Challenges to the Consolidation of Pharmacovigilance Practices in Brazil: Limitations of the Hospital Pharmacist

Overview

Journal Ther Adv Drug Saf

Publisher Sage Publications

Date 2020 Sep 1

PMID 32864089

Citations 3

Authors

Paulo Henrique Santos Andrade

Amanda Carvalho Barreiros de Almeida

Ana Keilla Santana Dos Santos

Iza Maria Fraga Lobo

Francilene Amaral da Silva

Wellington Barros da Silva

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Aims: The aim of this study was to present the needs of hospital pharmacists in pharmacovigilance practices.

Methods: This study has a cross-sectional design and was carried out with hospital pharmacists in Brazil. The sample was obtained by voluntary recruitment. Pharmacists who worked at Brazilian hospitals and were registered in their respective regulatory councils were invited to participate in the present study. A personalized questionnaire was developed by the authors and was electronically filled out by the respondents on the platform 'Google forms'. The questionnaire was nationally available on the digital platform of the Pharmacy Federal Council, the Brazilian Society of Hospital Pharmacy and Health Services, four Pharmacy regional councils and the social network farmacêuticoclínico. Quantitative variables were analyzed by mean and standard deviation. The qualitative variables were analyzed by means of absolute and relative frequency. Difficulties related to pharmacovigilance activities are presented in an Ishikawa diagram in the Supplemental Material online.

Results: Of the 27 federative units of Brazil, we obtained answers from pharmacists located in 85.2% ( = 23) of them. Among the pharmacovigilance practices developed by Brazilian pharmacists, the adverse drug reaction investigation (55.4%) and notification activities (47.0%) were worthy of note. Numerous difficulties were reported by the pharmacists, highlighting the difficulty in monitoring the medication and imputation of causality (27.7%). After categorizing the difficulties reported, it was observed that the category 'people involved' (45.1%) stood out from the others.

Conclusion: This study pointed out numerous challenges to pharmacovigilance practices involving pharmacists in Brazil. It is believed that the correction of certain difficulties may impact on the better consolidation of pharmacovigilance activities in the country. However, regulatory agencies at all hierarchical levels of pharmacovigilance must work together to make it possible.

Plain Language Summary: This is a study that seeks to present the needs of Brazilian hospital pharmacists in relation to pharmacovigilance activities. Through online interviews, pharmacists answered a questionnaire, presented the pharmacovigilance activities they develop and expressed their anxieties and difficulties for the development of these activities. With this study, it was concluded that numerous activities of active search, investigation and notification of adverse drug reaction are developed by Brazilian pharmacists. However, each pharmacist performs a different method of pharmacovigilance. In addition, it was observed that among the interviewees there was a perception of insufficient professional training and a shortage of professionals to assist in pharmacovigilance activities. These were the main difficulties reported. Therefore, the search for models or agile solutions to solve problems involving adverse drug reactions seems necessary for a better consolidation of pharmacovigilance services in Brazil.

Citing Articles

Pharmacy practice and policy research in Türkiye: a systematic review of literature.

Gulpinar G, Pehlivanli A, Babaar Z J Pharm Policy Pract. 2024; 17(1):2385939.

PMID: 39139388 PMC: 11321099. DOI: 10.1080/20523211.2024.2385939.

Impact of the Role of the Clinical Pharmacist on the Underreporting of Adverse Drug Reactions at a Peruvian hospital.

Delgado-Perez G, Davila-Espinoza C, Beltran-Noblega C Hosp Pharm. 2023; 58(3):295-303.

PMID: 37216081 PMC: 10192994. DOI: 10.1177/00185787221138006.

Causality assessment of adverse drug reactions by applying a global introspection method in a high complexity hospital.

Rezende de Menezes R, Graciano Silva M, Ribeiro A, Pinto Filho M, Martinho G, Carvalho Ferreira L Explor Res Clin Soc Pharm. 2022; 3:100064.

PMID: 35480605 PMC: 9032013. DOI: 10.1016/j.rcsop.2021.100064.

References

Beninger P . Pharmacovigilance: Challenges in Getting From Here to There. Clin Ther. 2018; 40(12):1964-1966. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2018.10.020. View

Varallo F, Forgerini M, Herdeiro M, Mastroianni P . Harmonization of Pharmacovigilance Regulation in Brazil: Opportunities to Improve Risk Communication. Clin Ther. 2019; 41(3):598-603. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2019.01.013. View

Silva L, Modesto A, Martins R, Bessa G, Lopes F . The Brazilian Portuguese version of the Pediatric Trigger Toolkit is applicable to measure the occurrence of adverse drug events in Brazilian pediatric inpatients. J Pediatr (Rio J). 2018; 95(1):61-68. DOI: 10.1016/j.jped.2017.10.009. View

van Grootheest A, de Jong-van den Berg L . The role of hospital and community pharmacists in pharmacovigilance. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2006; 1(1):126-33. DOI: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2004.12.009. View

Mota D, Vigo A, de Souza Kuchenbecker R . Evolution and key elements of the Brazilian pharmacovigilance system: a scoping review beginning with the creation of the Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency. Cad Saude Publica. 2018; 34(10):e00000218. DOI: 10.1590/0102-311X00000218. View

Moscou K, Kohler J, MaGahan A . Governance and pharmacovigilance in Brazil: a scoping review. J Pharm Policy Pract. 2016; 9:3. PMC: 4746882. DOI: 10.1186/s40545-016-0053-y. View

Elshafie S, Zaghloul I, Roberti A . Pharmacovigilance in developing countries (part I): importance and challenges. Int J Clin Pharm. 2017; 40(4):758-763. DOI: 10.1007/s11096-017-0570-z. View

Mascolo A, Scavone C, Sessa M, Mauro G, Cimmaruta D, Orlando V . Can causality assessment fulfill the new European definition of adverse drug reaction? A review of methods used in spontaneous reporting. Pharmacol Res. 2017; 123:122-129. DOI: 10.1016/j.phrs.2017.07.005. View

Ribeiro A, Lima S, Zampieri M, Peinado M, Figueras A . Filling quality of the reports of adverse drug reactions received at the Pharmacovigilance Centre of São Paulo (Brazil): missing information hinders the analysis of suspected associations. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2017; 16(12):1329-1334. DOI: 10.1080/14740338.2017.1369525. View

10.

Suzuki R, Ohtsu F, Goto N . [Development and Validation of Estimate Equations for Adverse Drug Reactions Using Risk Factors and Subjective Symptoms]. Yakugaku Zasshi. 2015; 135(7):895-916. DOI: 10.1248/yakushi.14-00225. View

11.

Varallo F, Planeta C, Mastroianni P . Effectiveness of pharmacovigilance: multifaceted educational intervention related to the knowledge, skills and attitudes of multidisciplinary hospital staff. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2017; 72(1):51-57. PMC: 5251201. DOI: 10.6061/clinics/2017(01)09. View

12.

Martins R, Silva L, Bessa G, Lopes F . Trigger tools are as effective as non-targeted chart review for adverse drug event detection in intensive care units. Saudi Pharm J. 2018; 26(8):1155-1161. PMC: 6260494. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsps.2018.07.003. View

13.

Hadi M, Neoh C, Zin R, Elrggal M, Cheema E . Pharmacovigilance: pharmacists' perspective on spontaneous adverse drug reaction reporting. Integr Pharm Res Pract. 2018; 6:91-98. PMC: 5774327. DOI: 10.2147/IPRP.S105881. View

14.

Takata G, Mason W, Taketomo C, Logsdon T, Sharek P . Development, testing, and findings of a pediatric-focused trigger tool to identify medication-related harm in US children's hospitals. Pediatrics. 2008; 121(4):e927-35. DOI: 10.1542/peds.2007-1779. View

15.

Khan L, Al-Harthi S, Osman A, Alim A Sattar M, Ali A . Dilemmas of the causality assessment tools in the diagnosis of adverse drug reactions. Saudi Pharm J. 2016; 24(4):485-93. PMC: 4908100. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsps.2015.01.010. View

16.

Varallo F, Guimaraes S, Abjaude S, Mastroianni P . [Causes for the underreporting of adverse drug events by health professionals: a systematic review]. Rev Esc Enferm USP. 2014; 48(4):739-47. DOI: 10.1590/s0080-623420140000400023. View

17.

Al Rabayah A, Hanoun E, Al Rumman R . Assessing knowledge, attitude, and practices of health-care providers toward pharmacovigilance and adverse drug reaction reporting at a comprehensive cancer center in Jordan. Perspect Clin Res. 2019; 10(3):115-120. PMC: 6647901. DOI: 10.4103/picr.PICR_4_18. View

18.

Santos T, Penm J, Baldoni A, Ayres L, Moles R, Sanches C . Hospital pharmacy workforce in Brazil. Hum Resour Health. 2018; 16(1):1. PMC: 5755413. DOI: 10.1186/s12960-017-0265-5. View

19.

Okuyama J, Galvao T, Silva M . Healthcare Professional's Perception of Patient Safety Measured by the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. ScientificWorldJournal. 2018; 2018:9156301. PMC: 6076892. DOI: 10.1155/2018/9156301. View

20.

Rehan H, Chopra D, Holani S, Mishra R . An observational study to compare the contents and quality of information furnished in CDSCO ADR reporting form, yellow card, medwatch and blue form by the healthcare professionals. Int J Risk Saf Med. 2014; 26(1):1-8. DOI: 10.3233/JRS-140608. View