consequence was the rise in spontaneous reporting by healthcare professionals following the set-up of this system. Further assessment of this procedure is necessary for the long-term evaluation of its effectiveness.
authors.affiliation: Service de Pharmacologie Clinique, Centre Midi-Pyrénées de Pharmacovigilance, de Pharmacoépidémiologie et d'Informations sur le Médicament, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Toulouse, Toulouse, France.
authors.forename: Mireille
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Gony
authors.forename: Kattalin
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Badie
authors.forename: Agnès
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Sommet
authors.forename: Julien
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Jacquot
authors.forename: Dominique
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Baudrin
authors.forename: Pierre
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Gauthier
authors.forename: Jean Louis
authors.initials: JL
authors.lastname: Montastruc
authors.forename: Haleh
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Bagheri
mesh_terms: D016907:Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems / Q000458:organization & administration; D005602:France; D006785:Hospitals, University / Q000458:organization & administration; D006801:Humans; D008137:Longitudinal Studies; D010865:Pilot Projects; D000078329:Workforce
references.citation: BMJ. 2000 Apr 15;320(7241):1036
references.pmid: 10764362
references.citation: Lancet. 2003 Apr 19;361(9366):1347-8
references.pmid: 12711472
references.citation: Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1993 Jun;35(6):575-6
references.pmid: 8329281
references.citation: Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2003 Dec;56(6):658-63
references.pmid: 14616426
references.citation: Drug Saf. 2009;32(1):19-31
references.pmid: 19132802
references.citation: Drug Saf. 2003;26(14):1049-55
references.pmid: 14583065
references.citation: Drug Saf. 2009;32(1):77-83
references.pmid: 19132807
references.citation: Drug Saf. 2008;31(4):335-44
references.pmid: 18366244
references.citation: Med Care. 1999 Aug;37(8):809-14
references.pmid: 10448723
references.citation: Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1999 Oct;48(4):623-7
references.pmid: 10583035
references.citation: Drug Saf. 2007;30(11):1073-82
references.pmid: 17973543
references.citation: BMJ. 1990 Jan 6;300(6716):22-3
references.pmid: 2105117
references.citation: Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2008 May;65(5):793-4
references.pmid: 18279475
references.citation: Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1991 Feb;31(2):188-9
references.pmid: 2049237
references.citation: Drug Saf. 2005;28(9):825-33
references.pmid: 16119975
references.citation: Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2007 Jun;63(6):613-8
references.pmid: 17404719
references.citation: Drug Saf. 2006;29(4):331-40
references.pmid: 16569082
references.citation: Therapie. 1985 Mar-Apr;40(2):111-8
references.pmid: 4002188
references.citation: BMJ. 2004 Jul 3;329(7456):15-9
references.pmid: 15231615
references.citation: Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2009 Jan;65(1):43-6
references.pmid: 18825377
references.citation: Therapie. 1995 Sep-Oct;50(5):455-8
references.pmid: 8571285
references.citation: Lancet. 2000 Oct 7;356(9237):1255-9
references.pmid: 11072960
references.citation: Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2006 May;62(5):381-5
references.pmid: 16572320