IPSIndian Journal of Pharmacology
Home  IPS  Feedback Subscribe Top cited articles Login 
Users Online : 3036 
Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
Navigate Here
 »   Next article
 »   Previous article
 »   Table of Contents

Resource Links
 »   Similar in PUBMED
 »  Search Pubmed for
 »  Search in Google Scholar for
 »Related articles
 »   Citation Manager
 »   Access Statistics
 »   Reader Comments
 »   Email Alert *
 »   Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed3659    
    Printed112    
    Emailed2    
    PDF Downloaded435    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

 

 RESEARCH ARTICLE
Year : 2015  |  Volume : 47  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 65-71

Under-reporting of adverse drug reactions: A challenge for pharmacovigilance in India


Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Government Medical College, Jammu, J and K, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Vishal R Tandon
Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Government Medical College, Jammu, J and K,
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: IPC, Gaziabad New Delhi India, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0253-7613.150344

Rights and Permissions

Aim: The aim was to evaluate the extent and factors responsible for underreporting (UR) of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in India. Materials and Methods: A retrospective observational, cross-sectional prospective questionnaire-based analysis was undertaken to evaluate the extent and factors for UR of ADRs in pharmacovigilance. Results: At the time, this report was prepared, 90 ADR Monitoring Centers (AMC) were operational in India. Indian AMC functional rate was 56.45%. The average number of Individual Case Safety Reports reported by our center via VigiFlow per month was 48.038. In a period of the 3 years the total number of ADRs reported was 3024. The average number of reports per month was 80.08. Active surveillance versus spontaneous reporting contributed 66.13% versus 33.86% of the total ADRs (P < 0.0001). Outpatient Department (OPD) contribution was 76.05% and indoor contribution was 23.94% of total reports (P < 0.0001). Department of Medicine (33%), followed by oncology (19.27%) and chest disease (13.49%) contributed maximally. The contribution of Pharmacology ADR monitoring OPD was 16.20%. Eye, ear, nose and throat and surgery, private Medical Colleges, hospitals in periphery, sub-district and district contributed no ADRs. ADR detection rates by clinical presentation, biochemical investigation and diagnostic tools were 84.33%, 14.57%, and 1.09% respectively (P < 0.0001). Reporting by postgraduate, registrars, consultants and nurses were 72.65%, 6.58%, 16.56% and 4.19% respectively (P < 0.0001). PG students in Pharmacology contributed an average number of 5.61 ADR reports/month. The lack of knowledge and awareness about Pharmacovigilance Programme of India (PvPI), lethargy, indifference, insecurity, complacency, workload, lack of training were the common factors responsible for UR. Major academic activity, exams, thesis and synopsis submission time influenced reporting of ADRs by postgraduate students. Conclusion: UR is a matter of concern PvPI. Multiple interventions are needed to improve ADR reporting.






[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*


        
Print this article     Email this article

Site Map | Home | Contact Us | Feedback | Copyright and Disclaimer
Online since 20th July '04
Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow