Pharmacovigilance in low- and middle-income countries: A review with particular focus on Africa.

Low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) face unique challenges with regard to the establishment of robust pharmacovigilance systems capable of generating data to inform healthcare policy and practice. These include the limited integration and reliability of pharmacovigilance systems across LMIC despite recent efforts to harmonize pharmacovigilance rules and regulations in several regional economic communities. There are particular challenges relating to the need to translate reporting tools into numerous local languages and the low numbers of healthcare providers relative to number of patients, with very short consultation times. Additional factors frequent in LMIC include high uptake of herbal and traditional medication, mostly by self-medication; disruptive political conflicts jeopardizing fragile systems; and little or no access to drug utilization data, which makes it difficult to reliably estimate the true risks of medicines use. Pharmacovigilance activities are hindered by the scarcity of well-trained personnel with little or no budgetary support from national governments; high turnover of pharmacovigilance staff whose training involves a substantial amount of resources; and little awareness of pharmacovigilance among healthcare workers, decision makers and consumers. Furthermore, little collaboration between public health programmes and national medicines regulatory authorities coupled with limited investment in pharmacovigilance activities, especially during mass drug administration for neglected tropical diseases and mass vaccinations, produces major challenges in establishing a culture where pharmacovigilance is systematically embedded. Very low spontaneous reporting rates with poor quality reports hinders robust signal detection analyses. This review summarises the specific challenges and areas of progress in pharmacovigilance in LMIC with special focus on the situation in Africa.

Healthcare professionals' perspective can guide post-marketing surveillance of artemisinin-based combination therapy in Uganda.

BACKGROUND: Efficient testing to identify poor quality artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT) is important to optimize efforts to control and eliminate malaria. Healthcare professionals interact with both ACT and malaria patients they treat and hence could observe, first-hand, suspect poor quality artemisinin-based combinations linked to poor malaria treatment outcomes and the factors associated with inappropriate use or treatment failure. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of 685 HCP perspectives about the efficacy of ACT between June and July 2018 at selected health facilities in Uganda. Medicine samples were obtained from the seven regions of Uganda and tested for quality using the Germany Pharma Health Fund™ minilabs. RESULTS: The average age of the 685 respondents was 30 (SD = 7.4) years. There was an almost equal distribution between male and female respondents (51:49), respectively. Seventy percent (n = 480) were diploma holders and the nurses contributed to half (49%, n = 334) of the study population. Sixty-one percent of the HCPs reported having ever encountered ACT failures while treating uncomplicated malaria. Nineteen percent of HCPs thought that dihydroartemisinin/piperaquine gave the most satisfactory patient treatment outcomes, while 80% HCPs thought that artemether/lumefantrine gave the least satisfactory patient treatment outcomes, possibly due to dosing schedule and pill burden. Healthcare professionals from the Central region (OR = 3.0, CI 0.3-1.0; P = 0.0001), Eastern region (OR = 5.4, CI 2.9-9.8; P = 0.0001) and Northern region (OR = 5.3, CI 2.9-9.9; P = 0.0001) had a higher chance of encountering ACT failure in 4 weeks prior to the survey as compared to those from the western region. Healthcare professionals from private health facilities also had higher chances of encountering ACT failures in past 4 weeks as compared to those from public health facilities (OR = 2.7, CI 1.7-3.9; P = 0.0001). All 192 samples passed the quality screening tests. The random sample of 10% of all samples randomly obtained by the laboratory staff also passed the chemical content analysis and dissolution tests. CONCLUSION: ACT medicines are widely available over-the-counter to the public and it is very difficult to report and monitor a decrease in efficacy or treatment failure. The perspectives of HCPs on treatment failure or lack of efficacy may potentially guide optimization efforts of sampling methodologies for the quality survey of ACT medicines.

Incidence, risk factors and risk prediction of hospital-acquired suspected adverse drug reactions: a prospective cohort of Ugandan inpatients.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the incidence and risk factors of hospital-acquired suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) among Ugandan inpatients. We also constructed risk scores to predict and qualitatively assess for peculiarities between low-risk and high-risk ADR patients. METHODS: Prospective cohort of consented adults admitted on medical and gynaecological wards of the 1790-bed Mulago National Referral Hospital. Hospital-acquired suspected ADRs were dichotomised as possible (possible/probable/definite) or not and probable (probable/definite) or not, using the Naranjo scale. Risk scores were generated from coefficients of ADR risk-factor logistic regression models. RESULTS: The incidence of possible hospital-acquired suspected ADRs was 25% (194/762, 95% CI: 22% to 29%): 44% (85/194) experienced serious possible ADRs. The risk of probable ADRs was 11% (87/762, 95% CI 9% to 14%): 46% (40/87) had serious probable ADRs. Antibacterials-only (51/194), uterotonics-only (21/194), cardiovascular drugs-only (16/194), antimalarials-only (12/194) and analgesics-only (10/194) were the most frequently implicated. Treatment with six or more conventional medicines during hospitalisation (OR=2.31, 95% CI 1.29 to 4.15) and self-reported herbal medicine use during the 4 weeks preadmission (OR=1.96, 95% CI 1.22 to 3.13) were the risk factors for probable hospital-acquired ADRs. Risk factors for possible hospital-acquired ADRs were: treatment with six or more conventional medicines (OR=2.72, 95% CI 1.79 to 4.13), herbal medicine use during the 4 weeks preadmission (OR=1.68, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.43), prior 3 months hospitalisation (OR=1.57, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.26) and being on gynaecological ward (OR=2.16, 95% CI 1.36 to 3.44). More drug classes were implicated among high-risk ADR-patients, with cardiovascular drugs being the most frequently linked to possible ADRs. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of hospital-acquired suspected ADRs was higher with preadmission herbal medicine use and treatment with six or more conventional medicines during hospitalisation. Our risk scores should be validated in large-scale studies and tested in routine clinical care.

Herbal medicine use and linked suspected adverse drug reactions in a prospective cohort of Ugandan inpatients.

BACKGROUND: Clinical history-taking can be employed as a standardized approach to elucidate the use of herbal medicines and their linked suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) among hospitalized patients. We sought to identify herbal medicines nominated by Ugandan inpatients; compare nomination rates by ward and gender; confirm the herbs' known pharmacological properties from published literature; and identify ADRs linked to pre-admission use of herbal medicines. METHODS: Prospective cohort of consented adult inpatients designed to assess medication use and ADRs on one gynaecological and three medical wards of 1790-bed Mulago National Referral Hospital. Baseline and follow-up data were obtained on patients' characteristics, including pre-admission use of herbal medicines. RESULTS: Fourteen percent (26/191) of females in Gynaecology nominated at least one specific herbal medicine compared with 20 % (114/571) of inpatients on medical wards [20 % (69/343) of females; 20 % (45/228) of males]. Frequent nominations were Persea americana (30), Mumbwa/multiple-herb clay rods (23), Aloe barbadensis (22), Beta vulgaris (12), Vernonia amygdalina (11), Commelina africana (7), Bidens pilosa (7), Hoslundia opposita (6), Mangifera indica (4), and Dicliptera laxata (4). Four inpatients experienced 10 suspected ADRs linked to pre-admission herbal medicine use including Commelina africana (4), multiple-herb-mumbwa (1), or unspecified local-herbs (5): three ADR-cases were abortion-related and one kidney-related. CONCLUSIONS: The named herbal medicines and their nomination rates generally differed by specialized ward, probably guided by local folklore knowledge of their use. Clinical elicitation from inpatients can generate valuable safety data on herbal medicine use. However, larger routine studies might increase the utility of our method to assess herbal medicine use and detect herb-linked ADRs. Future studies should take testable samples of ADR-implicated herbal medicines for further analysis.