Eugene P. Van Puijenbroek

Prof. Eugene P. Van Puijenbroek

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

28Years (1999-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 January 2002 in Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
EPEugene P. Van Puijenbroek
Eugene P. Van Puijenbroek
ABAndrew Bate
Andrew Bate
HLHubert G. M. Leufkens
Hubert G. M. Leufkens
MLMarie Lindquist
Marie Lindquist
RORoland Orre
Roland Orre
AEAntoine C. G. Egberts
Antoine C. G. Egberts

1 June 2018 in The Lancet Neurology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
TTTorbjörn Tomson
Torbjörn Tomson
DBDina Battino
Dina Battino
EBErminio Bonizzoni
Erminio Bonizzoni
JCJohn Craig
John Craig
DLDick Lindhout
Dick Lindhout
MZMorteza Zarifi-Oskoie
Morteza Zarifi-Oskoie

7 September 2005 in Expert Opinion on Drug Safety
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
MHManfred Hauben
Manfred Hauben
DMDavid Madigan
David Madigan
CGCharles M Gerrits
Charles M Gerrits
LWLouisa Walsh
Louisa Walsh
EPEugene P. Van Puijenbroek
Eugene P. Van Puijenbroek
A principle concern of pharmacovigilance is the timely detection of adverse drug reactions that are novel by virtue of their clinical nature, severity and/or frequency. The cornerstone of this process is the scientific acumen of the pharmacovigilance domain expert. There is understandably an interest in developing database screening tools to assist human reviewers in identifying associations worthy of further investigation (i.e., signals) embedded within a database consisting largely of background ‘noise’ containing reports of no substantial public health significance. Data mining algorithms are, therefore, being developed, tested and/or used by health authorities, pharmaceutical companies and academic researchers. After a focused review of postapproval drug safety signal detection, the authors explain how the currently used algorithms work and address key questions related to their validation, comparative performance, deployment in naturalistic pharmacovigilance settings, limitations and potential for mi...

2 April 2019 in British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
SVSieta de Vries
Sieta de Vries
PDPetra Denig
Petra Denig
CECorine Ekhart
Corine Ekhart
JBJako S. Burgers
Jako S. Burgers
NKNanno Kleefstra
Nanno Kleefstra
EPEugene P. Van Puijenbroek
Eugene P. Van Puijenbroek
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.

19 June 2002 in Statistics in Medicine
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
PHPeter G. M. van der Heijden
Peter G. M. van der Heijden
EPEugene P. Van Puijenbroek
Eugene P. Van Puijenbroek
SBStef Van Buuren
Stef Van Buuren
JHJacques W. van der Hofstede
Jacques W. van der Hofstede

1 January 2003 in Drug Safety
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
EPEugene P. Van Puijenbroek
Eugene P. Van Puijenbroek
WDWillem L. Diemont
Willem L. Diemont
KGKees van Grootheest
Kees van Grootheest