Alpha 2.0
Login Register
» Articles » PMID: 24991604

Side Effects of Antineoplastic and Immunomodulating Medications Reported by European Consumers

Overview
Journal J Res Pharm Pract
Date 2014 Jul 4
PMID 24991604
Authors
Lise Aagaard
Ebba Holme Hansen
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: To characterize adverse drug reactions (ADRs) reported by European (EU) consumer for antineoplastic and immunomodulating medications.

Methods: ADRs reported by consumers of antineoplastic and immunomodulating medications (anatomical therapeutic chemical [ATC]) group L from 2007 to 2011 and located in the EU ADR database, EudraVigilance, were analyzed. Data were categorized with respect to age and sex, category, and seriousness of reported ADRs and medications. The unit of analysis was one ADR.

Findings: We located 9649 ADRs reported for antineoplastic and immunomodulating medications, which approximately 15% of were serious, including 26 deaths. Less than 5% of ADRs were reported in children. Totally 73% of ADRs were reported for women and 27% for men. The majority of ADRs were of the type "general disorders and administration site conditions" (54% of total ADRs), followed by "skin and subcutaneous disorders" (7% of total ADRs), and "infections and infestations" (6% of total ADRs). Reports encompassed medicines from the therapeutic groups: Imunosupressants (ATC group L04) (90% of all ADRs), immunostimulants (ATC group L03) (6% of all ADRS), and antineoplastic agents (ATC group L01) (4% of all ADRs). Many ADRs were reported for etanercept (Enbrel(®)), Interferon beta (Betaferon(®)/Extavia(®)), and imatinib (Glivec(®)) with only few being serious.

Conclusion: In general, consumers reported a high number of ADRs from the use of antineoplastic and immunostimulant medications and many of these were classified as non-serious. This indicates that consumers are interesting in reporting ADRs, but since the investigated substances potentially have the risk of causing many ADRs, we expected a higher number of serious ADRs.

Citing Articles

Protective Effect of Silver Nanoparticles Against Cytosine Arabinoside Genotoxicity: An In Vivo Micronucleus Assay.

Castaneda-Yslas I, Torres-Bugarin O, Arellano-Garcia M, Ruiz-Ruiz B, Garcia-Ramos J, Toledano-Magana Y Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2025; 21(12.

PMID: 39767527 PMC: 11675496. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph21121689.

References
1.
Aagaard L, Nielsen L, Hansen E . Consumer reporting of adverse drug reactions: a retrospective analysis of the Danish adverse drug reaction database from 2004 to 2006. Drug Saf. 2009; 32(11):1067-74. DOI: 10.2165/11316680-000000000-00000. View
2.
Blenkinsopp A, Wilkie P, Wang M, Routledge P . Patient reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions: a review of published literature and international experience. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2007; 63(2):148-56. PMC: 2000570. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2006.02746.x. View
3.
de Langen J, van Hunsel F, Passier A, de Jong-van den Berg L, van Grootheest K . Adverse drug reaction reporting by patients in the Netherlands: three years of experience. Drug Saf. 2008; 31(6):515-24. DOI: 10.2165/00002018-200831060-00006. View
4.
van Hunsel F, Harmark L, Pal S, Olsson S, van Grootheest K . Experiences with adverse drug reaction reporting by patients: an 11-country survey. Drug Saf. 2011; 35(1):45-60. DOI: 10.2165/11594320-000000000-00000. View
5.
Hansen E . Technology assessment in a user perspective--experiences with drug technology. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1992; 8(1):150-65. DOI: 10.1017/s0266462300008011. View