The purpose of a 26-month Food and Drug Administration sponsored study conducted in Mississippi was to determine how the reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) might be stimulated. The program included both institutional and community based health care facilities located in urban as well as rural settings. Methods used in the study increased the monthly average of reported ADRs from 3.94 to 16.5. Pharmacists have the expertise and responsibility to assume a more active role in the reporting of ADRs.
References
1.
Fincham JE: Pilot projects to stimulate adverse drug reaction reporting. J Clin Pharm Ther12:243-247, 1987
2.
Slone D., Shapiro S., Miettinen O., et al: Drug education after marketing. Ann Intern Med90:257-261, 1979
3.
Rossi AC, Knapp DE, Annello C., et al: Discovery of adverse drug reactions: A comparison of selected Phase IV studies with spontaneous reporting methods. JAMA249: 2226-2228,1983
4.
Faich GA, Knapp D., Dreis M., et al: National adverse drug reaction surveillance: 1985. JAMA257:2068-2070, 1987
5.
Healthy People: The Surgeon General's Report on Health Promotion and Disease Prevention. Washington, D.C., DHEW(PHS) Publication Number 79-55071, 1979
6.
Inman Whw: Post-marketing surveillance in the gencral population: the United Kingdom , in Inman WHW (ed): Monitoring for Drug Safety. Philadelphia, Lippincott, 1980, pp9-48
7.
Ramsey LE, Tucker GT: Clinical pharmacology: drugs and the elderly. Br Med J282:125-127, 1981
8.
Jones JK: National/International systems for PMS, in Wardell W, Giamolo V (eds): Drug Development, Regulatory Assessment, andPMS. New York, Plenum, 1981, pp 234-235
9.
Fincham JE, Brown TR, Garner DD: Reporting of adverse drug and biologic reactions in Mississippi hospitals . Hosp Pharm23:248-251, 1988
10.
Fincham JE, Garner DD, Brown TR: Occurrence and reporting of adverse drug reactions in Mississippi nursing homes. Consultant Pharmacist3:267-270, 1988
