BackgroundThe use of a statistical approach to analyze cumulative adverse event (AE) reports has been encouraged by regulatory authorities. However, data variations affect statistical analyses (eg, signal detection). Further, differences in regulations, social issues, and health care systems can cause variations in AE data. The present study examined similarities and differences between two publicly available databases, ie, the Japanese Adverse Drug Event Report (JADER) database and the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS), and how they affect signal detection.MethodsTwo AE data sources from 2010 were examined, ie, JADER cases (JP) and Japanese cases extracted from the FAERS (FAERS-JP). Three methods for signals of disproportionate reporting, ie, the reporting odds ratio, Bayesian confidence propagation neural network, and Gamma Poisson Shrinker (GPS), were used on drug-event combinations for three substances frequently recorded in both systems.ResultsThe two databases showed similar elements of AE reports, but no option was provided for a shareable case identifier. The average number of AEs per case was 1.6±1.3 (maximum 37) in the JP and 3.3±3.5 (maximum 62) in the FAERS-JP. Between 5% and 57% of all AEs were signaled by three quantitative methods for etanercept, infliximab, and paroxetine. Signals identified by GPS for the JP and FAERS-JP, as referenced by Japanese labeling, showed higher positive sensitivity than was expected.ConclusionThe FAERS-JP was different from the JADER. Signals derived from both datasets identified different results, but shared certain signals. Discrepancies in type of AEs, drugs reported, and average number of AEs per case were potential contributing factors. This study will help those concerned with pharmacovigilance better understand the use and pitfalls of using spontaneous AE data.

ObjectivesJapan has actively reclassified substances ranging from prescription drugs to over-the-counter (OTC) drugs in recent years. The sale of most OTC drugs was deregulated several times and pharmacists’ supervision was deemed no longer mandatory. Japan established a new OTC evaluation system in 2015 to hear opinions from various stakeholders regarding medicine types to be reclassified. This study aimed to examine the new framework to identify candidate substances for reclassification. Moreover, we examined how to manage the safe, self-care use of OTC drugs in Japan.MethodsThe necessary regulatory information on OTC approvals as of January 2015 was collected using an Internet search and relevant databases. To highlight the characteristics of OTC drugs in Japan, the UK was selected as a comparison country because it too was actively promoting the reclassification of medicines from prescription to nonprescription status, and because of economic similarity.ResultsJapan and the UK have a risk-based classification for nonprescription medicines. Japan has made OTC drugs available with mandatory pharmacists’ supervision, face-to-face with pharmacists, or online instruction, which is similar to the “pharmacy medicine” practiced in the UK. Japan recently reformed the reclassification process to involve physicians and the public in the process; some interactions were back to “prescription-only medicine” in the UK.ConclusionIt is expected that the opinion of marketers, medical professionals, and the public will improve the discussion that will greatly contribute to the safe use of drugs. Monitoring the new system will be noteworthy to ensure that OTC drug users are managing their self-care properly and visiting a doctor only when necessary. The supply methods are similar in Japan and the UK; however, the expected growth in the Japanese OTC market by the Cabinet and the industry is still uncertain.

Introduction: The spontaneous adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting system plays an important role in pharmacovigilance by providing information from clinical settings in the postmarketing environment. The Japanese Adverse Drug Event Report (JADER) database contains a portion of Japanese ADR reports, and no previous study has described the quality or characteristics of ADR reports in the JADER.Objective: The aim of this study was to identify the characteristics of the JADER database and to evaluate the quality of ADR reports contained in the JADER using the documentation-grading scheme developed by the World Health Organization.Methods: Of 478 508 ADR reports in the JADER, the analysis set consisted of 395 091 reports meeting inclusion criteria. An analysis was carried out to evaluate the quality of the reports according to the type of report, the type of sender, and the qualification of the reporter. Annual changes in the number of reports from medical institutions submitted by pharmacists were compared with changes in the number submitted by physicians.Results: The distribution of documentation grade differed according to the type of report, the type of sender, and the qualification of the reporter. Regarding "medical institution reports", the quality of reports was similar among qualification types, while the quality of reports submitted by physicians was higher for "company reports" and "study reports" (P < .0001, respectively). Conclusion:Our study showed that the quality of the ADR reports in the JADER differed among the type of report, the sender of the report, and the qualification of the reporter.

The drug-use patterns among elderly individuals were identified. This medication review program conducted at community pharmacies was a useful approach to reduce concerns among users and prevent safety problems.

No abstract