Aims: We aimed to assess and characterize sex differences in adverse drug reactions (ADRs) reported to the national pharmacovigilance centre in the Netherlands while considering differences in drug use.Methods: ADRs spontaneously reported by healthcare professionals and patients to the Netherlands pharmacovigilance centre Lareb were used. Drug–ADR combinations reported at least 10 times between 2003–2016 for drugs used by ≥10,000 persons in that period were included. Data about the number of drug users was obtained from the National Health Care Institute. Sex‐specific ADRs, like gynaecological problems, were excluded. Sex differences in specific drug–ADR combinations were tested using bivariate logistic regression analyses in which the number of drug users per sex was taken into account.Results: In total, 2483 drug–ADR combinations were analysed. Possibly relevant sex differences were shown in 363 combinations (15%). Most of these drug–ADR combinations were reported more often for women (322 combinations). Drugs with the highest number of ADRs that were more often reported for women included thyroid hormones (32 combinations) and antidepressants (16 combinations for the centrally acting sympathomimetics; 14 combinations for other antidepressants). Some ADRs were predominantly reported for women across a range of drugs such as headache and dizziness whereas other ADRs such as tendon ruptures and aggression were reported more often for men.Conclusions: Identified sex differences in reported ADRs often referred to women. These differences may have various causes, including pharmacological and behavioural causes, which need to be further assessed. The results may ultimately lead to sex‐specific prescribing or monitoring recommendations.

Introduction In general, women more often experience metformin-associated adverse drug reactions (ADRs) than men. Objectives We aimed to assess whether sex differences in reported ADRs for metformin are observed at different times after initiation, and to explore their concurrence with sex differences in the dose of metformin over time. This may guide future studies in assessing the involved mechanisms of sex differences in metformin-associated ADRs and may guide sex-specific management of ADRs in clinical practice. Methods This study has a longitudinal design using data about patients initiating metformin collected by the Dutch National Pharmacovigilance Center Lareb through their Intensive Monitoring program. Patients were asked to complete a web-based questionnaire six times after initiation (i.e., at 2 weeks, 6 weeks and at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months). The outcome variables were the proportion of patients reporting any ADR (primary) and the dose of metformin (secondary). Sex differences in the proportions of ADRs and in the dose were tested at each assessment using Pearson Chi-Squared tests and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, respectively. Using Bonferroni adjustment for multiple testing, a p value < 0.01 was considered statistically significant. Results The number of included patients was 1712 (40.9% women). Women reported an ADR more often than men, which was statistically significant at the assessment at 2 weeks (34% vs 25%, p < 0.001), and 6 weeks (37% vs 28%, p = 0.001) after initiation. In general, women were reported to be prescribed a lower dose than men, which became statistically significant at the 9-month assessment (p < 0.01). Conclusions Sex differences in reported ADRs were seen in the first weeks after metformin initiation, whereas statistically significant differences in self-reported prescribed dosing were observed after several months. Patients, in particular women, might benefit from being prescribed lower metformin doses at treatment initiation.

Introduction A mobile app may increase the reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and improve the communication of new drug safety information. Factors that influence the use of an app for such two-way risk communication need to be considered at the development stage. Objective Our aim was to reveal the factors that may influence healthcare professionals (HCPs) and patients to use an app for two-way risk communication. Methods Focus group discussions and face-to-face interviews were conducted in the Netherlands, Spain and the UK. Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, patients with a rare disease or their caregivers and adolescents with health conditions were eligible to participate. HCPs included pharmacists, paediatricians, general practitioners, internists, practice nurses and professionals caring for patients with a rare disease. Patients and HCPs were recruited through various channels. The recorded discussions and interviews were transcribed verbatim. The dataset was analysed using thematic analysis and arranged according to the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. Results Seven focus group discussions and 13 interviews were conducted. In total, 21 HCPs and 50 patients participated. Identified factors that may influence the use of the app were the type of feedback given on reported ADRs, how ADR reports are stored and the type of drug news. Also mentioned were other functions of the app, ease of use, type of language, the source of safety information provided through the app, security of the app, layout, the operating systems on which the app can be used and the costs. Conclusions Further research is needed to assess associations between user characteristics and the direction (positive or negative) of the factors potentially influencing app use.

Introduction National competent authorities (NCAs) for medicines coordinate communication relating to the safety of medicines in Europe. The effectiveness of current communication practices has been questioned, particularly with regard to reaching general practitioners (GPs). Objective The aim of this study was to assess current European NCA safety communication practices and to investigate European GPs’ awareness of and preferences for safety communications on medicines. Methods Web-based surveys were distributed among European NCAs and healthcare professionals (HCPs). The survey among regulators was emailed to a representative of each of the 27 European countries participating in the Strengthening Collaboration for Operating Pharmacovigilance in Europe (SCOPE) Joint Action. HCPs from nine European countries (Denmark, Spain, Croatia, Ireland, Italy, The Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the UK) were asked about their preferences through a link to the survey on websites, in newsletters, and/or in a direct email. From this survey, data from GPs were used and descriptive analyses were conducted. Results Current NCA practices were reported for 26 countries. In 23 countries (88%), NCAs published direct healthcare professional communications (DHPCs, i.e. urgent communication letters for serious safety issues) on their website in addition to distribution to individual HCPs. Educational materials were available on the NCA’s website in 10 countries (40%), and 21 NCAs (81%) indicated they had their own bulletin/newsletter, which is often presented on the NCA’s website (15 countries; 60%). More than 90% of the 1766 GPs who completed the survey were aware of DHPCs. The most preferred senders of safety information were NCAs and professional bodies, while the preferred channels for keeping up to date with safety information were medicines reference books and clinical guidelines. GPs found the repetition of safety issues useful (range of 80% in the UK to 97% in Italy). Preference for an electronic copy rather than a hardcopy varied per country (36% in Sweden to 72% in Spain). Conclusions NCAs use similar methods for safety communications on medicines. Most GPs were aware of urgent communications and preferred similar senders of safety communications; however, their preferences towards the format differed per country.