Search

Purpose: The purpose of this narrative review is to provide a comparison of several countries with different legislation and approaches to pharmacovigilance and to point out how these impact the number of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) that are reported to national competent authorities. Methods: Legislative and statistical data regarding ADR reporting from various national competent authorities' websites, databases, and pharmacovigilance centers were used. In combination with the WHO pharmacovigilance quantitative indicator that was applied to evaluate the effectiveness of particular national pharmacovigilance systems in our scope. Results: The study compared pharmacovigilance systems in six countries, focusing on ADR reporting from 2010 onwards. All countries required MAHs to report ADRs, while healthcare professionals' obligations varied. Per-capita ADR reports increased in all countries with available data, with the United States having a significantly higher reporting rate, possibly due to FDA campaigns. Despite starting later, China's per-capita reporting rate surpassed that of the Czech Republic and Japan. The study highlighted various measures taken by countries to enhance ADR reporting systems since the inception of their programs, contributing to the overall increase in reporting rates. Conclusions: ADR reporting is a global priority, with efforts made by different countries to strengthen their pharmacovigilance systems. Some success can be seen in gradually improving per-capita ADR reporting rates. The varying reporting rates and measures taken by each country may serve as a basis for further research and exchange of best practices to improve drug safety monitoring worldwide. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Erroneous reports of adverse events following immunization (AEFIs) likely exacerbated the 2013 collapse of Japan's HPV immunization program. A similar phenomenon characterized the first months of COVID-19 immunization programs in the USA, UK, and Japan with high rates of reported anaphylaxis. These reports illustrate the susceptibility of supposedly objective medical judgments to public anxiety. Purpose and methods: This study documents inaccuracies in reported AEFIs using three quantitative methods. Results: One of these quantitative methods revealed that false-positive rates for anaphylaxis reports following HPV and later COVID-19 vaccination ranged from 74 to 91 percent. However, unlike HPV vaccinations in Japan, anaphylaxis reports following COVID-19 vaccines fell in Japan, the USA and the UK in the latter months of 2021. Nevertheless, false-positive rates for anaphylaxis reports remained high, suggesting a high degree of imprecision in serious AEFI reports from many countries for many vaccines. Japan's HPV immunization program indicates that media reports, patient hesitancy, healthcare providers' perspectives on vaccine safety, and consistency of government messaging, all influence report number and accuracy. A parallel publication analyzes in depth how such factors affect AEFI reports. Conclusion: Confidence in the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines may have been bolstered trough rapid monitoring of AEFI reports and communication of these findings. This may partly explain the different trajectories of serious AEFI following HPV immunizations in Japan and COVID-19 immunizations in the USA, UK, and Japan. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]