Antiretroviral adverse drug reactions pharmacovigilance in Harare City, Zimbabwe, 2017

INTRODUCTION: Key to pharmacovigilance is spontaneously reporting all Adverse Drug Reactions (ADR) during post-market surveillance. This facilitates the identification and evaluation of previously unreported ADR’s, acknowledging the trade-off between benefits and potential harm of medications. Only 41% Antiretroviral (ARV) ADR’s documented in Harare city clinical records for January to December 2016 were reported to Medicines Control Authority of Zimbabwe (MCAZ). We investigated reasons contributing to underreporting of ARV ADR’s in Harare city. METHODS: A descriptive cross-sectional study and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) guided surveillance evaluation was conducted. Two hospitals were purposively included. Seventeen health facilities and 52 health workers were randomly selected. Interviewer-administered questionnaires, key informant interviews and WHO pharmacovigilance checklists were used to collect data. Likert scales were applied to draw inferences and Epi info 7 used to generate frequencies and proportions. RESULTS: Of the 52 participants, 32 (61.5%) distinguished the ARV ADR defining criteria. Twenty-nine (55.8%) knew system’s purpose whilst 28 (53.8%) knew the reporting process. Knowledge scored average on the 5-point-Likert scale. Thirty-eight (73.1%) participants identified ARV ADR’s following client complaints and nine (1.3%) enquired clients’ medication response. Forty-six (88.5%) cited non-feedback from MCAZ for underreporting. Inadequate ARV ADR identification skills were cited by 21 (40.4%) participants. Reporting forms were available in five (26.3%) facilities and reports were generated from hospitals only. Forty-two (90.6%) clinicians made therapeutic decisions from ARV ADR’s. Averaged usefulness score was 4, on the 5-point-Likert scale. All 642 generated signals were committed to Vigiflow by MCAZ, reflecting a case detection rate of 4/ 100 000. Data quality was 0.75–1.0 (WHO) and all reports were causally assessed. CONCLUSION: The pharmacovigilance system was useful, simple, and acceptable despite being unstable, not representative and not sensitive. It was threatened by suboptimal health worker knowledge, weak detection strategies and referral policy preventing ARV ADR identification by person place and time. Revisiting local policy, advocacy, communication and health worker orientation might improve pharmacovigilance performance in Harare city.