What is known and objective: The objectives of this study were to explore completeness of direct adverse event (AE) reports from consumers and healthcare professionals (HCPs), and to discuss the reasons completeness varied among reporters with different occupations.
Methods: We used a total of 5475 direct AE reports to the United States (US) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from the first and second quarters of 2016 and assessed completeness of basic information (eg, patient sex, age, weight) and information relevant to AEs (eg, suspect and concomitant drugs). Logistic regression analysis was conducted to evaluate the associations between report completeness and reporting backgrounds.
Results and discussion: The completeness of AE reports from consumers was generally greater than that of reports from HCPs. Completeness of specific items varied among different occupations, which may reflect accessibility to, and/or availability of, relevant information for each type of reporter. There was a clear association between the proportion of 'known' ADRs in a report and completeness, suggesting that consumers and HCPs are likely to consult labelling information when reporting AEs.
What is new and conclusion: The quality of AE reports seemed to depend on information costs accrued to potential reporters. Researchers should consider the impact of database heterogeneity and possible sample selection bias when using spontaneous AE reports as a sample of events in the United States.
Keywords: FAERS; consumers; pharmacovigilance.
© 2019 The Authors. Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.