METHODS: Literature search using electronic databases including PubMed, Google Scholar and National Medical Research Register was conducted. Additional articles were identified by reviewing the bibliography of the retrieved articles. The articles were searched with any of the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms in the title: adverse drug reaction, attitude, awareness, behaviour, experience, knowledge, Malaysia, perspectives, pharmacovigilance, practice and view. Studies were selected based on fulfilment of inclusion and exclusion criteria. The articles were scrutinised using thematic analysis.
KEY FINDINGS: Nine studies conducted among doctors, pharmacists and nurses met the inclusion criteria. Five themes emerged which included knowledge, attitude, practice, barriers and facilitators of adverse drug reaction reporting among healthcare professionals.
CONCLUSION: In general, healthcare professionals in Malaysia have good knowledge on and positive attitudes towards adverse drug reaction reporting. However, the practice of adverse drug reaction reporting was found to be unsatisfactory among healthcare professional in Malaysia. The approaches taken to enhance ADR reporting among Malaysian healthcare professionals should focus on alleviating lethargy and ignorance associated with ADR reporting.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: All suspected ADEs associated with tocilizumab between April to August 2020 were analyzed based on COVID-19 patients' demographic and clinical variables, and severity of involvement of organ system.
RESULTS: A total of 1005 ADEs were reported among 513 recipients. The majority of the ADEs (46.26%) were reported from 18-64 years, were males and reported spontaneously. Around 80%, 20%, and 64% were serious, fatal, and administered intravenously, respectively. 'Injury, Poisoning, and Procedural Complications' remain as highest (35%) among categorized ADEs. Neutropenia, hypofibrinogenemia were common hematological ADEs. The above 64 years was found to have significantly lower odds than of below 45 years. In comparison, those in the European Region have substantially higher odds compared to the Region of Americas.
CONCLUSION: Neutropenia, superinfections, reactivation of latent infections, hepatitis, and cardiac abnormalities were common ADEs observed that necessitate proper monitoring and reporting.
METHODS: Using a cross-sectional design and convenient sampling, data were collected in public areas within Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, via face-to-face interview with a structured questionnaire. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify the significant predictors of patients' confidence in ADR reporting.
RESULTS: Out of 860 consented respondents achieving a response rate of 73.5%, only 69 (8%) were aware of the Malaysian ADR monitoring system. The majority (60%) of the respondents indicated they had the confidence to report ADRs. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that ease in completing the ADR reporting form was the strongest variable predictive of confidence to report ADRs (odds ratio [OR], 18.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 10.55-32.25). Increased confidence in ADR reporting was also associated with education level. Respondents with a higher education level were more likely to be confident to report ADRs compared to those with primary or no formal education (OR, 2.49; 95% CI, 0.77-8.1).
CONCLUSIONS: Lack of awareness of the ADR monitoring system is still prevalent among Malaysian patients. The ease of completing the ADR form and education level are predictive of patient confidence to report ADRs. These factors should be considered in designing public promotional activities to encourage patient contributions to pharmacovigilance.
METHODS: A cross-sectional questionnaire-based survey was employed, and a convenience sampling was opted to collect the data among physicians, pharmacists and nurses working in tertiary care public hospitals of Lahore, Pakistan from September 2018 to January 2019.
RESULTS: Of the 384 questionnaires distributed, 346 health care professionals responded to the questionnaire (90.10% response rate). Most participants had good knowledge about ADR reporting, but pharmacist had comparatively better knowledge than other HCPs regarding ADR (89.18%) pharmacovigilance system (81.08%), its centres (72.97%) and function (91.89%). Most of the participants exhibited positive attitude regarding ADR reporting, such as 49.1% of physicians (P
Methods: A qualitative approach was used to conduct this study. A semi-structured interview guide was developed, 10 hospital pharmacists were recruited and interviewed through convenience sampling technique. All interviews were audio-taped, transcribed verbatim, and were then analyzed for thematic contents analysis.
Results: Thematic content analysis of the interviews resulted in 6 major themes, including (1) Familiarity with medication safety & adverse drug reaction concept (2) Current system of practice and reporting of adverse drug reaction in hospital setting, (3) Willingness to accept the practice change (4) Barriers to adverse drug reaction reporting, (5) Policy change needs and (6) The recognition of the role. Majority of the hospital pharmacists were familiar with the concept of medication safety and ADR reactions reporting however they were unaware of the existence of national ADR reporting system in Pakistan. Several barriers hindering ADR reporting were identified including lack of awareness and training, communication gap between the hospitals and regulatory authorities.
Conclusion: The study revealed that that hospital pharmacists were good in understanding of medication safety and ADR reporting; however they don't practice this in real sense. The readiness of the hospital pharmacist towards the practice change has indicated that they are all set to be actively involved in the provision of medication safety in hospital setting. Involvement of key stake holders from ministry of health, academia, pharmaceutical industry and healthcare professionals is warranted to promote safe and effective use of medicines.
Methods: This study analyzed all suspected ADEs related to favipiravir reported from 2015. The reports were analyzed based on age, gender, and seriousness of ADEs at the System Organ Classification (SOC) level and the individual Preferred Term (PT) level.
Results: This study is based on 194 ADEs reported from 93 patients. Most frequent ADEs suspected to be caused by the favipiravir included increased hepatic enzymes, nausea and vomiting, tachycardia, and diarrhea. Severe and fatal ADEs occurred more frequently in men and those over the age of 64 years. Blood and lymphatic disorders, cardiac disorders, hepatobiliary disorders, injury poisoning, and procedural complications were more common manifestations of severe ADEs.
Conclusion: This study revealed that favipiravir appears to be a relatively safe drug. An undiscovered anti-inflammatory activity of favipiravir may explain the improvement in critically ill patients and reduce inflammatory markers. Currently, the data is based on very few patients. A more detailed assessment of the uncommon ADEs needs to be analyzed when more information will be available.
METHODS: A systematic and comprehensive articles search strategy was carried out in different seven electronic databases (PubMed, PubMed Central, Goggle Scholar, Ovid-SP, MEDLINE, Wiley Online Library, DergiPark) from 2010 to 2020. We searched to identify existing literature about cross-sectional observational studies investigating the KAP of HCPs regarding PV and ADRs reporting in different geographical regions of Turkey. Quality assessment and risk of bias were assessed among included studies.
RESULTS: Fifteen studies were chosen for full-text analysis. Finally, according to inclusion criteria, seven research articles were selected for systematic review. Overall, the KAP of HCPs varies across the studies. The lack of a standardized validated measuring tool to evaluate the KAP and differences in questionnaire items were the main limitations in included studies. Around, 69.1% (range: 54.6-100%) of HCPs were not aware of the national pharmacovigilance center in Turkey. About, 37.5% (range: 7.1-75.7%) of HCPs believed that reporting of ADRs is not important and 87.5% (range: 69.3-100%) stated that they never reported ADR previously during their practice. The most frequently highlighted barriers to PV were lack of time, uncertainty and did not know where to report.
CONCLUSION: This systematic review revealed a major KAP gap in Turkey towards PV activities. Low ADR reporting practice of HCPs was a major identified issue. The creation of a mandatory unified PV education intervention for future HCPs to rationally report ADR of drugs are crucial for a better healthcare system.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted using a validated self-administered questionnaire. A convenience sample of 147 community pharmacists working in community pharmacies in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
RESULTS: The questionnaire was distributed to 147 pharmacists, of whom 104 responded to the survey, a 70.7% response rate. The mean age of participants was 29 years. The majority (n = 101, 98.1%) had graduated with a bachelorette degree and worked in chain pharmacies (n = 68, 66.7%). Only 23 (22.1%) said they were familiar with the ADR reporting process, and only 21 (20.2%) knew that pharmacists can submit ADR reports online. The majority of the participants (n = 90, 86.5%) had never reported ADRs. Reasons for not reporting ADRs most importantly included lack of awareness about the method of reporting (n = 22, 45.9%), misconception that reporting ADRs is the duty of physician and hospital pharmacist (n = 8, 16.6%) and ADRs in community pharmacies are simple and should not be reported (n = 8, 16.6%). The most common approach perceived by community pharmacists for managing patients suffering from ADRs was to refer him/her to a physician (n = 80, 76.9%).
CONCLUSION: The majority of community pharmacists in Riyadh have poor knowledge of the ADR reporting process. Pharmacovigilance authorities should take necessary steps to urgently design interventional programs in order to increase the knowledge and awareness of pharmacists regarding the ADR reporting process.
OBJECTIVE: From the considerable amount of clinical narrative text, natural language processing (NLP) researchers have developed methods for extracting ADEs and their related attributes. This work presents a systematic review of current methods.
METHODOLOGY: Two biomedical databases have been searched from June 2022 until December 2023 for relevant publications regarding this review, namely the databases PubMed and Medline. Similarly, we searched the multi-disciplinary databases IEEE Xplore, Scopus, ScienceDirect, and the ACL Anthology. We adopted the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement guidelines and recommendations for reporting systematic reviews in conducting this review. Initially, we obtained 5,537 articles from the search results from the various databases between 2015 and 2023. Based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria for article selection, 100 publications have undergone full-text review, of which we consider 82 for our analysis.
RESULTS: We determined the general pattern for extracting ADEs from clinical notes, with named entity recognition (NER) and relation extraction (RE) being the dual tasks considered. Researchers that tackled both NER and RE simultaneously have approached ADE extraction as a "pipeline extraction" problem (n = 22), as a "joint task extraction" problem (n = 7), and as a "multi-task learning" problem (n = 6), while others have tackled only NER (n = 27) or RE (n = 20). We further grouped the reviews based on the approaches for data extraction, namely rule-based (n = 8), machine learning (n = 11), deep learning (n = 32), comparison of two or more approaches (n = 11), hybrid (n = 12) and large language models (n = 8). The most used datasets are MADE 1.0, TAC 2017 and n2c2 2018.
CONCLUSION: Extracting ADEs is crucial, especially for pharmacovigilance studies and patient medications. This survey showcases advances in ADE extraction research, approaches, datasets, and state-of-the-art performance in them. Challenges and future research directions are highlighted. We hope this review will guide researchers in gaining background knowledge and developing more innovative ways to address the challenges.
METHODS: Data on allopurinol ADR reports (2000-2018) were extracted from the Malaysian ADR database. We identified RMMs implemented between 2000 and 2018 from the minutes of relevant meetings and the national pharmacovigilance newsletter. We obtained allopurinol utilization data (2004-2018) from the Pharmaceutical Services Programme. To determine the impact of RMMs on ADR reporting, we considered ADR reports received within 1 year of RMM implementation. We used the Pearson χ2 test to examine the relation between the implementation of RMMs and allopurinol ADR reports.
RESULTS: The 16 RMMs for allopurinol-related SCARs implemented in Malaysia involved nine risk communications, four prescriber or patient educational material, and three health system innovations. Allopurinol utilization decreased by 21.5% from 2004 to 2018. ADR reporting rates for all drugs (n = 144 507) and allopurinol (n = 1747) increased. ADR reports involving off-label use decreased by 6% from 2011. SCARs cases remained between 20% and 50%. RMMs implemented showed statistically significant reduction in ADR reports involving off-label use for August 2014 [χ2(1, N = 258) = 5.32, P = .021] and October 2016 [χ2(1, N = 349) = 3.85, P = .0499].
CONCLUSIONS: RMMs to promote the appropriate use of allopurinol and prescriber education have a positive impact. We need further measures to reduce the incidence and severity of allopurinol-induced SCARs, such as patient education and more research into pharmacogenetic screening.