Comparative Analysis of International Databases of Adverse Drug Reactions

In 1968 the World Health Organisation initiated the development of an international programme for collection of data from the maximum number of sources about potential adverse effects of medicines. In order to implement this programme, a number of databases were created, such as the global database VigiBase, the European database EudraVigilance, and the database of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). The aim of the present study was to compare approaches of the international spontaneous reports databases to collection, processing, and analysis of information on adverse drug reactions. It was demonstrated that the international databases VigiBase, EudraVigilance, and the EAEU database of adverse drug reactions contain different numbers of spontaneous reports, but serve the same objectives, namely to collect, process, and analyse information submitted as spontaneous reports. Unlike VigiBase that contains reports on authorised medicines coming from the national pharmacovigilance centres only, EudraVigilance also receives data from marketing authorisation holders and has reports on adverse drug reactions observed during clinical trials. The exchange of information between countries ensures rapid identification of safety signals concerning potential risks of medicines, and increases the likelihood of detecting rare and late-onset adverse reactions that may go unnoticed when analysing national data in a particular country. Spontaneous reports databases are an essential tool of the international drug safety monitoring community. Effective measures in this area will ultimately help to improve patients’ health and quality of life.

database, pharmacovigilance, VigiBase, EudraVigilance, signal, adverse reactions, drug safety, signal processing

1. Kazakov AS, Shubnikova EV, Darmostukova MA, Snegireva II, Kutekhova GV, Zatolochina KE, et al. International drug safety monitoring. Bezopasnost’ i risk farmakoterapii = Safety and Risk of Pharmacotherapy. 2019;7(3):120–6 (In Russ.)] https://doi.org/10.30895/2312-7821-2019-7-3-120-126

2. Wakao R, Taavola H, Sandberg L, Iwasa E, Soejima S, Chandler R, Norén GN. Data-driven identification of adverse event reporting patterns for Japan in VigiBase, the WHO global database of individual case safety reports. Drug Saf. 2019;42(12):1487–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-019-00861-y

3. Bihan K, Lebrun-Vignes B, Funck-Brentano C, Salem J-E. Uses of pharmacovigilance databases: An overview. Therapies. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.therap.2020.02.022

4. Watson S, Chandler RE, Taavola H, Härmark L, Grundmark B, Zekarias A, et al. Safety concerns reported by patients identified in a collaborative signal detection workshop using VigiBase: results and reflections from Lareb and Uppsala Monitoring Centre. Drug Saf. 2018;41(2):203–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-017-0594-2

5. Shankar PR. VigiAccess: Promoting public access to VigiBase. Indian J Pharmacol. 2016;48(5):606–7. https://doi.org/10.4103/0253-7613.190766

6. Caster O, Aoki Y, Gattepaille LM, Grundmark B. Disproportionality analysis for pharmacovigilance signal detection in small databases or subsets: recommendations for limiting false-positive associations. Drug Saf. 2020;43(5):479–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-020-00911-w

7. Caster O, Sandberg L, Bergvall T, Watson S, Norén GN. vigiRank for statistical signal detection in pharmacovigilance: first results from prospective real-world use. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2017;26(8):1006–10. https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.4247

8. Banovac M, Candore G, Slattery J, Houÿez F, Haerry D, Genov G, Arlett P. Patient reporting in the EU: analysis of EudraVigilance data. Drug Saf. 2017;40(7):629–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-017-0534-1

9. Asetskaya IL, Zyryanov SK, Kolbin AS, Belousov DYu. Pharmacovigilance system in the Eurasian Economic Union. Kachestvennaya klinicheskaya praktika = Good clinical practice. 2018;(4):53–72 (In Russ.)] https://doi.org/10.24411/2588-0519-2018-10059