Program coordinated by a drug information service to improve adverse drug reaction reporting in a hospital

A program coordinated by a drug information service to improve adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting in a hospital is described. At a 520-bed teaching hospital, the drug information service was asked to design a new adverse drug reaction reporting system that would encourage clinicians to report ADRs. A new system was implemented on a general medical unit: A physician, pharmacist, or nurse telephoned the drug information service when an adverse drug reaction was suspected, and drug information personnel followed up on the report, completing all subsequent investigation and documentation. A standard algorithm was used to evaluate causality of the reported reactions. Pertinent data were entered on a form and retained in the drug information service. The primary physician's approval was obtained before a reaction could be reported on an FDA drug-experience form. Drug information service personnel reviewed the ADR data monthly to detect any trends that clinicians should be aware of and to prepare a report for the pharmacy and therapeutics committee. Nurses, physicians, and pharmacy personnel were oriented to the new system before its implementation and were subsequently informed about reported ADRs and use of the system through newsletters and meetings. In the initial three-month period, 23 ADRs involving 19 drugs were reported from the medical unit; in a six-month period before development of the new system, no ADRs had been reported. This ADR reporting system developed and implemented by the drug information service was effective in improving reporting of adverse drug reactions.     

Adverse Drug Reactions Causing Hospital Admissions in Childhood: A Prospective,Observational, Single‐Centre Study

Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are common problems in both paediatric and adult medicine. The aim of this study was to prospectively identify the ADRs causing hospital admission of children and identification of the risk factors and involved drugs. The study was performed at the University Hospital in Olomouc, Czech Republic. All patients aged 19 years or under admitted to hospital were included in the study, and all admissions for ADRs were prospectively screened for a period of 9 months. Suspected ADRs were subsequently evaluated in detail, and causality assessment was undertaken to determine whether each suspected reaction was possible, probable or definite. The assessment of ADR causality was performed using the Naranjo algorithm, the Liverpool ADR Causality Assessment Tool and the Edwards and Aronson causality assessment method. During the study period, 2903 admissions were identified; of these, there were 143 admissions of patients with an oncological disease. Sixty‐four admissions (2.2%) were caused by an ADR. Anticancer chemotherapy accounted for 35% of the cases, followed by antibiotics (18%), immunosuppressants and vaccines (9% each). The use of different scoring systems does not lead to the differences in the numbers of ADR‐diagnosed patient but may result in differences in the determination of the level of certainty. ADRs cause a substantial proportion of children's hospital admissions. The majority of the ADR‐diagnosed patient affected the hematopoietic and gastrointestinal systems; the drugs most frequently involved were cytotoxic agents and antibiotics. The most important risk factors identified were female sex and oncological disease.     

A prospective study of adverse drug reactions to artemisinin-based combination therapy in a tertiary care hospital in India

Objectives:

Antimalarial drugs are commonly prescribed for the treatment of malaria and suspected cases of malaria in India. The recent trend is to prescribe ACT and the incidence of adverse reactions to this therapy is notwell-documented in Indian population. Therefore, this study was designed to assess ADR pattern of antimalarial drugs particularly ACT in India.

Materials and Methods:

Over a period of 1 year, 500 patients who were administered antimalarial drugs were enrolled in the study. The World Health Organization causality assessment scale was used for classifying the ADR.

Results:

In this study out of 500 patients, 251 complained of ADRs. The sex-wise difference in reporting of ADRs was statistically not significant (P=0.0943). The most common ADRs reported were nausea, anorexia and vomiting. ADRs were most commonly reported when chloroquine was coprescribed.

Conclusions:

This study indicates that ACT was commonlyused in the treatment of malaria. Results of the analysis suggest that all the ADRs were of moderate intensity and no serious ADR was observed. This baseline information will be useful to implement the ACT in India.KEY WORDS: Adverse drug reaction, antimalarial drugs, artemisinin, artemisinin-based combination therapy     

Hepatic adverse drug reactions: a case/non-case study in Italy

OBJECTIVE: Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) can involve all tissues and organs. Liver injuries are considered among the most serious and are a cause for concern among physicians and patients. To assess the extent of drug-induced liver injuries in Italy we compared the number of cases of hepatic ADRs with reports of all other drug-related reactions present in the same database. METHODS: Spontaneous reports from six Italian Regions collected from January 1990 to May 2005 were analysed. Adverse reactions were classified according to WHO Adverse Reaction Terminology for causality assessment, and only those with "certain", "probable" or "possible" causality assessment were included. Association between drugs and hepatic ADRs was assessed using the case/non case method, calculating the ADR reporting odds ratio (ROR) as a measure of disproportionality. RESULTS: On May 2005, the database contained 35,767 ADR reports, of which 11,829 were excluded because they were unclassifiable or unlikely in terms of causality assessment. Therefore, the analysis was carried out on 23,938 reports, of which 1,069 concerned hepatic ADRs (cases) and 22,869 concerned non-cases. The proportion of serious ADRs was about 40% in the overall database, and about 74% among cases. The drug classes with the highest number of cases were statins (ROR = 2.9, 95% CI 2.4-3.5), antiplatelet agents (ROR = 3.5; 95% CI 2.6-4.6), NSAIDs (ROR = 2.9; 95% CI 2.1-3.9) and macrolides (ROR = 1.7; 95% CI 1.2-2.3). CONCLUSION: Hepatic adverse drug reactions remain a serious concern for several drugs widely used in clinical practice. Monitoring hepatic enzymes on a monthly basis for the first 6 months of treatment has been suggested for patients taking medications known to be hepatotoxic. A better knowledge of the epidemiology and mechanisms of hepatic ADRs may contribute to minimising their occurrence.     

Improved reporting of adverse drug reactions

A program using satellite pharmacists to improve adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting in an 1100-bed teaching hospital is described. Because relying on physicians to report ADRs had met with little success (only six reports in seven years), the pharmacy department proposed that pharmacists in satellite pharmacies on patient-care units be called upon to identify and report ADRs. To begin this program, an ADR team composed of a physician, pharmacist, and nurse made weekly rounds of the satellite pharmacies to assist pharmacists in identifying potential ADRs. The FDA definition of an ADR was adopted. Also, inservice education programs about ADR reporting were conducted for pharmacists and nurses. Currently, suspected ADRs are reported to the satellite pharmacist, who forwards a completed drug reaction report form to the assistant director for clinical pharmacy services. Reports are discussed quarterly by the ADR subcommittee of the pharmacy and therapeutics committee; the sub-committee members determine whether any follow-up action is needed. In the first three years after implementation of this program, 306 ADRs were reported; 90% of the reports were filed by pharmacists. An ADR reporting system based on reporting by staff pharmacists has been effective in increasing the number of reported reactions and pharmacist involvement in monitoring patients for ADRs.     

Food and Drug Administration monitoring of adverse drug reactions

Food and Drug Administration requirements for reporting adverse drug reactions (ADRs), processing of ADR reports, and actions in response to these reports are described. FDA requires that drug manufacturers report ADRs to the FDA Division of Epidemiology and Surveillance; 90% of the ADR reports received are from manufacturers. Of the remaining 10%, one third are from pharmacists. FDA regulations were revised in 1985 to specifically define reportable ADRs and procedures for reporting; manufacturers are required to report within 15 days reactions that are serious and unlabeled. For newly approved drugs, reports on ADRs must be submitted quarterly for three years; subsequently, annual reporting is required. Any increase in the frequency of serious, labeled reactions must be reported. Serious reactions not listed in the product labeling must be reported for products marketed before 1962 for which new drug applications or abbreviated new drug applications were not filed. ADR information received by FDA is coded into standard terms and entered in a computerized database for evaluation by reviewers. If an important reaction is suspected, the report is entered in a tracking system for further monitoring. ADR reports may result in requirements for changes in product labeling, "Dear Doctor" letters, requirement of further study by the manufacturer, or withdrawal of the product. Information about ADRs is communicated to health-care practitioners in product labeling and in the literature. Pharmacists are encouraged to report suspected serious and unlabeled reactions to FDA so that the medical community and the public can benefit from current information about drug safety.     

Retrospective analysis of the frequency and recognition of adverse drug reactions by means of automatically recorded laboratory signals

AIMS: To estimate the frequency of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) identified through the use of automatic signals generated from laboratory data (ALS) in hospitalised patients. To determine the frequency of spontaneous recognition of these ADRs by the attending physicians and to assess the potential value of ALS for detection of ADRs. METHODS: Laboratory results of patients hospitalised in a nine bed medical ward were automatically recorded over a period of 17 months. Values exceeding defined boundaries were used as ALS. Charts of every third patient were analysed retrospectively with regard to adverse drug related reactions and causality was evaluated as well as whether the ADR had been recognised during the period of hospitalisation. RESULTS: The charts and ALS of 98 patients were analysed. In 18 cases a drug-related adverse reaction was probable. Awareness to the reaction by the treating physicians was evident in 6 out of these 18 ADRs. Approximately 80% of the ADRs were considered predictable. Three ADRs were regarded as serious. CONCLUSIONS: Adverse drug reactions are common and often preventable. Only one third of ADRs which could have been detected through ALS were recognised by the attending physicians. An increased doctor's awareness of the frequency of drug related abnormal laboratory results by means of ALS is likely to increase the recognition rate of ADRs and might help to prevent them.     

Pharmacy-coordinated program that encourages physician reporting of adverse drug reactions

A pharmacy-coordinated program for encouraging physician reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) is described. The ADR surveillance program at the Medical Center Hospital of Vermont, a 500-bed tertiary-care hospital, is in its fifth year. Key elements are close interaction between physicians and pharmacists, feedback, program promotion, and financial incentive. The program is promoted chiefly to house staff physicians. A physician may identify a suspected ADR, or he or she may be alerted by a pharmacist. The physician completes the first part of a form, which requests information on the patient, the severity of the reaction, the actions taken, and any predisposing factors. A pharmacist reviews the incident independently and in consultation with the reporter and then completes the second part of the form, which asks the pharmacists to assess the probability that the drug caused the ADR and to classify the reaction. A summary is sent to the physician and may be reported to the FDA and the manufacturer. Each report earns the reporter a $5 stipend. Information from the ADR forms is entered into a dBASEIII PLUS computer program for later retrieval and analysis. During a 12-month period, 175 ADR reports (out of a total of 249 reports) were received from house staff members, compared with about 4 voluntary reports received annually before the program began. The ADR surveillance program has increased physician reporting of ADRs and produced a reliable database that can be used to influence hospital policy and promote education.     

Attitudinal survey of voluntary reporting of adverse drug reactions

AIMS: Voluntary adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting schemes have operated since the early sixties in many Western countries. It is generally recognized, however, that only a small proportion of ADRs is actually reported. The current survey was conducted to assess attitudes towards reporting of ADRs, and to study which types of ADRs are reported. METHODS: A questionnaire seeking reasons for nonreporting was sent to a random sample of 10% of medical practitioners in The Netherlands in October 1997. After 6 weeks, a reminder was sent to those who had not responded. RESULTS: One thousand four hundred and forty-two (73%) questionnaires were returned, of which 94% were complete. The percentage of GPs (51%) which had ever reported an ADR to the national reporting centre was significantly higher than the percentage of specialists (35%), who reported more often to the pharmaceutical industry (34% vs 48%). 86% of GPs, 72% of surgical specialists and 81% of medical specialists had ever diagnosed an ADR, which they had not reported. Uncertainty as to whether the reaction was caused by a drug (72%), the ADR being trivial (75%) or too well known (93%) were the most important reasons for not reporting. 18% were not aware of the need to report ADRs, 22% did not know how to report ADRs, 38% did not have enough time, 36% thought that reporting was too bureaucratic and only 26% of Dutch physicians knew which ADRs to report. A serious ADR, an unlabelled ADR, an ADR to a new drug, history of reporting of one or more ADRs, and specialty were all independently associated with reporting of 16 hypothetical ADRs. Surgical and medical specialists tended to report less often than GPs. CONCLUSIONS: There is a considerable degree of underreporting, which might partly be explained by lack of knowledge and misconceptions about spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions.     

Healthcare personnel’s experience of reporting adverse drug reactions in Baghdad city: cross-sectional study

Background Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are undesirable effects to drugs at doses normally used in the clinical setting for diagnosis, treatment or prophylaxis of diseases. Spontaneous ADR reporting is currently considered as a critical part of ADRs detection. Objective The study aims to assess the knowledge, attitude, and practice of healthcare providers towards adverse drug reaction reporting in public and private settings within the Baghdad area. Method We follow a quantitative cross-sectional study design, using a self-administered questionnaire to collect data from the healthcare providers regarding their reporting practice. Main outcome The outcome measures include the experiences of reporting of adverse drug reactions and the available systems, in addition to the expected benefits to clinical practice. Results Among 485 respondents, 114 were able to differentiate ADRs from side effects. About half of them (47.6%) recognized the availability of reporting systems and 43.3% knew how to report adverse drug reactions. 43.7% of the respondents mentioned that ADRs should be reported only when they are life-threatening. Among the 188 respondents who encountered ADRs, 145 reported the events to the accessible local authority. Conclusion The healthcare providers working in Baghdad healthcare institutions have a good attitude toward ADR reporting. There is a relatively below-standard reporting culture of the encountered adverse reactions. The inadequate knowledge about adverse reactions and the unavailability of reporting forms played a major role in discouraging healthcare professionals to detect and report ADRs.

     

Drug-induced anaphylaxis : case/non-case study based on an italian pharmacovigilance database.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the number of cases of anaphylaxis reported in association with different classes of drugs and compare it with other reports contained in the same database. METHODS: The data were obtained from a database containing all of the spontaneous reports of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) coming from the Italian regions of Emilia Romagna, Lombardy and the Veneto, which are the main contributors to the Italian spontaneous surveillance system. The ADRs reported between January 1990 and December 2003 with a causality assessment of certainly, probably or possibly drug related (according to the WHO criteria) were analysed using a case/non-case design. The cases were defined as the reactions already coded by the WHO preferred terms of 'anaphylactic shock' or 'anaphylactoid reaction' (this last term also included anaphylactic reaction) and those with a time of event onset that suggested an allergic reaction and involved at least two of the skin, respiratory, gastrointestinal, CNS or cardiovascular systems; the non-cases were all of the other ADR reports. The frequency of the association between anaphylaxis and the suspected drug in comparison with the frequency of anaphylaxis associated to all of the other drugs was calculated using the ADR reporting odds ratio (ROR) as a measure of disproportionality. RESULTS: Our database contained 744 cases (including 307 cases of anaphylactic shock with 10 deaths) and 27 512 non-cases. The percentage of anaphylaxis cases reported in inpatients was higher than that among outpatients (59.1% vs 40.9%). This distribution is significantly different from that of the other ADR reports that mainly refer to outpatients. After intravenous drug administrations, anaphylactic shock cases were more frequent than anaphylactoid reactions or other ADRs, but more than one-third of these reactions were caused by an oral drug. Blood substitutes and radiology contrast agents had the highest RORs. Among the systemic antibacterial agents, anaphylaxis was disproportionally reported more often for penicillins, quinolones, cephalosporins and glycopeptides, but diclofenac was the only NSAID with a significant ROR. As a category, vaccines had a significantly lower ROR, thus indicating that anaphylaxis is reported proportionally less than other ADRs. CONCLUSIONS: Anaphylaxis is a severe ADR that may also occur with commonly used drugs. It represents 2.7% of all of the ADRs reported in an Italian spontaneous reporting database.     

Ticlopidine Safety Profile: A Case/Non-Case Study on the Basis of the Spontaneous ADRs Reporting in Italy

Introducton: Ticlopidine is an antiplatelet agent available from several decades. Its most important adverse drug reactions (ADRs) involve haematological system. Our aim was to evaluate the safety profile of ticlopidine in the real life, on the basis of spontaneous ADR reporting. Materials and Methods: Spontaneous reports from 8 Italian Regions collected from 1990 to March 2007 were analysed. According to WHO Adverse Reaction Terminology for causality assessment only "certain", "probable" or "possible" ADRs were included. Association between drugs and any ADR was assessed by using the case/non-case methodoloy. Reporting odds ratio (ROR) was computed as a measure of disproportionality. Results: Overall, 478 reports concerning ticlopidine were analysed. The system organ classes with significant disproportionality for ticlopidine included White Cell Disorders (ROR=22.43, 95% CI 18.54-27.12), Red Cell Disorders (8.22; 6.03-11.18), Liver And Biliary System (6.67; 5.35-8.32), Platelet, Bleeding & Clotting (6.59; 5.16-8.40). Fifteen percent of the ADRs occurred beyond the first three months of ticlopidine therapy. In 386 reports (80.7%), ticlopidine was the only suspected drug. Conclusion: Safety profile of ticlopidine can be considered well-established in terms of ADRs type but their frequency and severity continue to be higher in its current use. Since this drug is still widely used in Italy, both healthcare providers and patients should be aware of its ADRs. More specifically, patients should be regularly monitored during the whole period of use and not only in the first months of treatment.     

A small economic inducement to stimulate increased reporting of adverse drug reactions—a way of dealing with an old problem?

Purpose To assess the effect of a small economic inducement on the rate of spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and the attitudes of general practitioners and physicians towards reporting of ADRs.Method One intervention and one control county were selected for the study. Written information about the main purpose of spontaneous reporting of ADRs was personally addressed to all physicians in the two counties. The information was identical, except for the addition that during a period of 6 months two lottery tickets would be given to the receivers in the intervention area with the standard personal feedback to the reporter of the ADR. After the 6-month study period, the actual number of reported ADRs and the seriousness of the reported ADRs were assessed. To investigate the attitude towards this stimulation of reporting, a questionnaire was addressed to all physicians within the intervention area (IA).Results From the IA a total number of 57 ADR reports were received containing 62 suspected ADRs, 40% of which were assessed as serious reactions. From the control area (CA), 49 reports containing 50 suspected ADRs were received, 32% of which were assessed as serious reactions. The increase of ADR reports from the IA compared to the same time period the previous year was 59% as compared to an unchanged reporting from the CA. Of those responding to the questionnaire, 80% did not believe that a small economic bonus would be a useful tool to improve the reporting rate.Conclusion A small economic inducement is associated with an increase in the reporting of suspected ADRs.     

Assessment of Adverse Drug Reactions Based on Spontaneous Signals at Secondary Care Public Hospital

Adverse drug reactions are considered to be among the leading causes of morbidity and mortality. Approximately 5-25% of hospital admissions are due to adverse drug reactions and 6-15% of hospitalized patients experience serious adverse drug reactions, causing significant prolongation of hospital stay. Thus this study was aimed at determining adverse drug reactions by conducting spontaneous reporting in secondary care Govt. District Head Quarters Hospital at Ooty. A prospective Spontaneous Adverse Drug Reaction reporting study was conducted over a period of 12 months from July 2012 to June 2013. The assessment, categorization, causality, severity and preventability were assessed using standard criteria. A total of 47 suspected adverse drug reactions were reported during the study period. Over all incidences was 1.29% among the study population. Antibiotics (31.91%) were the class of drug most commonly involved, while ciprofloxacin (14.89%) was the most frequently reported. Type H (Hypersensitivity) reactions (51.06%) accounted for majority of the reports and a greater share of the adverse drug reactions are probable (89.36%) based on causality assessment. Mild reactions accounted 82.97% based on modified Hartwig and Siegel severity scale. In 76.59% of the reports, the reaction was considered to be preventable based on Schumock and Thornton preventability scale. The implementation of monitoring based on spontaneous reporting will be useful for the detection and evaluation is associated with increase in morbidity and duration of hospitalization. This study also has established the vital role of clinical pharmacist in the adverse drug reaction monitoring program.     

An ADR surveillance program: increasing quality, number of incidence reports

An Adverse Drug Reaction Surveillance Program (ADRSP) was implemented by the pharmacy department of the University of Maryland Medical System to address the institution's underreporting of adverse drug reactions. The program aims were to increase the number and quality of significant adverse drug reaction (ADR) reports by facilitating and standardizing the reporting process, to more actively involve the pharmacy staff, and to create a comprehensive database, thus enabling the intervention of future untoward events. During the program's first 2 years, the number of ADR reports more than doubled, primarily due to increased pharmacists' participation. The ADRSP has facilitated the reporting process, enhanced the submission of ADR reports to the FDA, and helped prevent ADRs.     

Under-reporting of serious adverse drug reactions in Sweden

INTRODUCTION: Adverse drug reactions (ADR) constitute a major problem, both from a medical point of view and as an economical burden. Spontaneous reporting of ADRs is one of the methods for post marketing surveillance of drug safety. Under-reporting can also provide an important obstacle to rapid and relevant signal detection. AIM: To investigate the rate of under-reporting serious ADRs of selected ICD 10 diagnoses. METHOD: In order to investigate the under-reporting rate we investigated at five hospitals within the county of Norrbotten in Sweden the total number of diagnosed cases during a period of 5 years (1996-2000) with the following diagnoses: cerebral haemorrhage (I 61.0-I 61.9), pulmonary embolism (I 26.0 and I 26.9), embolism or thrombosis (I 74.0-I 74.9), phlebititis, thrombophlebitits or venous thrombosis (I 80.0-I 80.3, I 80.8 and I 80.9) and portal vein thrombosis and other thrombosis or emboli (I 82.0-I 82.3, I 82.8 and I 82.9). The identity of these patients was obtained through a database search. The patients' case records were then scrutinized by a specially trained nurse and the drugs used at the time of the event were noted. An assessment of the possibility of an ADR was performed using standard WHO causality criteria. Later, database search in the Swedish ADR registry was performed in order to investigate whether these suspected ADRs had been reported to the national authority in Sweden or not. RESULTS: In total 1349 case records were found and scrutinized. Of these, 107 patients had received drugs that could have been a probable or possible cause to the diagnoses. Of these 92 cases had not been reported and only 15 patients were found in the database, giving an overall under-reporting rate of all ADRs of 86%.The most commonly occurring diagnoses were cerebral haemorrhage followed by venous thrombosis, 545 and 468 respectively. Among those cases that should have been reported according to the existing rules for spontaneous reporting of suspected ADRs the most frequently occurring diagnosis was cerebral haemorrhage (I 61.0) in connection to treatment with anticoagulants. CONCLUSION: The rate of spontaneous ADR reporting is very low, also for serious and fatal reactions.     

Adverse effects of neuromuscular blocking agents based on yellow card reporting in the U.K.: are there differences between males and females?

BACKGROUND: Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are known to occur during anaesthesia; in the U.K. such ADRs may be reported through the Yellow Card Scheme (YCS). Our aim was to determine the demographics of ADRs to neuromuscular blocking drugs without formal causality assessment. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of ADRs to seven neuromuscular blocking drugs reported via the YCS during a greater than 30-year period was performed. Sex and age were analysed in order to identify at risk groups. RESULTS: Of 998 reports, 969 included gender. Non-allergic suspected reactions occurred with almost the same frequency as those with an allergic component. The majority occurred in females 676 (70%), and significant sex differences were measured between drugs. Males were more likely to have suffered an ADR to atracurium (p = 0.01) whilst females experienced more ADRs to suxamethonium (p = 0.01). ADRs proved fatal in 81 (9%) of the 950 reports for single drugs. Mortality following suxamethonium was significantly higher in males at 22% compared with 9% females (p < 0.001). More women than men were reported to have allergic reactions, 73% (362/499) compared with 27% (137/499) respectively. The female:male ratio for ADRs was reversed for subjects < 10 years compared with peak ADR reports during the decade from 31-40 years. CONCLUSIONS: Sex differences in mortality exist in this analysis. The unexpected high frequency of non-allergic ADRs suggests that morbidity and mortality from reactions to established drugs is twice that expected from allergic reactions alone. Standards and guidance for the reporting of ADRs warrant urgent development.     

5277例中药不良反应分析

目的了僻中药不良反应发生情况。方法通过对2006—2008年上海市药品不良反应监测中心收集的5277例中药不良反应应用统计分析和PRR值计算,进行中药不良反应情况分析。结果中药发生的不良反应主要为皮肤附件损害、过敏性反应和消化系统损害;严重不良反应为2．8％;应用PRR值检测到药物不良反应信号91个,值得进一步研究。结论中药不良反应一般较为轻微,有意义的不良反应较少。PRR值计算简单,可用于不良反应信号检测。