ArticlePloS one2026
Cross-national disparities in drug interaction reporting and assessment between Switzerland and Austria: A retrospective, registry-based study using pharmacovigilance data.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Drug-drug interactions (DDIs) are a significant contributor to adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in clinical practice. Despite established pharmacovigilance systems, underreporting and inconsistent causality assessment remain challenges. Switzerland and Austria offer a unique comparative setting due to similar healthcare infrastructures but different pharmacovigilance system designs. This study aims to compare pharmacovigilance system outcomes of Switzerland and Austria by examining how system designs may influence DDI reporting patterns and report quality. We retrospectively analysed 1,499 individual case safety reports involving DDIs submitted between January 2008 and April 2024 to the national pharmacovigilance systems of Switzerland (n = 1,159) and Austria (n = 340). As indicators of system performance, reports were assessed for demographics, reporter categories, seriousness of outcomes in relation to polypharmacy (expressed as reporting odds ratios [RORs] and confidence intervals [CIs]), ADR types, and pharmacological plausibility. Cross-national disparities were evident: Switzerland reported 3.4 times more DDI cases than Austria (mean 5.8 vs. 1.7 cases/month), with comparable patient demographics and differing reporter proportions. Most reports were classified as serious (80% Switzerland, 84% Austria), with polypharmacy strongly associated with serious outcomes in both countries (Switzerland: ROR 3.71, 95% CI 3.26-4.23, p < 0.0001; Austria: ROR 1.98, 95% CI 1.60-2.44, p < 0.0001). Reported ADRs differed qualitatively, with Switzerland predominantly reporting mechanisms whereas Austria reported more frequently symptoms. Differences were also found in the pharmacological consistency between ADR and associated drugs. These cross-national disparities in DDI reporting volume, content, and quality suggest that pharmacovigilance system design and specialist involvement influence reporting. The integration of clinical pharmacologists and pharmacists in ADR processing warrants further investigation, given its potential to strengthen DDI-related pharmacovigilance practices. These findings provide actionable insights for policymakers and regulatory agencies seeking to strengthen their pharmacovigilance systems through strategic specialist integration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.