Journal of Research in Pharmacy Practice

Side effects of antineoplastic and immunomodulating medications reported by European consumers

Authors

. Lise Aagaard 1
. Ebba Holme Hansen 2

1 Research Unit of Clinical Pharmacology, Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark

2 Department of Pharmacy, Section for Social and Clinical Pharmacy, University of Copenhagen, Denmark

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.

Keywords

Adverse drug reactions
antineoplastic agents
consumers
eudravigilance
  immunomodulating agents
pharmacovigilance
  1. Aagaard L, Strandell J, Melskens L, Petersen PS, Holme 
    Hansen E. Global patterns of adverse drug reactions over a 
    decade: Analyses of spontaneous reports to VigiBase™. Drug 
    Saf 2012;35:1171‑82.
    2. Hansen EH. Technology assessment in a user perspective– 
    Experiences with drug technology. Int J Technol Assess Health 
    Care 1992;8:150‑65.
    3. Aagaard L, Hansen EH. Information about ADRs explored by 
    pharmacovigilance approaches: Aqualitative review of studies 
    on antibiotics, SSRIs and NSAIDs. BMC Clin Pharmacol 
    2009;9:4.
    4. Blenkinsopp A, Wilkie P, Wang M, Routledge PA. Patient 
    reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions: A review of 
    published literature and international experience. Br J Clin 
    Pharmacol 2007;63:148‑56.
    5. Medawar C, Herxheimer A. A comparison of adverse drug 
    reaction reports from professionals and users, relating to risk 
    of dependency and suicidal behaviour with paroxetine. Int J 
    Risk Saf Med 2003;16:5‑19.
    6. Aagaard L, Nielsen LH, Hansen EH. Consumer reporting of 
    adverse drug reactions: Aretrospective analysis of the Danish 
    adverse drug reaction database from 2004 to 2006. Drug Saf 
    2009;32:1067‑74.
    7. 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;31:515‑24.
    8. Aagaard L, Hansen EH. Consumers’ reports of suspected 
    adverse drug reactions volunteered to a consumer magazine. 
    Br J Clin Pharmacol 2010;69:317‑8.
    9. Vilhelmsson A, Svensson T, Meeuwisse A, Carlsten A. What 
    can we learn from consumer reports on psychiatric adverse 
    drug reactions with antidepressant medication? Experiences 
    from reports to a consumer association. BMC Clin Pharmacol 
    2011;11:16.
  2. 10. Van Hunsel F, Härmark L, Pal S, Olsson S, van Grootheest K. 
    Experiences with adverse drug reaction reporting by patients: 
    An 11‑country survey. Drug Saf 2012;35:45‑60.
    11. European Commission. The EU Pharmacovigilance System. 
    Available from: http://www.ec.europa.eu/health/human‑use/
    pharmacovigilance/index_en.htm.[Last accessed 2012 Dec 14].
    12. European Medicines Agency. Note for guidance– 
    Eudravigilance human – Processing of safety messages and 
    individual case safety reports (ICSRs). EMA/H/20665/04/
    Final Rev. 2. Available from: http://www.ema.europa.eu/./
    en_GB/document_library/Regulatory_and_procedural_
    guideline/2009/11/WC500015697.pdf. [Last accessed 
    2012 Dec 14].
    13. Office Journal of the European Commission. Regulation (EC) 
    no 1049/2001 of the European parliament and of the council of 
    30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, 
    council and commission. L145/43. Available from: http://www.
    europarl.europa.eu/register/./r1049_en.pdf. [Last accessed 
    2012 Dec 14].
    14. Pharmacovigilance: Medicinal products for human use and 
    veterinary products. Vol. 9. Available from: http://www.
    ec.europa.eu/enterprise/pharmaceuticals/eudralex/homev9.
    htm. [Last accessed 2012 Dec 14].
    15. MedDRA. Available from: http://www.meddramsso.
    com. [Last accessed 2012 Dec 14].
    16. WHO Collaboration Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology, 
    2007. Available from: http://www.whocc.no/atc_ddd_
    index/. [Last accessed 2012 Dec 14].
Journal of Research in Pharmacy Practice
Volume 2, Issue 1
Winter 2013
Pages 44-49

Home

Guide for Authors

Submit Manuscript

Reviewers

Contact Us