Adverse Drug Reactions Reported in the German Democratic Republic: A Retrospective Analysis of Reports to the WHO-ADR Database

Lise Aagaard, Marion Schaefer, Ulrich Meyer, Ebba Holme Hansen

.

DOI: 10.4236/ojsst.2011.12006                

Abstract

The German Democratic Republic (GDR) joined the WHO collaboration on drug safety in 1983 in order to strengthen their national pharmacovigilance system. We aim to characterize adverse drug reaction (ADR) reports which were forwarded to the WHO-ADR database by the GDR health authorities, as these data is unknown to the public. ADR reports were analysed with respect to time, type of reporter, age and sex of the patient, category of ADR (System Organ Class [SOC]), seriousness and suspected medicines. The unit of analysis was one ADR. A total of 180 individual ADR reports covering 329 ADRs were forwarded from 1985 to 1990. The largest share of ADRs was reported for psychotropic medicines (23% of total ADRs) followed by anti-infectives for systemic use (19% of ADRs), and medicines for the cardiovascular system (16% of ADRs). The largest share of reported ADRs was from the SOC “hepatobiliary disorders” (16% of total ADRs), followed by the SOCs “skin and subcutaneous disorders” (14% of total ADRs) and “blood and lymphatic disorders” (11% of total ADRs). Approximately 10% of ADRs were serious and included fatal cases. In conclusion, only a limited number of ADR cases occurring in the former GDR, the majority being non-serious, were located in the WHO database. However from government files we know that a large number of serious and fatal ADRs were reported, but information about these were never communicated to the public.

Keywords

Pharmacovigilance, Spontaneous Reporting Systems, VigiBase, German Democratic Republic

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	E. B. Andrews and R. D. Mann, “Pharmacovigilance,” 2nd Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 2007.
[2]	W. H. Wardell, G. P. Velo and N. M, Jarocha, “Drug Development, Regulatory Assessment and Post Marketing Surveillance,” Plenum, New York, 1981.
[3]	S. Olsson, “The Role of the WHO Programme on International Drug Monitoring in Coordination Worldwide Drug Safety Efforts,” Drug Safety, Vol. 19, No. 1, 1998, pp. 1-10. doi:10.2165/00002018-199819010-00001
[4]	Ministerium für Gesundheitswesen. Arbeitsgruppe für Organisation und Inspektion beim Ministerrat, Kontrolab- teilung. Bericht über Stand und erforderliche Massnahmen zur weiteren Erh?hung der Arzneimittelsicherheit in der DDR. Pharmazie und Technik. Berlin, 1984.
[5]	J. Richter and M. Wolski, “40 Jahre Regelung und überwa Chung des Arzneitmittelverkehrs in der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik,” Pharmazie, Vol. 44, No. 10, 1989, pp. 666-671.
[6]	M. B?hm, K. Gerccke, L. Kny, H. Probst and J. Richter, 45 Jahre Pharmazie in Deutschland Ost. 7bDirekt Apo- thekenservice AG, Fürstenfeldbruck, Berlin, 2007.
[7]	J. Richter, H. J. Seidelin, M. B?hm, H. G. Keune and E. Gueinzius, “Arzneimittelund Apothekenrecht der Republic,” Akademie-Verlag, Berlin, 1985.
[8]	The Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA). http://www.meddramsso.com
[9]	L. Aagaard, L. H. Nielsen and E. H. Hansen, “Consumer Reporting of Adverse Drug Reactions: A Retrospective Analysis of the Danish Adverse Drug Reaction Database from 2004 to 2006,” Drug Safety, Vol. 32, No. 11, 2009, pp. 1067-1074. doi:10.2165/11316680-000000000-00000
[10]	J. de Langen, F. van Hunsel, A. Passier, L. de Jong-van den Berg, K. van Grootheest, “Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting by Patients in the Netherlands: Three Years of Experience,” Drug Safety, Vol. 31, No. 6, 2008, 515-524. doi:10.2165/00002018-200831060-00006