Search

Background: Patients are important stakeholders in pharmacovigilance; however, little formal evaluation has been undertaken of existing patient reporting schemes within and outside Europe. If patient reporting is to be recognized as beneficial for pharmacovigilance and further optimized, methodology and best practice must be internationally shared and promoted.Objective: This study aims to review the methods of patient reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in 11 countries worldwide and to compare different aspects of their experiences.Methods: A survey based on telephone interviews, e-mail discussions and field visits of existing practices in consumer and patient reporting of ADRs was performed in the second half of 2010.Results: The start dates of the patient reporting schemes vary from 1964 (Australia) to 2010 (Norway). The number of patient reports per country varies widely. Most countries would ideally spend more resources on making the public aware of the possibility that patients can report ADRs. Most countries have three different ways for patients to report ADRs - a paper form, an electronic form on a website or by telephone. The level of sophistication of the electronic forms varies. The route of handling of patients' and healthcare professionals' ADR reports is the same for most countries. Personalized feedback on the reported association for each report is only given by four organizations. All countries have guidelines for the identification of patients in the database and most undertake checks for duplicate reports. In all countries, with the exception of Norway, it is possible to ask patients for follow-up. None of the organizations seek medical confirmation for each patient report. There is a difference between countries that do a causality assessment for each incoming ADR report and countries that only do a causality assessment of reports when they are looking at a potential signal. All countries assess the seriousness of reports, mostly by using the criteria of the CIOMS committee. In all countries, patient reports are used for signal detection purposes and in publications about ADRs. The Netherlands and the UK are actively evaluating their patient reporting schemes. None of the organizations hired additional staff when they started with patient reporting.Conclusions: This study provides a comprehensive review on the methods used in patient reporting of ADRs. Although there are some differences in the way various countries handle patient reports of ADRs, the importance of giving the public the opportunity to report and the additional scientific value of the collected data is widely recognized by the countries who participated in this survey. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Investigates the interactions of the serum total tryptophan with five competing amino acids (CAA) on major depression. Measurement of amino acids both before and after antidepressive treatment; Ratio of CAA on patients with treatment resistant depression (TRD); Characterization of TRD through lower availability of serum tryptophan.

Introduction: Several studies described that COVID-19 vaccinations can cause menstrual disorders. Our study aimed to describe whether this also resulted in more general practitioner (GP) consultations for menstrual disorders after COVID-19 vaccination, based on a large cohort study., Methods: A retrospective self-controlled cohort study was performed including vaccinated women in 2021 aged 12-49 years from two large, representative GP databases in the Netherlands. Incidence rates and incidence rate ratio's (IRR) were calculated using Poisson regression, adjusting for SARS-CoV-2 infection as time-varying confounder. The exposed period was set at maximum six months after each COVID-19 vaccination and the non-exposed period was defined as all-time outside the exposed period., Results: The cohort included 631,802 women, of which 18,986 (3 %) consulted the GP for a menstrual disorder during 2021. Increased GP consultations were observed among 12-14 year olds for amenorrhea/hypomenorrhea/oligomenorrhea (IRR: 1.85, 95 % CI: 1.30-2.65) and irregular/frequent menstruation (IRR: 1.33, 95 % CI: 1.06-1.69) after COVID-19 vaccination in general, and after Pfizer/BioNTech vaccination (IRR: 1.87, 95 % CI: 1.31-2.67 for amenorrhea/hypomenorrhea/oligomenorrhea and IRR: 1.35, 95 % CI: 1.06-1.70 for irregular/frequent menstruation). Persons from this age group were in general also vaccinated with Pfizer/BioNTech. No increase in the frequency of GP consultations were observed for older age groups, other vaccine brands, and potential risk groups., Conclusion: For the majority of women, no increased GP consultations for menstrual disorders was found. Solely for the youngest age group (12-14 year olds) increased GP consultations for specific types of menstrual disorders was found after Pfizer/BioNTech vaccination., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Patient engagement in pharmacovigilance (PEP) has been shown to improve information on adverse drug reactions (ADRs), which may not be found in reports from healthcare professionals. This review shows that there is paucity of information on PEP in lower-middle-income countries (LMICs), particularly Africa. It provides insights into PEP in high-income countries (HICs) compared with Africa to help identify the disparities and system challenges in Africa., Areas Covered: We discussed the impact of PEP in HICs in comparison with Africa and incorporated two case studies: PEP in Ghana and medication error reporting in Africa using a scoping review. Recommendations were made to improve medication safety in Africa based on the identified disparities and system challenges., Expert Opinion: PEP is at an early stage in LMICs, particularly in Africa, with limited information available regarding patients' contributions to the safety of medicines. There should be further research into patients' roles in pharmacovigilance accompanied by advocacy efforts with policymakers, the development of sustainable funding strategies, benchmarking against experienced pharmacovigilance centers, and the use of technology to improve patient reporting.

Background: The safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines in immunocompromised patients has not been comprehensively evaluated., Aim: To measure the frequency of patient-reported adverse drug reactions (ADRs) related to the first/second/booster dose of COVID-19 vaccine in immunocompromised subject versus matched cohort. As a secondary objective, the time course, evaluated as time to onset (TTO) and time to recovery (TTR), of COVID-19 vaccine-related ADRs was explored., Methods: A prospective cohort study, based on electronic questionnaires filled by vaccinees from 11 European countries in the period February 2021 to February 2023 was conducted. All immunocompromised vaccinees who provided informed consent and registered to the project's web-app within 48 h after first/booster vaccine dose administration of any EMA-authorised COVID-19 vaccine were recruited. Participants filled baseline and up to six follow-up questionnaires (FU-Qs) over 6 months from vaccination, collecting information on suspected COVID-19 vaccine-related ADRs. As a control group, non-immunocompromised vaccinees from the same source population were 1:4 matched by sex, age, vaccine dose, and brand. A descriptive analysis of demographic/clinical characteristics of vaccinees was conducted. Heatmaps of the frequency of solicited ADRs, stratified by gender and vaccine brand, were generated. Median TTO/TTR of reported ADRs were visualised using violin/box-plots., Results: A total of 773 immunocompromised vaccines were included in the analyses. Most participants were females (F/M ratio: 2.1 and 1.6) with a median age of 56 (43-74) and 51 (41-60) years, at the first vaccination cycle and booster dose, respectively. Injection-site pain and fatigue were the most frequently reported ADRs in immunocompromised vaccinees with higher frequency than matched control, especially after the first dose (41.2% vs 37.8% and 38.2% vs 32.9%, respectively). For both cohorts, all solicited ADRs were more frequently reported in females than males, and in those who had received a first dose of the Vaxzevria vaccine. Dizziness was the most frequently reported unsolicited ADR after the first dose in both groups (immunocompromised subjects: 2.5% and matched controls: 2.1%). At the booster dose, lymphadenopathy (3.9%) and lymphadenitis (1.8%) were the most reported unsolicited ADRs for immunocompromised subjects and matched controls, respectively. A very low number of subjects reported adverse event of special interest (AESI) (2 immunocompromised, 3 matched controls) and serious ADRs (5 immunocompromised, 5 matched controls). A statistically significant difference among study cohorts was observed for median TTO after the booster dose, and for median TTR after the first vaccination cycle and booster dose (p < 0.001)., Conclusion: The overall safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines in immunocompromised people was favourable, with minor differences as compared to non-immunocompromised vaccinees. Participants mostly experienced mild ADRs, mainly reported after the first dose of Vaxzevria and Jcovden vaccines. Serious ADRs and AESI were rare., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Conventional vaccines rarely cause severe allergic reactions. However, the rapid development and approval of COVID-19 vaccines left limited initial data on their adverse reactions, particularly in individuals with a history of allergy. The aim of this study was to assess and compare the safety profile of different doses and brands of COVID-19 vaccines in subjects with a history of allergy vs. those without a history of allergy. Methods: From February 2021 to February 2023, a web-based prospective study gathered vaccinee-reported outcomes using electronic questionnaires across eleven European countries. Baseline and up to six follow-up questionnaires captured data on vaccinee demographics, as well as both solicited and unsolicited adverse reactions. Results: Overall, 3476 vaccinees with a history of allergy were matched with 13,872 vaccinees from the general population at the first vaccination cycle and were included in the analysis. A total of 825 vaccinees with a history of allergy who had received a booster dose, matched to 3297 vaccinees from the general population, were included in the analysis. Higher rates of ADRs occurred after the first vaccination cycle compared to after the booster dose (64-91% vs. 56-79%). However, most reported ADRs were solicited and not serious, and no case of anaphylaxis was reported. Women and vaccinees with a history of allergy reported ADRs more frequently than men and the matched controls, respectively. Compared to other COVID-19 vaccines, a higher proportion of vaccinees experiencing at least one ADR following their first vaccination cycle was observed with Comirnaty and Vaxzevria. Statistically significant differences were observed among the study cohorts for median TTO after the second dose, and for median TTR following the first vaccination cycle and booster dose ( p < 0.001). Conclusions: Typically, any drug or vaccine use carries a risk of severe allergic reactions, yet the benefits of vaccination generally outweigh these potential risks, as shown with the COVID-19 vaccines.

Background and Objective: The use of herbal products globally is substantial, but varying definitions and regulatory frameworks have led to differences in their status as medicinal products and in approaches to monitoring their safety. This article explores the current landscape of herbal pharmacovigilance, drawing insights from interviews with global experts in the field, and offers recommendations for best practices to enhance the safety and benefit-to-harm balance of herbal products., Methods: This study comprised semi-structured interviews with members of the International Society of Pharmacovigilance-Herbal and Traditional Medicines Special Interest Group and the Nutrivigilance Information Exchange Network, recruited using purposive sampling. Data were stored and coded using NVIVO ® and analysed thematically using a qualitative inductive approach., Results: Sixteen participants from 11 countries were interviewed, revealing diverse regulatory approaches and challenges in herbal pharmacovigilance. Key themes included legal status, awareness, identification and coding of herbal products, pre-/post-marketing product control, reporting of adverse drug reactions, causality assessment and signals of herbal products. This study yielded five general recommendations to further improve herbal pharmacovigilance worldwide., Conclusions: This study offers an overview of the global landscape of herbal pharmacovigilance, highlighting challenges in monitoring herbal products and presenting universal recommendations. These recommendations encompass increasing awareness, enhancing education and improving legislative frameworks. Given the growing use of herbal products, the implementation of strong pharmacovigilance practices is crucial to ensure consumer safety., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

Objective : Migraine attacks are common in women of reproductive age. Although attacks are often less severe and less frequent during pregnancy, they regularly reoccur shortly after delivery. When first-line analgesic treatment is insufficient, triptans may be used for acute treatment of migraine attacks. Milk levels of occasional triptan use have shown to be low, and no adverse effects in breastfed infants have been reported. However, the available knowledge on the safety of triptans during breastfeeding is still limited. Methods: Four (inter)national pharmacovigilance databases were searched for breastfeeding related adverse drug reactions of triptans. These included the Dutch Pregnancy Drug Register and three databases of spontaneous reports (Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb, the European Medicines Agency [EudraVigilance], and the World Health Organization [VigiBase]). Results: A total of 26 reports on 27 breastfeeding related adverse drug reactions were identified (one report involved two separate adverse drug reactions). These involve three main complaints: painful breasts and/or nipples, painful milk ejection reflex, and a decrease in milk production. Discussion and Conclusion: The hypothesized pharmacological mechanism relates to the serotonin-receptor agonistic properties of triptans. These may lead to vasoconstriction in the breasts and nipples, including the vasculature surrounding the milk ducts and alveoli, and may also influence the hormonal function and levels of prolactin. The reported adverse drug reactions do not negatively impact the overall compatibility of triptans with breastfeeding. However, breastfeeding women may experience them as unsettling. Awareness of these potential adverse drug reactions is essential and should be weighed against the potential adverse effects of (untreated) symptoms of migraine attacks.

Opioids are the strongest analgesics available and are crucial in the treatment of acute and chronic pain. The line between these critical medications and how they are used beyond standard therapeutics in cases such as abuse, misuse, and medication errors needs to be understood, as it affects their safety, efficacy, and manner of use. The aim of this systematic review was to identify what is known about the adverse events resulting from the abuse, misuse, and medication errors associated with opioid use. A systematic search was conducted in the PubMed ® , Scopus ® and, EBSCO ® databases to retrieve studies from the inception to December 2023 reporting abuse, misuse, and medication errors associated with medicinal opioid use. Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts and full text according to eligibility using Covidence ® software. Full articles were examined by two independent reviewers, and disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer. The risk of bias was assessed by the JBI's critical appraisal tools. A total of 934 articles were screened by their title and abstract. Then, 151 articles were selected for full text screening. Of these, 34 studies were eligible for inclusion in this review. The included studies varied significantly in their population sizes, ranging from 9 individuals to 298,433 patients, and encompassed a diverse demographic, including all ages and both sexes. The studies consistently reported a range of adverse events associated with opioid use. Fentanyl, morphine, oxycodone, tramadol, and hydrocodone were frequently implicated. The data heterogeneity in this field resulted in challenges in drawing conclusions. The review highlights that some opioids, particularly fentanyl, morphine, and oxycodone, are frequently associated with preventable adverse drug reactions, abuse, and medication errors, underscoring the need for robust preventative measures and ongoing research to mitigate opioid-related harm.

Purpose: In 2019, the International Working Group (IWG), focusing on New Developments in Pharmacovigilance, was established. This group is coordinated by the Drug Safety Research Unit in the United Kingdom, and the mission of the IWG is to progress pharmacovigilance methodologies and promote the safe and effective use of medicines and vaccines, thereby further protecting patients. Novel therapeutics are continuously being developed to alleviate medical conditions, but with advancing technologies, innovative pharmacovigilance methodologies need to be developed to effectively monitor the use and safety of these products. With reduced timelines proposed for premarketing clinical trials and increased application of real-world evidence supporting regulatory approvals, products may be used in real-world clinical practice in shorter timeframes than before. Therefore, the need for effective methods of monitoring medicines and collecting safety data in real-time is of paramount importance to public health., Methods: The IWG aims to advance existing methodologies used in the detection, monitoring, and analysis of safety data in pharmacovigilance and to communicate best practice proposals to support decision making in health care. The IWG will identify areas requiring review of current processes or methodologic research and will communicate the output of the IWG through peer-reviewed publications, reports, and presentation of findings at relevant conferences and scientific meetings., Findings: The IWG is currently reviewing two areas in pharmacovigilance; case-level causality assessment and the strengths and limitations of data sources. The IWG is advancing these areas by producing two scoping reviews which will be easily accessible to regulatory agencies, industry, academia, and interested persons or organizations., Implications: The scoping reviews comply with the IWGs mission to progress pharmacovigilance methodologies and promote the safe and effective use of medicines and vaccines. The present article shares details of the objectives of the IWG and provides an overview on the status of IWG activities., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Dr Platt received consulting fees from Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Pfizer; and payment for expert testimony from Merck and Nant Pharma all unrelated to this work. Professor Shakir is a member of Drug Safety Monitoring Committee Diurnal and The Global Safety Advisory Group for Moderna, all unrelated to this work. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

In pharmacovigilance, disproportionality analyses based on individual case safety reports are widely used to detect safety signals. Unfortunately, publishing disproportionality analyses lacks specific guidelines, often leading to incomplete and ambiguous reporting, and carries the risk of incorrect conclusions when data are not placed in the correct context. The REporting of A Disproportionality analysis for drUg Safety signal detection using individual case safety reports in PharmacoVigilance (READUS-PV) statement was developed to address this issue by promoting transparent and comprehensive reporting of disproportionality studies. While the statement paper explains in greater detail the procedure followed to develop these guidelines, with this explanation paper we present the 14 items retained for READUS-PV guidelines, together with an in-depth explanation of their rationale and bullet points to illustrate their practical implementation. Our primary objective is to foster the adoption of the READUS-PV guidelines among authors, editors, peer reviewers, and readers of disproportionality analyses. Enhancing transparency, completeness, and accuracy of reporting, as well as proper interpretation of their results, READUS-PV guidelines will ultimately facilitate evidence-based decision making in pharmacovigilance., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background and Aim: Disproportionality analyses using reports of suspected adverse drug reactions are the most commonly used quantitative methods for detecting safety signals in pharmacovigilance. However, their methods and results are generally poorly reported in published articles and existing guidelines do not capture the specific features of disproportionality analyses. We here describe the development of a guideline (REporting of A Disproportionality analysis for drUg Safety signal detection using individual case safety reports in PharmacoVigilance [READUS-PV]) for reporting the results of disproportionality analyses in articles and abstracts., Methods: We established a group of 34 international experts from universities, the pharmaceutical industry, and regulatory agencies, with expertise in pharmacovigilance, disproportionality analyses, and assessment of safety signals. We followed a three-step process to develop the checklist: (1) an open-text survey to generate a first list of items; (2) an online Delphi method to select and rephrase the most important items; (3) a final online consensus meeting., Results: Among the panel members, 33 experts responded to round 1 and 30 to round 2 of the Delphi and 25 participated to the consensus meeting. Overall, 60 recommendations for the main body of the manuscript and 13 recommendations for the abstracts were retained by participants after the Delphi method. After merging of some items together and the online consensus meeting, the READUS-PV guidelines comprise a checklist of 32 recommendations, in 14 items, for the reporting of disproportionality analyses in the main body text and four items, comprising 12 recommendations, for abstracts., Conclusions: The READUS-PV guidelines will support authors, editors, peer-reviewers, and users of disproportionality analyses using individual case safety report databases. Adopting these guidelines will lead to more transparent, comprehensive, and accurate reporting and interpretation of disproportionality analyses, facilitating the integration with other sources of evidence., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Introduction: During the COVID-19 pandemic, EMA set-up a large-scale cohort event monitoring (CEM) system to estimate incidence rates of patient-reported adverse drug reactions (ADRs) of different COVID-19 vaccines across the participating countries. This study aims to give an up to date and in-depth analysis of the frequency of patient-reported ADRs after the 1st, 2nd, and booster vaccination, to identify potential predictors in developing ADRs and to describe time-to-onset (TTO) and time-to-recovery (TTR) of ADRs., Methods: A CEM study was rolled out in a period ranging from February 2021 to February 2023 across multiple European countries; The Netherlands, Belgium, France, the United Kingdom, Italy, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Spain. Analysis consisted of a descriptive analyses of frequencies of COVID-19 vaccine-related ADRs for 1st, 2nd and booster vaccination, analysis of potential predictors in developing ADRs with a generalized linear mixed-effects model, analysis of TTO and TTR of ADRs and a sensitivity analysis for loss to follow-up (L2FU)., Results: A total of 29,837 participants completed at least the baseline and the first follow-up questionnaire for 1st and 2nd vaccination and 7,250 participants for the booster. The percentage of participants who reported at least one ADR is 74.32% (95%CI 73.82-74.81). Solicited ADRs, including injection site reactions, are very common across vaccination moments. Potential predictors for these reactions are the brand of vaccine used, the patient's age, sex and prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. The percentage of serious ADRs in the study is low for 1st and 2nd vaccination (0.24%, 95%CI 0.19--0.31) and booster (0.26%, 95%CI 0.15, 0.41). The TTO was 14 h (median) for dose 1 and slightly longer for dose 2 and booster dose. TTR is generally also within a few days. The effect of L2FU on estimations of frequency is limited., Conclusion: Despite some limitations due to study design and study-roll out, CEM studies can allow prompt and almost real-time observations of the safety of medications directly from a patient-centered perspective, which can play a crucial role for regulatory bodies during an emergency setting such as the COVID-19 pandemic., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: The effect of a preexisting comorbidity on the occurrence of adverse events after immunization (AEFIs) has been studied poorly. In this longitudinal cohort study, we assess the association between co-morbidities and the occurrence of AEFIs after COVID-19 vaccination. Also, we described the occurrence of flare-ups and their manifestation after COVID-19 vaccination in people with rheumatic diseases., Research Design and Methods: We performed multivariable logistic regression to investigate the association between the occurrence of AEFIs and 10 common comorbidities using patient-reported data from people vaccinated with the AstraZeneca, Johnson&Johnson, Moderna, or Pfizer vaccine., Results: Occurrence of any AEFI, injection site reactions, headache, fatigue, and/or malaise was significantly associated with presence of comorbidities, including psychological disorders, musculoskeletal disorders, and endocrine disorders after the first and second doses (OR ranges 1.23-1.77). One participant with rheumatoid arthritis experienced a flare-up after receiving the first dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine., Discussion/conclusion: The results showed that the odds of reporting an AEFI after COVID-19 vaccination is significantly higher in the presence of some comorbidities whilst flare-ups are uncommon after receiving COVID-19 vaccination in people with rheumatic disease. In-depth research is needed to validate our results and unravel the observed associations from a mechanistic perspective.

In all pivotal trials of COVID-19 vaccines, the history of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection was mentioned as one of the main exclusion criteria. In the absence of clinical trials, observational studies are the primary source for evidence generation. This study aims to describe the patient-reported adverse drug reactions (ADRs) following the first COVID-19 vaccination cycle, as well as the administration of booster doses of different vaccine brands, in people with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, as compared to prior infection-free matched cohorts of vaccinees. A web-based prospective study was conducted collecting vaccinee-reported outcomes through electronic questionnaires from eleven European countries in the period February 2021-February 2023. A baseline questionnaire and up to six follow-up questionnaires collected data on the vaccinee's characteristics, as well as solicited and unsolicited adverse reactions. Overall, 3886 and 902 vaccinees with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and having received the first dose or a booster dose, respectively, were included in the analysis. After the first dose or booster dose, vaccinees with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection reported at least one ADR at a higher frequency than those matched without prior infection (3470 [89.6%] vs. 2916 [75.3%], and 614 [68.2%] vs. 546 [60.6%], respectively). On the contrary side, after the second dose, vaccinees with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection reported at least one ADR at a lower frequency, compared to matched controls (1443 [85.0%] vs. 1543 [90.9%]). The median time to onset and the median time to recovery were similar across all doses and cohorts. The frequency of adverse reactions was higher in individuals with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection who received Vaxzevria as the first dose and Spikevax as the second and booster doses. The frequency of serious ADRs was low for all doses and cohorts. Data from this large-scale prospective study of COVID-19 vaccinees could be used to inform people as to the likelihood of adverse effects based on their history of SARS-CoV-2 infection, age, sex, and the type of vaccine administered. In line with pivotal trials, the safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines was also confirmed in people with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Background: Medication errors (MEs) by caregivers at home are a cause of morbidity and mortality, shortly after discharge from the hospital., Objectives: The objective of this study was to determine the rate and types of MEs at the homes of children discharged from a hospital in Ghana and to explore the factors associated with these errors., Design: This was a cross-sectional study of infants and children discharged from the hospital to review medication administration practices., Methods: Caregivers of children discharged from the hospital after at least 24 hours of admission were interviewed at their homes about medication administration practices. The study assessed potential harm associated with MEs made by caregivers using the Harm Associated with Medication Error Classification tool. The Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator regression were used to identify the variables associated with MEs., Results: A total of 95 children (mean age: 28.6 months, 52.6% female) and their caregivers were included. Overall, 65 (68.4%) children experienced one or more MEs. Out of a total of 232 medications reviewed, 102 (44.0%) (95% CI: 37.6-50.4) were associated with a ME. The top two errors, wrong time errors and errors in the frequency of dosing were, 45.1% and 21.6%, respectively. Understanding the information on the disease condition being treated and the medicines dispensed was associated with committing fewer MEs. The number of medicines prescribed was associated with a higher likelihood of MEs. Out of 102 MEs, 48 (47.1%) were assessed as posing potentially no harm, 26 (25.5%) minor harm, 15 (14.7%) moderate harm, and 13 (12.8%) serious harm to the patients. Importantly, none of the MEs were assessed as posing potentially severe or life-threatening harm to the patients., Conclusion: MEs in children following discharge are high, and systems should be developed to prevent these errors., Competing Interests: The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest., (© The Author(s), 2024.)

In healthcare workers (HCWs) and in the general population, fear of adverse effects is among the main reasons behind COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. We present data on self-reported adverse effects from a large cohort of HCWs who underwent primary (N = 470) and booster (N = 990) mRNA vaccination against SARS-CoV-2. We described general patterns in, and predictors of self-reported adverse effect profiles. Adverse effects following immunisation (AEFI) were reported more often after the second dose of primary immunisation than after the first dose, but there was no further increase in adverse effects following the booster round. Self-reported severity of systemic adverse effects was less following booster immunisation. Prior infection with SARS-CoV-2 was found to be a significant predictor of AEFI following primary immunisation, but was no longer a predictor after booster vaccination. Compared to other studies reporting specifically on adverse effects of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in healthcare workers, we have a relatively large cohort size, and are the first to compare adverse effects between different rounds of vaccination. Compared to studies in the general population, we have a considerably homogenous population. Insights in AEFI following primary and booster vaccinations may help in addressing vaccine hesitancy, both in HCWs and in the general population.

Aims: The spreading of MPox (monkeypox) virus led to a vaccination campaign in the Netherlands for individuals at high risk of infection. This overview elucidates the characteristics of the reported adverse events following immunization (AEFI) following active immunization against monkeypox and thereby provides insight on the safety profile in daily practice., Methods: Data were collected from the spontaneous reporting system of the Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb. Furthermore, the global database of the World Health Organization was consulted on globally reported AEFI following smallpox or monkeypox immunization in 2022., Results: Until 15 November 2022, 148 unique individual case safety reports (ICSRs) regarding monkeypox vaccination were received at Lareb. Two ICSRs reported a serious outcome (1.4%). A total of 2205 ICSRs were received in the global database in 2022, of which 131 reports (5.9%) concerned a serious reaction. Reported AEFI in both databases mainly included injection site reactions and general systemic reactions commonly observed after vaccination., Conclusion: The pattern of reported AEFI for monkeypox vaccines both in the Dutch and global ICSR database is generally in accordance with the manufacturer's product information and consists largely of injection site reactions and nonserious AEFI related to systemic reactogenicity., (© 2023 British Pharmacological Society.)

Introduction: Opioids are commonly used as analgesics; however, like any medicine, they can produce adverse drug reactions (ADRs), including nausea, constipation, dependence, and respiratory depression, that result in harmful and fatal events. Therefore, it is essential to monitor the safety of these drugs in clinical practice., Objective: This study aimed to characterize the safety profile of opioids by conducting a descriptive study based on a spontaneous reporting system (SRS) for ADRs in The Netherlands, focusing on abuse, misuse, medication errors, and differences between sexes., Methods: Reports submitted to the Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb from January 2003 to December 2021 with an opioid drug as the suspected/interacting medicine were analyzed. Reporting odds ratios (RORs) for drug-ADR combinations were calculated, analyzed, and corrected for sex and drug utilization (expenditure) for the Dutch population., Results: A total of 8769 reports were analyzed. Tramadol was the opioid with the most reports during the period (n = 2746), while oxycodone or tramadol had the highest number of reports per year in the study period. The most reported ADRs from opioid use were nausea, followed by dizziness and vomiting, independent of sex, and all of them were more often reported in women. Vomiting associated with tramadol (ROR females/males = 2.17) was significantly higher in women. Buprenorphine was responsible for most ADRs when corrected for expenditure, with high RORs observed with application site hypersensitivity, application site reaction, and application site rash. Fentanyl gave rise to most of the reports of ADRs concerning abuse, misuse, and medication errors., Conclusion: Patients treated with opioids experienced ADRs, primarily nausea, dizziness, and vomiting. For those groups of drugs, no significant differences were found between the sexes, except for the vomiting associated with tramadol. In general, ADRs related to opioids presented higher RORs when uncorrected and corrected for sexes and expenditure than other drugs. There was more disproportionate reporting for ADRs concerning abuse, misuse, and medication errors for opioids than other drugs in the Dutch SRS., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

Aims: During the COVID-19 vaccination campaigns, the number of reports of menstrual abnormalities increased rapidly. Here, we describe the nature and potential risk factors associated with menstrual abnormalities based on spontaneously reporting data as well as data from a prospective cohort event monitoring (CEM) study as these are poorly studied., Methods: Reports of menstrual abnormalities received by the Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb in the spontaneous reporting system between February 2021 and April 2022 were summarized. In addition, logistic regression analysis was performed on the reported menstrual abnormalities in the CEM study to assess the association between person characteristics, prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and use of hormonal contraceptives and the occurrence of menstrual abnormalities after vaccination., Results: We analysed over 24 000 spontaneous reports of menstrual abnormalities and over 500 episodes (among 16 929 included women) of menstrual abnormalities in the CEM study. The CEM study showed an incidence of 41.4 per 1000 women aged ≤54 years. Amenorrhoea/oligomenorrhoea and heavy menstrual bleeding collectively accounted for about half of all abnormalities reported. Significant associations were observed for the age group 25-34 years (odds ratio 2.18; 95% confidence interval 1.45-3.41) and the Pfizer vaccine (odds ratio 3.04; 95% confidence interval 2.36-3.93). No association was observed for body mass index and presence of most comorbidities assessed., Conclusion: The cohort study showed a high incidence of menstrual disorders among women aged ≤54 years, and this observation was supported by the analysis of spontaneous reports. This suggests that a relation between COVID-19 vaccination and menstrual abnormalities is plausible and should be further investigated., (© 2023 British Pharmacological Society.)

Aim: Reactivation of the scar resulting from intradermal injection of bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) is a common specific reaction in Kawasaki's disease. It has also sporadically been associated with viral infections, multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, influenza vaccination and mRNA COVID-19 vaccination. In this case series, characteristics of BCG scar reactivation after different COVID-19 vaccinations are presented and possible mechanisms are discussed., Methods: Data were collected from the spontaneous reporting system of the Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb. Descriptives were made for the case reports in which a BCG scar reactivation was detected., Results: Since the start of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign in January 2021, the Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb has received 22 case reports of BCG reactivation after vaccination with a COVID-19 vaccine. In 20 case reports, it concerned mRNA COVID-19 vaccines Moderna (14) and Pfizer (6). In two case reports, the viral vector COVID-19 vaccine AstraZeneca was administered. Erythema and pain were the most frequently reported symptoms and the size of the inflammation was between 1.5 and 5 cm. BCG scar reactivation occurred with a median time to onset of 2 days after the second or booster COVID-19 vaccination, whereas the median time to onset was 7 days after the first COVID-19 vaccination. None of the BCG scar reactivations were treated., Conclusions: The exact mechanism of the occurrence of BCG scar reactivation remains unknown, but involvement of heat shock protein 65 is suggested. BCG scar reactivation is a nonserious, self-limiting reaction that can occur after vaccination with both mRNA and viral vector COVID-19 vaccines., (© 2023 British Pharmacological Society.)

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., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

This paper reports the presence of undeclared drugs in the herbal slimming supplement Sulami®. The four cases of the adverse drug reactions related to Sulami® were reported to the Dutch Pharmacovigilance Centre (Lareb) or the Dutch Poisons Information Centre (DPIC). The analysis of all four collected samples revealed adulteration with sibutramine and canrenone. Both drugs can cause serious adverse drug reactions. From a legal point of view, it is clear that Sulami® does not meet the legal requirement for safety. As defined in the European General Food Law Regulation, food business operators are responsible for food safety. This also applies to online store owners who sell herbal preparations. Thus, it is clear that it is forbidden to sell Sulami® on the European and Dutch market. Collaboration between involved national authorities makes it possible to identify risky products. This allows the nationally responsible regulators to take targeted action. They can call on users to report sell points what makes it possible to arrest the sellers and confiscate the dangerous products. Beyond the national, also, the European enforcement organizations should take legal measures where possible, to protect public health. The Heads of Food Safety Agencies Working Group on Food Supplements "an Initiative on European level" is a good example of efforts to improve consumer safety., (© 2023 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Introduction: COVID-19 vaccines were rapidly authorised, thus requiring intense post-marketing re-evaluation of their benefit-risk profile. A multi-national European collaboration was established with the aim to prospectively monitor safety of the COVID-19 vaccines through web-based survey of vaccinees., Methods: A prospective cohort event monitoring study was conducted with primary consented data collection in seven European countries. Through the web applications, participants received and completed baseline and up to six follow-up questionnaires on self-reported adverse reactions for at least 6 months following the first dose of COVID-19 vaccine (Netherlands, France, Belgium, UK, Italy) and baseline and up to ten follow-up questionnaires for one year in Germany and Croatia. Rates of adverse reactions have been described by type (solicited, non-solicited; serious/non-serious; and adverse events of special interest) and stratified by vaccine brand. We calculated the frequency of adverse reaction after dose 1 and prior to dose 2 among all vaccinees who completed at least one follow-up questionnaire., Results: Overall, 117,791 participants were included and completed the first questionnaire in addition to the baseline: 88,196 (74.9%) from Germany, 27,588 (23.4%) from Netherlands, 984 (0.8%) from France, 570 (0.5%) from Italy, 326 (0.3%) from Croatia, 89 (0.1%) from the UK and 38 (0.03%) from Belgium. There were 89,377 (75.9%) respondents who had received AstraZeneca vaccines, 14,658 (12.4%) BioNTech/Pfizer, 11,266 (9.6%) Moderna and 2490 (2.1%) Janssen vaccines as a first dose. Median age category was 40-49 years for all vaccines except for Pfizer where median age was 70-79 years. Most vaccinees were female with a female-to-male ratio of 1.34, 1.96 and 2.50 for AstraZeneca, Moderna and Janssen, respectively. BioNtech/Pfizer had slightly more men with a ratio of 0.82. Fatigue and headache were the most commonly reported solicited systemic adverse reactions and injection-site pain was the most common solicited local reaction. The rates of adverse events of special interest (AESIs) were 0.1-0.2% across all vaccine brands., Conclusion: This large-scale prospective study of COVID-19 vaccine recipients showed, for all the studied vaccines, a high frequency of systemic reactions, related to the immunogenic response, and local reactions at the injection site, while serious reactions or AESIs were uncommon, consistent with those reported on product labels. This study demonstrated the feasibility of setting up and conducting cohort event monitoring across multiple European countries to collect safety data on novel vaccines that are rolled out at scale in populations which may not have been included in pivotal trials., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

Background: Albeit the need for sex-disaggregated results of adverse events after immunization (AEFIs) is gaining attention since the COVID-19 pandemic, studies with emphasis on sexual dimorphism in response to COVID-19 vaccination are relatively scarce. This prospective cohort study aimed to assess differences in the incidence and course of reported AEFIs after COVID-19 vaccination between males and females in the Netherlands and provides a summary of sex-disaggregated outcomes in published literature., Methods: Patient reported outcomes of AEFIs over a six month period following the first vaccination with BioNTech-Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Moderna or the Johnson&Johnson vaccine were collected in a Cohort Event Monitoring study. Logistic regression was used to assess differences in incidence of 'any AEFI', local reactions and the top ten most reported AEFIs between the sexes. Effects of age, vaccine brand, comorbidities, prior COVID-19 infection and the use of antipyretic drugs were analyzed as well. Also, time-to-onset, time-to-recovery and perceived burden of AEFIs was compared between the sexes. Third, a literature review was done to retrieve sex-disaggregated outcomes of COVID-19 vaccination., Results: The cohort included 27,540 vaccinees (38.5% males). Females showed around two-fold higher odds of having any AEFI as compared to males with most pronounced differences after the first dose and for nausea and injection site inflammation. Age was inversely associated with AEFI incidence, whereas a prior COVID-19 infection, the use of antipyretic drugs and several comorbidities were positively associated. The perceived burden of AEFIs and time-to-recovery were slightly higher in females., Discussion: The results of this large cohort study correspond to existing evidence and contribute to the knowledge gain necessary to disentangle the magnitude of the effect sex in response to vaccination. Whilst females have a significant higher probability of experiencing an AEFI than males, we observed that the course and burden is only to a minor extent different between the sexes., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Duijster, Lieber, Pacelli, Van Balveren, Ruijs, Raethke, Kant and Van Hunsel.)

Introduction: Due to the COVID-19 vaccination campaign, national pharmacovigilance (PV) centres had to deal with high volumes of Individual Case Safety Reports (ICSRs) that needed to be processed and assessed in a short time span. This necessitated the development of a dedicated system to enable near real-time vaccine safety monitoring at the Dutch PV Centre Lareb., Objectives: To describe infrastructure, processes and Adverse Events Following Immunisation (AEFIs) reported for vaccine safety monitoring of COVID-19 vaccines during a large-scale vaccination campaign in the Netherlands., Methods: A COVID-19 tailored vaccine web-based reporting form collected information on the vaccine administered, AEFIs and other (medical) information. A fully automated process for ICSRs enabled the handling of the majority of common and known reported AEFIs. All other ICSRs were triaged daily and processed separately. There were daily signal detection meetings and weekly reports for batch analysis., Results: In 2021, Lareb received 184,411 ICSRs, a reporting rate of 0.67% for vaccines given in the Netherlands. 887,954 AEFIs were reported, mostly well-known, nonserious AEFIs; 2.4% were serious and 0.3% were fatal. 33.1% of all ICSRs were processed fully automatically. Based on the daily triage, 4.2% were flagged as 'high priority'; 62.7% as 'low-priority'. Twenty-seven signals and news stories about the COVID-19 vaccines were disseminated., Conclusions: Due to automatic processing of well-known AEFIs, daily triage and signal detection meetings, 99.9% of the ICSRs were processed within the compliance timeframe to Eudravigilance, and signal detection was performed during a large-scale vaccination campaign. These experiences may serve as a blueprint for future mass vaccination programs., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

Introduction: Involving patients in decision making adds value in the context of pharmacovigilance (PV). This added value goes beyond participation in spontaneous reporting systems for adverse drug reactions. However, there is a gap between allowing patients to report and actual patient involvement. Views regarding best practices from regulators, patient organizations and pharmaceutical companies could help increase and improve patient involvement in PV., Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the factors contributing to best practices for patient involvement in PV and to develop a definition of patient involvement based on a qualitative multistakeholder study across Europe., Methods: A literature review was conducted to map the field of study and obtain insights for the elaboration of an interview guide. Subsequently, patient representatives, members of the pharmaceutical industry and regulators were invited to participate in interviews. These interviews were analyzed using NVIVO ® software and employing reflective thematic analysis., Results: A total of 20 interviews were conducted with representatives at both the national and European levels. The best practices identified were engagement from the start, face-to-face communication, a full circle of feedback, same-level partners, structured involvement and guidelines, establishing common goals, patient education and empowerment, and developing trust and balance. These activities can be implemented via deep collaboration among stakeholders. A definition of patient involvement was constructed in accordance with the input of all stakeholder groups, which reflects the involvement of all types of patients at all levels of the decision-making process., Conclusion: In this study, we developed a definition for patient involvement based on qualitative interviews. The factors contributing to best practices for patient involvement were mentioned across stakeholder groups and aimed to stimulate patient involvement in PV. Patients are eager to become equal partners and to engage effortlessly in the same manner as other stakeholders., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

Background: Adverse drug reaction (ADR) reports in pharmacovigilance databases often contain coded information and large amounts of unstructured or semi-structured information in plain text format. The unstructured format and sheer volume of these data often render them neglected. Structural topic modelling (STM) represents a potentially insightful way of harnessing these valuable data and to detect grouping or themes in spontaneous reports to aid signal detection., Purpose: This was an explorative study of the potential for structural topic modelling to identify useful patterns in ADR reports involving opioid drugs in a pharmacovigilance database., Methods: A dataset of ADR reports on opioid drugs reported to the Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb from 1991 to December 2020 was used, comprising a total of 3069 unique reports. Qualitative text analysis was combined with STM, an automated text analysis method, to examine these data., Results: In reports submitted directly by patients and healthcare professionals, 11 meaningful topics were identified, whereby patient experience reports, particularly in relation to pain (relief), and the timing of intake and ADRs of tramadol and paracetamol, were the most common. Of the 12 topics identified in reports received via marketing authorization holders, patch and skin-related side effects, addiction and constipation were the most prevalent., Conclusions: The STM-based analysis identified information that cannot always be captured by coding with the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA®). The identified topics reflect findings in the literature on opioids., (© 2022 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The Dutch Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb receives an increasing number of reports on products that fall within the grey area of non-registered health-enhancing products, including supplements. Currently, there is no structural vigilance approach to handling these spontaneous reports of suspected adverse events. This explorative study identified whether and how a vigilance framework in the Netherlands can be organised to contribute to consumer protection from adverse reactions to health-enhancing food products. Conducted interviews showed that involved organisations form a complex network, without official governance structures. Organisations lack a legal basis to handling reports, whilst representatives do feel the need to take reports seriously. Interviewees identified various opportunities to improve vigilance, including raising consumer awareness. Following our study, first steps were taken towards improving safety by officially designating Lareb to study adverse events. Further advances to food supplement safety were announced by the Dutch Ministry but have not yet been implemented. With highly differing approaches to governing vigilance in- and outside the EU, it remains necessary to further analyse how nutrivigilance can be organised best to stimulate consumer protection from unsafe substances., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)