Title |
Using VigiBase to Identify Substandard Medicines: Detection Capacity and Key Prerequisites
|
---|---|
Published in |
Drug Safety, February 2015
|
DOI | 10.1007/s40264-015-0271-2 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Kristina Juhlin, Ghazaleh Karimi, Maria Andér, Sara Camilli, Mukesh Dheda, Tan Siew Har, Rokiah Isahak, Su-Jung Lee, Sarah Vaughan, Pia Caduff, G. Niklas Norén |
Abstract |
Substandard medicines, whether the result of intentional manipulation or lack of compliance with good manufacturing practice (GMP) or good distribution practice (GDP), pose a significant potential threat to patient safety. Spontaneous adverse drug reaction reporting systems can contribute to identification of quality problems that cause unwanted and/or harmful effects, and to identification of clusters of lack of efficacy. In 2011, the Uppsala Monitoring Centre (UMC) constructed a novel algorithm to identify reporting patterns suggestive of substandard medicines in spontaneous reporting, and applied it to VigiBase(®), the World Health Organization's global individual case safety report database. The algorithm identified some historical clusters related to substandard products, which were later able to be confirmed in the literature or by contact with national centres (NCs). As relevant and detailed information is often lacking in the VigiBase reports but might be available at the reporting NC, further evaluation of the algorithm was undertaken with involvement from NCs. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Sweden | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 2 | 5% |
Unknown | 40 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 21% |
Student > Master | 7 | 17% |
Student > Bachelor | 4 | 10% |
Researcher | 4 | 10% |
Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 7% |
Other | 6 | 14% |
Unknown | 9 | 21% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 19% |
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 8 | 19% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 10% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 7% |
Physics and Astronomy | 2 | 5% |
Other | 6 | 14% |
Unknown | 11 | 26% |