Spontaneously reported adverse events following COVID-19 basic and booster immunizations in the Netherlands.

INTRODUCTION: The rapid roll-out of novel COVID-19 vaccines made near real-time post-marketing safety surveillance essential to identify rare and long-term adverse events following immunization (AEFIs). In light of the ongoing booster vaccination campaigns, it is key to monitor changes in observed safety patterns post-vaccination. The effect of sequential COVID-19 vaccinations, as well as heterologous vaccination sequences, on the observed post-vaccination safety pattern, remains largely unknown. METHODS: The primary objective of this study was to describe the profile of spontaneously reported AEFIs following COVID-19 vaccination in the Netherlands, including the primary and booster series. Reports from consumers and healthcare professionals were collected via a COVID-19 vaccine-tailored online reporting form by the National Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb (Lareb) between 6 January 2021 and 31 August 2022. The data were used to describe the most frequently reported AEFIs per vaccination moment, the consumer experienced burden per AEFI, and differences in AEFIs reported for homologous and heterologous vaccination sequences. RESULTS: Lareb received 227,884 spontaneous reports over a period of twenty months. Overall, a high degree of similarity in local and systemic AEFIs per vaccination moment was observed, with no apparent change in the number of reports of serious adverse events after multiple COVID-19 vaccinations. No differences in the pattern of reported AEFIs per vaccination sequence was observed. CONCLUSION: Spontaneous reported AEFIs demonstrated a similar reporting pattern for homologous and heterologous primary and booster series of COVID-19 vaccination in the Netherlands.

An evaluation of postmarketing reports of hyperglycaemia associated with dolutegravir for treatment of HIV in Eswatini.

BACKGROUND: Dolutegravir (DTG) is an Integrase Strand Transfer Inhibitor (INSTI) indicated in combination with other antiretroviral agents for the treatment of HIV infection. It is available in a number of pharmaceutical preparations including the fixed-dose combination (TLD) containing tenofovir (300 mg) + lamivudine (300 mg) + dolutegravir (50 mg). In 2018, Eswatini adopted TLD as the preferred first-line HIV treatment regimen for adults and adolescents as per WHO recommendations. From March 2019 to March 2020, the National Pharmacovigilance Center (NPC) in Eswatini received 8 reports of hyperglycaemia associated with the use of DTG. This study was conducted to investigate if Eswatini NPC database included cases suggestive of causality between dolutegravir and hyperglycaemia. METHOD: A qualitative synthesis of information from the Eswatini national pharmacovigilance database from March 2019 to March 2020 was conducted to investigate a casual association between hyperglycaemia and dolutegravir. RESULTS: All reports with dolutegravir containing regimen and suspected Adverse Event of hyperglycaemia in the period of March 2019 to March 2020 were included in the study. Seven of the reports were serious (resulted in hospitalization and one case concerned optic neuritis, leading to blindness). Two patients had a medical history of diabetes while the rest of the patients had never experienced hyperglycaemia before starting dolutegravir. For all the reports, the time to onset of hyperglycaemia ranges from 2-5 months after the initiation of DTG. None of the patients discontinued the use of DTG. All the patients were treated with oral hypoglycaemic medication. In severe cases, patients were treated with intravenous normal saline and ringer lactate as well as rapid-acting insulins. All patients are currently stable on oral hypoglycaemic drugs. CONCLUSION: Cases that support causality between dolutegravir containing regimen and hyperglycaemia were found. These cases were mainly serious. Based on these findings it is recommended that healthcare professionals (HCPs) actively screen all patients for risk factors of hyperglycaemia before DTG initiation. In addition, it is important that HCPs are aware of the possible association between DTG and hyperglycaemia.

Electronic Health Record-Triggered Research Infrastructure Combining Real-world Electronic Health Record Data and Patient-Reported Outcomes to Detect Benefits, Risks, and Impact of Medication: Development Study.

BACKGROUND: Real-world data from electronic health records (EHRs) represent a wealth of information for studying the benefits and risks of medical treatment. However, they are limited in scope and should be complemented by information from the patient perspective. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to develop an innovative research infrastructure that combines information from EHRs with patient experiences reported in questionnaires to monitor the risks and benefits of medical treatment. METHODS: We focused on the treatment of overactive bladder (OAB) in general practice as a use case. To develop the Benefit, Risk, and Impact of Medication Monitor (BRIMM) infrastructure, we first performed a requirement analysis. BRIMM's starting point is routinely recorded general practice EHR data that are sent to the Dutch Nivel Primary Care Database weekly. Patients with OAB were flagged weekly on the basis of diagnoses and prescriptions. They were invited subsequently for participation by their general practitioner (GP), via a trusted third party. Patients received a series of questionnaires on disease status, pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatments, adverse drug reactions, drug adherence, and quality of life. The questionnaires and a dedicated feedback portal were developed in collaboration with a patient association for pelvic-related diseases, Bekkenbodem4All. Participating patients and GPs received feedback. An expert meeting was organized to assess the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of the new research infrastructure. RESULTS: The BRIMM infrastructure was developed and implemented. In the Nivel Primary Care Database, 2933 patients with OAB from 27 general practices were flagged. GPs selected 1636 (55.78%) patients who were eligible for the study, of whom 295 (18.0% of eligible patients) completed the first questionnaire. A total of 288 (97.6%) patients consented to the linkage of their questionnaire data with their EHR data. According to experts, the strengths of the infrastructure were the linkage of patient-reported outcomes with EHR data, comparison of pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatments, flexibility of the infrastructure, and low registration burden for GPs. Methodological weaknesses, such as susceptibility to bias, patient selection, and low participation rates among GPs and patients, were seen as weaknesses and threats. Opportunities represent usefulness for policy makers and health professionals, conditional approval of medication, data linkage to other data sources, and feedback to patients. CONCLUSIONS: The BRIMM research infrastructure has the potential to assess the benefits and safety of (medical) treatment in real-life situations using a unique combination of EHRs and patient-reported outcomes. As patient involvement is an important aspect of the treatment process, generating knowledge from clinical and patient perspectives is valuable for health care providers, patients, and policy makers. The developed methodology can easily be applied to other treatments and health problems.

COVID-19 vaccine reactogenicity - A cohort event monitoring study in the Netherlands using patient reported outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: To explore factors that are associated with reactogenicity in general and systemic after the first dose of COVID-19 vaccine in the Netherlands. DESIGN: A web-based prospective cohort design using patient reported outcomes (PROs). SETTING: Any person who has been vaccinated with any brand of COVID-19 vaccine in the Dutch COVID immunization programme. PARTICIPANTS: 22,184 participants. Of these, 13,959 (62.9%) experienced reactogenicity in general and 11,979 (54.0%) systemic reactogenicity within 7 days after vaccination. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Factors that are associated with the occurrence of reactogenicity after COVID-19 vaccination. RESULTS: Compared to the Comirnaty® vaccine, the highest odds ratio (OR) for developing reactogenicity was for the Vaxzevria® vaccine (OR 5.18) followed by Spikevax® (OR 2.16), and Janssen (OR 1.65). Participants with a history of COVID-19 disease had a 3.10 increased odds for reactogenicity. Women had a 2.08 increased odds compared to men. Older participants experienced less reactogenicity. Compared to the age group < 50, the ORs for the age groups 50-60, 61-79, and ≥80 were 0.36, 0.15, and 0.10 respectively. The use of an antipyretic drug, or a drug for nervous system disorders gave an increased odds of 1.34 and 1.16 respectively. A body mass index of 25.0-29.9 and over 30 was negatively associated with reactogenicity (OR 0.87 and OR 0.72 respectively). Comorbidities that were associated with reactogenicity were cardiac disorders (OR 1.26), respiratory disorders (OR 1.31), psychiatric disorders (1.37), reproductive disorders (OR 1.54), and eye disorders (OR 1.55). The factors associated with systemic reactogenicity were mostly comparable, but there were differences for comorbidities, drug use, and the strength of the regression coefficient. CONCLUSIONS: This extensive study with over 22,000 vaccine recipients in the Netherlands demonstrated that, taken into account all factors in the model, the Comirnaty® vaccine gave the least and the Vaxzevria® vaccine the most reactogenicity in general and systemic after the first dose. Also a person with a history of COVID-19 disease, female sex and younger age had an increased odds for experiencing reactogenicity after vaccination.

Insight in the safety profile of antidiabetic agents glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in daily practice from the patient perspective.

PURPOSE: The primary aim of this study was to gain insight in the safety profile of the new antidiabetic agents glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors in daily practice. The secondary aim was to compare reported adverse drug reactions (ADRs) with information described in the Summary of Product Characteristics (SPC) and to generate knowledge about characteristics, like time to onset and outcome of ADRs. This knowledge is important for drug regulators and clinical practice to understand and manage ADRs better. METHODS: A prospective, observational web-based cohort event monitoring study among first-time users of GLP-1 agonists and DPP-4 inhibitors. Patients were recruited through community pharmacies from 2008 to 2016. Participants were invited to complete six web-based questionnaires over a 1-year periods after start of the antidiabetic agent. Questions were posed about patient characteristics, drug use, and ADRs. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Then, 743 patients were included. Also 62% of all GLP-1 agonist users (total n = 119) and 33% of DPP-4 inhibitor users (total n = 624) experienced an ADR. Of the 10 most reported ADRs, for GLP-1 agonist all, and for DPP-4 inhibitors 8 were described in the drug's SPC. For 45 (91%) ADRs, the patients recovered without discontinuation of the GLP-1 agonist and 79 (73%) ADRs without discontinuation of the DPP-4 inhibitor therapy. CONCLUSIONS: This study gives insight in the safety profile and ADR characteristics of the new antidiabetic agents. This study provides important knowledge for healthcare professionals in managing ADRs and can be directly applied in consultations in daily practice.

Safety profile of non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) from a patient perspective: a web-based cohort event monitoring study.

Objectives: Non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are a relatively new group of anticoagulants. Characteristics of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) as experienced by patients in everyday use have not yet been fully clarified. The aim was to gain insight into the safety profile of NOACs from a patient's perspective. Methods: This was a prospective, observational web-based cohort event monitoring study among first-time users of NOACs. Patients were recruited between July 2012 and April 2017. They were invited to complete four web-based questionnaires 2 weeks, 5 weeks, 3 months and 6 months after starting treatment. Information was collected about patient characteristics, drug use, and characteristics of ADRs. Results: 1748 NOAC users were included. 661 (38%) experienced at least one ADR. The reported ADRs were comparable with the information described in the Summary of Product Characteristics and generally occurred within 1 week after the start. In 59% of ADRs the patients recovered. These ADRs had no impact on the use and dosage of the NOAC in 68%. In total, 9% of the patients discontinued the NOAC because of ADRs. Conclusion: Overall NOACs were well tolerated by the participants. Most reported ADRs occurred within 1 week after the start. Patients recovered from most ADRs without changes to the use of the NOAC.

Fifteen years of patient reporting -what have we learned and where are we heading to?

INTRODUCTION: In April 2003, the Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb successfully implemented patient reporting to their spontaneous reporting system. The number of reports by patients rapidly grew, prompting the need to evaluate the value of the patient reporting scheme and to compare experiences with other countries. The aim of this article is to summarize our 15-year experience of working with direct patient reporting in pharmacovigilance and to discuss necessary steps in order to optimize the use of patient reports in the future. AREAS COVERED: This article is based on Lareb studies on patient reporting from 2004 onwards and covers the evolution of the Dutch patient reporting system, the value of patient participation in pharmacovigilance, the impact of patient reporting on the spontaneous reporting system and future steps to strengthen patient reporting. EXPERT OPINION: After 15 years of experience with patient reporting we conclude that patients can add value to pharmacovigilance. We recognize that there is a big leap between allowing patients to report and actual patient involvement in pharmacovigilance. It is our belief that increased patient involvement in pharmacovigilance is a way to improve pharmacovigilance, enhancing the general public's trust in medicines.

Surveillance of Drug Safety During Pregnancy: Insight in Current International Activities, Future Intentions and Need for Support of National Pharmacovigilance Centres.

INTRODUCTION: Surveillance of drug safety during pregnancy is a special interest of pharmacovigilance (PV). The role that national PV centres take in this field is, however, unclear. AIM: The aim of this study was to provide insight into current activities, future intentions and need for support of national PV centres in the field of drug safety during pregnancy. METHOD: A web-based questionnaire was used to ask PV centres about their current activities concerning the surveillance of drug safety during pregnancy, their intentions to implement or improve activities and need for support. For these three main topics, questions were posed about spontaneous adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting, additional activities to obtain information, signal detection and informing healthcare professionals and the public. RESULTS: The questionnaire was sent to PV centres of 172 countries. Response was 40%. In general, the PV centres received limited numbers of reports of ADRs in the (unborn) child, related to drug exposure during pregnancy. Signal detection in pregnancy cases is carried out by 8 out of 58 PV centres (13.5%). Most PV centres mention they have intentions to implement or improve activities, mainly for spontaneous reporting (69.4%) and methods for signal detection (67.2%). Support was needed for all topics of the questionnaire. CONCLUSION: Current activities of national PV centres concerning drug safety during pregnancy are limited. The majority of PV centres are, however, willing to improve or implement activities. Programmes should be set up in order to support and stimulate PV centres with these activities. The aim of all these activities is to increase knowledge about the safety of drugs during pregnancy.

What Future Healthcare Professionals Need to Know About Pharmacovigilance: Introduction of the WHO PV Core Curriculum for University Teaching with Focus on Clinical Aspects.

Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) can cause serious health problems, as shown in studies about drug-related hospitalizations. To build knowledge of and raise awareness about ADRs among healthcare professionals, more education in the field of ADRs and pharmacovigilance (PV) is needed. No standard exists for teaching PV at universities for medical, pharmacy, dentistry and nursing students, so a core curriculum needs to be developed to teach important aspects of PV to students. In September 2016, a stakeholders' meeting was initiated on behalf of the World Health Organization (WHO) and organized by the Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb. This meeting addressed and agreed on the PV competencies students need to develop and what key aspects of the subject should be taught. Five key aspects were identified: understanding the importance of PV in the context of pharmacotherapy, and preventing, recognizing, managing and reporting ADRs. Since time and resources for PV education are limited, elements of the WHO PV core curriculum for university teaching were designed to be integrated into existing courses but can be used as a stand-alone programme. The basis of and outline for the WHO PV core curriculum for university teaching are addressed in this paper. It is expected that PV competencies for students are vital for their contribution to safe use of medicines in the future. In addition, this article aims to stimulate discussion on this subject and promote collaboration between universities, national PV centres and other stakeholders to integrate key aspects of PV in their educational programmes.

Does patient reporting lead to earlier detection of drug safety signals? A retrospective comparison of time to reporting between patients and healthcare professionals in a global database.

AIMS: To explore if there is a difference between patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs) in time to reporting drug-adverse drug reaction (ADR) associations that led to drug safety signals. METHODS: This was a retrospective comparison of time to reporting selected drug-ADR associations which led to drug safety signals between patients and HCPs. ADR reports were selected from the World Health Organization Global database of individual case safety reports, VigiBase. Reports were selected based on drug-ADR associations of actual drug safety signals. Primary outcome was the difference in time to reporting between patients and HCPs. The date of the first report for each individual signal was used as time zero. The difference in time between the date of the reports and time zero was calculated. Statistical differences in timing were analysed on the corresponding survival curves using a Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: In total, 2822 reports were included, of which 52.7% were patient reports, with a median of 25% for all included signals. For all signals, median time to signal detection was 10.4 years. Overall, HCPs reported earlier than patients: median 7.0 vs. 8.3 years (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients contributed a large proportion of reports on drug-ADR pairs that eventually became signals. HCPs reported 1.3 year earlier than patients. These findings strengthen the evidence on the value of patient reporting in signal detection and highlight an opportunity to encourage patients to report suspected ADRs even earlier in the future.

First experiences with a tool to measure the level of clinical information present in adverse drug reaction reports.

BACKGROUND: To make a proper causality assessment of an adverse drug reaction (ADR) report, a certain level of clinical information is necessary. A tool was developed to measure the level of clinical information present in ADR reports. The aim of this study was to test the validity and reliability of the clinical documentation tool (ClinDoc) in an international setting. METHODS: The tool was developed by a panel of pharmacovigilance experts. It includes four domains: ADR, chronology of the ADR, suspected drug and patient characteristics. The final score categorizes reports into: excellent, well, moderately or poorly documented. In two rounds, eight pharmacovigilance assessors of different countries made a total of 224 assessments using the tool, with the expert panels judgement as a standard. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated. RESULTS: The tool with four outcome-categories demonstrated low sensitivity. A lack of distinctiveness was demonstrated between the categories moderate and well. Results for the second round were re-analysed using three categories. This demonstrated a better validity. CONCLUSION: This is the first tool to give insight in the level of relevant clinical information present in ADR reports. It can be used internationally to compare reports coming from different reporting methods and different types of reporters in pharmacovigilance.

The Quality of Clinical Information in Adverse Drug Reaction Reports by Patients and Healthcare Professionals: A Retrospective Comparative Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical information is needed to assess the causal relationship between a drug and an adverse drug reaction (ADR) in a reliable way. Little is known about the level of relevant clinical information about the ADRs reported by patients. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to determine to what extent patients report relevant clinical information about an ADR compared with their healthcare professional. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of all ADR reports on the same case, i.e., cases with a report from both the patient and the patient's healthcare professional, selected from the database of the Dutch Pharmacovigilance Center Lareb, was conducted. The extent to which relevant clinical information was reported was assessed by trained pharmacovigilance assessors, using a structured tool. The following four domains were assessed: ADR, chronology, suspected drug, and patient characteristics. For each domain, the proportion of reported information in relation to information deemed relevant was calculated. An average score of all relevant domains was determined and categorized as poorly (≤45%), moderately (from 46 to 74%) or well (≥75%) reported. Data were analyzed using a paired sample t test and Wilcoxon signed rank test. RESULTS: A total of 197 cases were included. In 107 cases (54.3%), patients and healthcare professionals reported a similar level of clinical information. Statistical analysis demonstrated no overall differences between the groups (p = 0.126). CONCLUSIONS: In a unique study of cases of ADRs reported by patients and healthcare professionals, we found that patients report clinical information at a similar level as their healthcare professional. For an optimal pharmacovigilance, both healthcare professionals and patient should be encouraged to report.

Feasibility and Educational Value of a Student-Run Pharmacovigilance Programme: A Prospective Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: Pharmacovigilance, the monitoring of drug safety after marketing approval, highly depends on the adequate reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs). To improve pharmacovigilance awareness and future ADR reporting among medical students, we developed and evaluated a student-run pharmacovigilance programme. METHODS: In this project, teams of medical students (first- to fifth-year) assessed real ADR reports, as submitted to the national pharmacovigilance centre. After assessment of causality, including identification of a potential pharmacological explanation for the ADR, the students wrote a personalized feedback letter to the reporter, as well as a summary for the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and World Health Organization (WHO) pharmacovigilance databases. This student assessment was then verified and evaluated by staff from The Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb (Lareb), using an e-questionnaire. Student attitudes, intentions, skills, and knowledge of ADR reporting were evaluated using the e-questionnaire, before and after participation in the programme. RESULTS: From May 2014 to January 2015, a total of 43 students assessed 100 different ADR reports selected by Lareb staff (n = 3). Student assessments were rated as useful (93%), scientifically substantiated (90%), accurate (92%), and complete (92%), and, on average, did not cost Lareb staff extra time. Medical students were positive about ADR reporting, and their awareness of ADR reporting increased significantly following participation in the programme (p < 0.05). After participation in the programme, the students intended to report serious ADRs in their future practice, and their knowledge of pharmacovigilance and ADR reporting showed they had a high overall level of pharmacological understanding. CONCLUSION: The student-run pharmacovigilance programme is a win-win venture. It offers students a valuable 'pharmacovigilance experience', creates awareness in future doctors, and has the potential to increase pharmacovigilance skills and knowledge.

Actions in response to drug safety signals arising from a spontaneous reporting system: Retrospective study in The Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: There is limited information on actions taken in response to drug safety signals originating from a spontaneous reporting system (SRS) in pharmacovigilance. In The Netherlands the Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb is an independent organization that works in close collaboration with the Dutch regulatory agency, the Medicines Evaluation Board (MEB). OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to gain insight in steps undertaken on signals originating from the SRS and disseminated by Lareb from 2008-2012. METHOD: For all signals the recommendations of Lareb and the following steps proposed by the MEB were analyzed. Secondary outcomes were prioritization of the signal, the year of dissemination and if Lareb published (inter)nationally about the signal. Pearson's Chi-square (X2) and Mantel-Haenszel statistics were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Of all signals disseminated by Lareb from 2008-2012, 90,7% resulted in an action: in 87% a regulatory action and in 36% an (inter)national publication. Generally, Lareb's recommendations correspond to steps undertaken by the MEB. CONCLUSION: This study found influence of signal prioritization on Lareb's recommendations but not on the steps undertaken by the MEB. Trends over time were only seen for steps undertaken by the MEB. These differences are most probably due to responsibilities of the different EU member states of various drugs.

The validity and reliability of a signal impact assessment tool.

BACKGROUND: The Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb uses an operating Signal Impact Assessment Tool (SIAT) as aid in signal selection. SIAT prioritized signals into one of four categories: strong/moderate signal strength and similarly health impact. Although the SIAT has been used for many years, validity and reliability was never explored. PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to test the validity and reliability of the operating and weight-adjusted SIAT. METHOD: For validity testing, judgments of a Delphi panel of three pharmacovigilance experts were used as a 'gold standard'. First, the panel judged the weighting of the items included in the SIAT. Then, during two phases, the panel rated 40 signals in one of the four categories. Two researchers scored the signals using the SIAT. Panel judgments were compared with scores for the operating and weight-adjusted SIAT. Inter- and intra-observer variability was also tested. The Cohen's Kappa coefficient (k) was calculated. At least substantial agreement (k > 0.6) was considered to be necessary for an acceptable reliability. RESULTS: Validity did not meet predefined criteria: operating and weight-adjusted tool, respectively, k-phase1 = 0.83 and 0.83, k-phase2 = 0.18 and 0.36. Differences were found for signal strength and health impact. Inter- and intra-observer variabilities were good, k of 0.78 and 0.72, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The SIAT was found to have an insufficient validity and proper reliability. Although SIAT scores should not be decisive in the decision making process, items included can be used as an aid to decide which signals deserve further investigation. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The Impact of Experiencing Adverse Drug Reactions on the Patient's Quality of Life: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study in the Netherlands.

INTRODUCTION: There is little information as to what extent adverse drug reactions (ADRs) influence patients' health-related quality of life (HR-QOL). From a pharmacovigilance perspective, capturing and making the best use of this information remains a challenge. The Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb received about 1800 reports after the packaging of the drug Thyrax(®) (levothyroxine; Aspen Pharma Trading Limited, Dublin, Ireland) changed from a brown glass bottle to a blister package in the Netherlands. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to explore the impact of ADRs on HR-QOL in patients who reported a possible ADR to Lareb in relation to the change in the packaging of the drug Thyrax(®). A secondary objective was to explore factors correlated with change in HR-QOL. METHODS: Patients who reported an ADR in relation to the Thyrax(®) packaging change were included in this study. A web-based adapted version of the COOP/WONCA questionnaire was sent to explore the HR-QOL before versus during the ADR, expressed on a 5-point scale from no impact (1) to high impact (5). Multivariable linear regression analysis was used to identify factors correlated with change in HR-QOL. RESULTS: Overall, 1167 patients returned the questionnaire (71.2 % response rate). The difference in HR-QOL was -0.8 for physical, -1.2 for mental, -1.4 for daily activities, -1.3 for social, and -1.3 for overall health status (p < 0.001 for each domain). Age, sex, educational level of the patient, and absence from work due to an ADR were correlated with at least one domain, while severity of the ADR was found to be correlated with all domains of HR-QOL. CONCLUSION: Patients who reported possible ADRs after the Thyrax(®) packaging change experienced a significant decrease in HR-QOL. This impact was highest for the domains 'daily activities', 'overall health status', and 'mental health' and lowest for 'physical fitness'.

Feedback for patients reporting adverse drug reactions; satisfaction and expectations.

OBJECTIVE: Due to the rising number of patient reports in pharmacovigilance, the manner in which feedback is provided to patients is an element to be considered. The objective is to explore the satisfaction of patients towards personalized and general feedback in response to their reported adverse drug reactions (ADRs). METHODS: Patients who reported an ADR to the Dutch Pharmacovigilance Centre for the first time in the period between October 2012 and April 2013 were included. Reporters received personalized feedback or a general acknowledgement letter. Satisfaction towards the received feedback, expressed on a 5-point Likert scale (1 very good to 5 very poor), was studied using a web-based questionnaire. Data were analyzed using Pearson Chi-square test and linear regression analysis. Statistical significance was based on p < 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 471 patient-reporters were contacted with a total response of 52.5%. Respondents of both groups were satisfied with the received feedback, average score 2 (good). Respondents of the personalized feedback-group were however more satisfied score 2.0 versus 2.5 (p < 0.001) and considered the feedback more clear and useful compared with respondents of the acknowledgement letter-group, respectively score 1.6 versus 1.7 (p = 0.01) and score 2.1 versus 2.5 (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients reporting ADRs are satisfied with feedback received from the pharmacovigilance centre, whether this is a personalized feedback or a general acknowledgment letter. They find it clear, useful and it meets their expectation. Although differences were found between the two types of feedback, these differences did not indicate dissatisfaction towards the received feedback.