Safety Assessment of Potentially Inappropriate Medications (PIM) use in Older People and the Factors Associated with Hospital Admission

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)

Delay from fracture to hospital admission: a new risk factor for hip fracture mortality?

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)

Hip fracture in the elderly: does counting time from fracture to surgery or from hospital admission to surgery matter when studying in-hospital mortality?

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)

Adverse drug reaction as cause of hospital admission of elderly people: a pilot study

The objective of this study was to estimate the prevalence of adverse drug reactions (ADR) related to hospital admission of elderly people, identifying the use of potentially inappropriate medication (PIM), the ADR and the risk factors associated with the hospitalization. A cross-sectional study was conducted in a private hospital of São Paulo State, Brazil. All patients aged ≥ 60 years, admitted in the general practice ward in May 2006 were interviewed about the drugs used and the symptoms/complaints that resulted in hospitalization. More than a half (54.5 %) of elderly hospitalizations were related with ADR. The therapeutic classes involved with ADR were: cardiovascular (37.7 %), central nervous (34.6 %) and respiratory (5.7 %). The ADR observed were disorders in circulatory (28.4 %), digestive (20.0 %) and respiratory (18.9 %) tracts. 27 elderly had made PIM and in 20 of them this was the cause of hospitalization. Polypharmacy was an ADR risk factor (p = 0.021).These data allows the healthcare professionals upgrade, qualifying them in pharmcovigilance.

Possible adverse drug events leading to hospital admission in a Brazilian teaching hospital

OBJECTIVES: Drug safety problems can lead to hospital admission. In Brazil, the prevalence of hospitalization due to adverse drug events is unknown. This study aims to estimate the prevalence of hospitalization due to adverse drug events and to identify the drugs, the adverse drug events, and the risk factors associated with hospital admissions. METHOD: A cross-sectional study was performed in the internal medicine ward of a teaching hospital in São Paulo State, Brazil, from August to December 2008. All patients aged ≥18 years with a length of stay ≥24 hours were interviewed about the drugs used prior to hospital admission and their symptoms/complaints/causes of hospitalization. RESULTS: In total, 248 patients were considered eligible. The prevalence of hospitalization due to potential adverse drug events in the ward was 46.4%. Overprescribed drugs and those indicated for prophylactic treatments were frequently associated with possible adverse drug events. Frequently reported symptoms were breathlessness (15.2%), fatigue (12.3%), and chest pain (9.0%). Polypharmacy was a risk factor for the occurrence of possible adverse drug events. CONCLUSION: Possible adverse drug events led to hospitalization in a high-complexity hospital, mainly in polymedicated patients. The clinical outcomes of adverse drug events are nonspecific, which delays treatment, hinders causality analysis, and contributes to the underreporting of cases.

Outpatient versus inpatient treatment for acute pulmonary embolism

Background: Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a common life-threatening cardiovascular condition, with an incidence of 23 to 69 new cases per 100,000 people per year. Outpatient treatment instead of traditional inpatient treatment in selected non-high-risk patients with acute PE might provide several advantages, such as reduction of hospitalizations, substantial cost saving and an improvement in health-related quality of life. Objectives: To compare the efficacy and safety of outpatient versus inpatient treatment for acute PE for the outcomes of all-cause and PE-related mortality; bleeding; and adverse events such as hemodynamic instability, recurrence of PE and patients'satisfaction.Search methodsThe Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator (TSC) searched the Specialised Register (last searched October 2014) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 9). The TSC also searched clinical trials databases. The review authors searched LILACS (last searched November 2014). Selection criteria: Randomized controlled trials of outpatient versus inpatient treatment in people diagnosed with acute PE. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors selected relevant trials, assessed methodological quality, and extracted and analyzed data. Main results: We included one study, involving 339 participants. We ranked the quality of the evidence as very low due to not blinding the outcome assessors, the small number of events with imprecision in the confidential interval (CI), the small sample size and it was not possible to verify publication bias. For all outcomes, the CIs were wide and included clinically significant treatment effects in both directions: short-term mortality (30 days) (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.98, P = 0.49), long-term mortality (90 days) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.58, P = 0.99), major bleeding at 14 days (RR 4.91, 95% CI 0.24 to 101.57, P = 0.30) and 90 days (RR 6.88, 95% CI 0.36 to 134.14, P = 0.20), recurrent PE within 90 days (RR 2.95, 95% CI 0.12 to 71.85, P = 0.51) and participant satisfaction (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.03, P = 0.30). PE-related mortality, minor bleeding, and adverse course such as hemodynamic instability and compliance were not assessed by the single included study. Authors' conclusions: Current very low quality evidence from one published randomized controlled trial did not provide sufficient evidence to assess the efficacy and safety of outpatient versus inpatient treatment for acute PE in overall mortality, bleeding and recurrence of PE adequately. Further well-conducted research is required before informed practice decisions can be made.