scholarly journals MHRA Yellow Card reports on COVID-19 vaccine adverse reactions

2021 ◽  
Vol 1842 (1) ◽  
pp. 2-2 ◽  
1992 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 16-16

When did you last send in a Yellow Card? Only one doctor in six has ever done so. Adverse reactions, particularly to new drugs, are under-reported by several orders of magnitude. Official regulatory bodies depend on this system and rightly want a strong case before revoking the licence of a drug whose benefits appear to outweigh the risks. The delays can conceal avoidable morbidity and mortality which often emerge only when a scandal breaks.


1980 ◽  
Vol 18 (19) ◽  
pp. 75-76

Yellow cards provide the Committees on Safety of Medicines (CSM) and Dental and Surgical Materials (CDSM) with their major source of information on the occurrence of adverse drug reactions. Of the many forms of post-marketing surveillance now in use, it is the most widely applied and probably the cheapest. Three-quarters of the 23,000 reports received by the Committees in 1978 and 1979 were through the yellow card system. However, probably only 10% of serious adverse reactions are reported to the Committees.1 Why is reporting reactions important, and how can doctors help to make the system work better?


1984 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 261-269 ◽  
Author(s):  
I. Crombie

The number of cases of an adverse reaction which could be seen by individual doctors was investigated taking realistic values for the frequency of drug prescribing and a range of frequencies of adverse drug reactions. The results indicated that, for almost all drugs, general practitioners (GPs) will seldom see other than single cases of an adverse reaction. It is argued that doctors will be unlikely to recognize an adverse reaction from a single case (unless it presented with some striking clinical features) so that potential new adverse reactions will rarely be reported by GPs under the Yellow Card scheme. A similar analysis for hospital doctors indicated that clinicians working in some specialities, may have a greater chance of seeing more than one case of an adverse reaction. A review of the identification of several important adverse reactions revealed that all the reports from British doctors were submitted by clinicians with hospital appointments. This study suggests that the major part of the operation of the Yellow Card system will contribute little to the identification of adverse reactions and that its organization and activities need to be reassessed. A modified system designed to encourage reporting by hospital clinicians could be of greater value.


2010 ◽  
Vol 44 (6) ◽  
pp. 10-11
Author(s):  
JENNIE SMITH
Keyword(s):  

2007 ◽  
Vol 40 (7) ◽  
pp. 18-19
Author(s):  
ELIZABETH MECHCATIE
Keyword(s):  

2015 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 155-166 ◽  
Author(s):  
Larissa J. Maier ◽  
Michael P. Schaub

Abstract. Pharmacological neuroenhancement, defined as the misuse of prescription drugs, illicit drugs, or alcohol for the purpose of enhancing cognition, mood, or prosocial behavior, is not widespread in Europe – nevertheless, it does occur. Thus far, no drug has been proven as safe and effective for cognitive enhancement in otherwise healthy individuals. European studies have investigated the misuse of prescription and illicit stimulants to increase cognitive performance as well as the use of tranquilizers, alcohol, and cannabis to cope with stress related to work or education. Young people in educational settings report pharmacological neuroenhancement more frequently than those in other settings. Although the regular use of drugs for neuroenhancement is not common in Europe, the irregular and low-dose usage of neuroenhancers might cause adverse reactions. Previous studies have revealed that obtaining adequate amounts of sleep and using successful learning techniques effectively improve mental performance, whereas pharmacological neuroenhancement is associated with ambiguous effects. Therefore, non-substance-related alternatives should be promoted to cope with stressful situations. This paper reviews the recent research on pharmacological neuroenhancement in Europe, develops a clear definition of the substances used, and formulates recommendations for practitioners regarding how to react to requests for neuroenhancement drug prescriptions. We conclude that monitoring the future development of pharmacological neuroenhancement in Europe is important to provide effective preventive measures when required. Furthermore, substance use to cope with stress related to work or education should be studied in depth because it is likely more prevalent and dangerous than direct neuroenhancement.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document