A patient's perspective:the impact of adverse drug reactions on patients and their views on reporting

What is known and objective: Adverse drug reactions to prescribed medication are relatively common events. However, the impact such reactions have on patients and their attitude to reporting such events have only been poorly explored. Previous studies relying on self-reporting patients indicate that altruism is an important factor. In the United Kingdom, patient reporting started in 2005; though, numbers of serious reports remain low. Method: A purposive sample of fifteen patients who had been admitted to an inner city hospital with an adverse drug reaction were interviewed using a semi-structured questionnaire. Patients were asked to relate in their own words their experience of an adverse drug reaction. Patient's reactions to the information leaflet, adherence to treatment and use of other sources of information on medication were assessed. Interviews were recorded, and a thematic analysis of patients'responses was performed. Results and discussion: Analysis of the patient interviews demonstrated the reality of being admitted to hospital is often a frightening process with a significant emotional cost. Anger, isolation, resentment and blame were common factors, particularly when medicines had been prescribed for acute conditions. For patients with chronic conditions, a more phlegmatic approach was seen especially with conditions with a strong support networks. Patients felt that communication and information should have been more readily available from the health care professional who prescribed the medication, although few had read the patient information leaflet. Only a minority of patients linked the medication they had taken to the adverse event, although some had received false reassurance that the drug was not related to their illness creating additional barriers. In contrast to previous studies, many patients felt that adverse drug reporting was not their concern, particularly as they obtained little direct benefit from it. The majority of patients were unaware of the Yellow Card Scheme in the UK for patient reporting. Even when explained, the scheme was felt too cold and impersonal and not a patient's 'job'. What is new and conclusion: Patients having a severe adverse drug reaction following an acute illness felt negative emotions towards their health care provider. Those with a chronic condition rationalized the event and coped better with its impact. Neither group felt that reporting the adverse reaction was their responsibility. Encouraging patients to report remains important but expecting patients to report solely for altruistic purposes may be unrealistic. © 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

The impact of statin use on fetal development:a meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION: Statin use inadvertently during pregnancy and proposed use of statins for the treatment of preeclampsia, led us to question the evidence behind their current contraindicated status. Several studies have evaluated the relationship between statin use in pregnancy with fetal outcome but their results have not been quantitatively assessed by meta-analysis. Our objective was to undertake a systematic review of all published clinical evidence to assess the effects of statin use in pregnancy on subsequent fetal wellbeing. METHODS: A comprehensive search strategy was performed of all electronic databases and the Merck reporting database for studies published from 1966 to 2014. Two reviewers independently screened citations and undertook study quality assessment and data extraction. We obtained summary estimates of adverse fetal events that were classified as potentially fatal, clinically significant morbidity or minor adverse event. We identified 602 titles and reviewed 30 articles for inclusion and exclusion criteria. Meta-analysis was performed on seven studies (3 cohort, 3 case-series and 1 case-control). RESULTS: Of the 922 cases of statin exposure in pregnancy, 27 exposures were associated with lethal or clinically significant fetal morbidity and 10 with minor adverse events. Statin exposure was limited to the first trimester in all but two cases. The pooled rate of lethal or clinically significant fetal abnormalities in pregnant women exposed to statins was 0.01 (95% CI 0.00-0.04), less than the European rate of 0.026 (95% CI 2.54- 2.57)EUROCAT. The rate of fetal abnormality for simvastatin was 0.03 (95% CI 0.00-0.08), atorvostatin 0.11 (95% CI 0.00-0.52), pravastatin 0.01 (95% CI 0.00-0.2) and lovastatin use 0.04 (95% CI 0.00-0.28). Systems based anomalies were also calculated, congenital heart disease was 0.8 (95% CI 0.02-0.12) compared with the background rate of 0.79 (95% CI 0.78- 0.80). CONCLUSIONS: The published data suggests that statins may not be teratogenic when given inadvertently during pregnancy and prospective studies such as The StAmP Trial may provide more data

Cholinesterase inhibitors for dementia with Lewy bodies, Parkinson's disease dementia and cognitive impairment in Parkinson's disease

Background - Previous Cochrane reviews have considered the use of cholinesterase inhibitors in both Parkinson's disease with dementia (PDD) and dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB). The clinical features of DLB and PDD have much in common and are distinguished primarily on the basis of whether or not parkinsonism precedes dementia by more than a year. Patients with both conditions have particularly severe deficits in cortical levels of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine. Therefore, blocking its breakdown using cholinesterase inhibitors may lead to clinical improvement. Objectives - To assess the efficacy, safety and tolerability of cholinesterase inhibitors in dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), Parkinson’s disease with dementia (PDD), and cognitive impairment in Parkinson’s disease falling short of dementia (CIND-PD) (considered as separate phenomena and also grouped together as Lewy body disease). Search methods - The trials were identified from a search of ALOIS, the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group (on 30 August 2011) using the search terms Lewy, Parkinson, PDD, DLB, LBD. This register consists of records from major healthcare databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL) and many ongoing trial databases and is updated regularly. Reference lists of relevant studies were searched for additional trials. Selection criteria - Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials assessing the efficacy of treatment with cholinesterase inhibitors in DLB, PDD and cognitive impairment in Parkinson’s disease (CIND-PD). Data collection and analysis - Data were extracted from published reports by one review author (MR). The data for each 'condition' (that is DLB, PDD or CIND-PD) were considered separately and, where possible, also pooled together. Statistical analysis was conducted using Review Manager version 5.0. Main results - Six trials met the inclusion criteria for this review, in which a total of 1236 participants were randomised. Four of the trials were of a parallel group design and two cross-over trials were included. Four of the trials included participants with a diagnosis of Parkinson's disease with dementia (Aarsland 2002a; Dubois 2007; Emre 2004; Ravina 2005), of which Dubois 2007 remains unpublished. Leroi 2004 included patients with cognitive impairment and Parkinson's disease (both with and without dementia). Patients with dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) were included in only one of the trials (McKeith 2000). For global assessment, three trials comparing cholinesterase inhibitor treatment to placebo in PDD (Aarsland 2002a; Emre 2004; Ravina 2005) reported a difference in the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Clinical Global Impression of Change (ADCS-CGIC) score of -0.38, favouring the cholinesterase inhibitors (95% CI -0.56 to -0.24, P < 0.0001). For cognitive function, a pooled estimate of the effect of cholinesterase inhibitors on cognitive function measures was consistent with the presence of a therapeutic benefit (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.34, 95% CI -0.46 to -0.23, P < 0.00001). There was evidence of a positive effect of cholinesterase inhibitors on the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) in patients with PDD (WMD 1.09, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.73, P = 0.0008) and in the single PDD and CIND-PD trial (WMD 1.05, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.68, P = 0.01) but not in the single DLB trial. For behavioural disturbance, analysis of the pooled continuous data relating to behavioural disturbance rating scales favoured treatment with cholinesterase inhibitors (SMD -0.20, 95% CI -0.36 to -0.04, P = 0.01). For activities of daily living, combined data for the ADCS and the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) activities of daily living rating scales favoured treatment with cholinesterase inhibitors (SMD -0.20, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.02, P = 0.03). For safety and tolerability, those taking a cholinesterase inhibitor were more likely to experience an adverse event (318/452 versus 668/842; odds ratio (OR) 1.64, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.15, P = 0.0003) and to drop out (128/465 versus 45/279; OR 1.94, 95% CI 1.33 to 2.84, P = 0.0006). Adverse events were more common amongst those taking rivastigmine (357/421 versus 173/240; OR 2.28, 95% CI 1.53 to 3.38, P < 0.0001) but not those taking donepezil (311/421 versus 145/212; OR 1.24, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.80, P = 0.25). Parkinsonian symptoms in particular tremor (64/739 versus 12/352; OR 2.71, 95% CI 1.44 to 5.09, P = 0.002), but not falls (P = 0.39), were reported more commonly in the treatment group but this did not have a significant impact on the UPDRS (total and motor) scores (P = 0.71). Fewer deaths occurred in the treatment group than in the placebo group (4/465 versus 9/279; OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.84, P = 0.03). Authors' conclusions - The currently available evidence supports the use of cholinesterase inhibitors in patients with PDD, with a positive impact on global assessment, cognitive function, behavioural disturbance and activities of daily living rating scales. The effect in DLB remains unclear. There is no current disaggregated evidence to support their use in CIND-PD.

Ranibizumab versus Bevacizumab to treat neovascular age-related macular degeneration:one-year findings from the IVAN Randomized Trial

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and safety of ranibizumab and bevacizumab intravitreal injections to treat neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). DESIGN: Multicenter, noninferiority factorial trial with equal allocation to groups. The noninferiority limit was 3.5 letters. This trial is registered (ISRCTN92166560). PARTICIPANTS: People >50 years of age with untreated nAMD in the study eye who read =25 letters on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study chart. METHODS: We randomized participants to 4 groups: ranibizumab or bevacizumab, given either every month (continuous) or as needed (discontinuous), with monthly review. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome is at 2 years; this paper reports a prespecified interim analysis at 1 year. The primary efficacy and safety outcome measures are distance visual acuity and arteriothrombotic events or heart failure. Other outcome measures are health-related quality of life, contrast sensitivity, near visual acuity, reading index, lesion morphology, serum vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) levels, and costs. RESULTS: Between March 27, 2008 and October 15, 2010, we randomized and treated 610 participants. One year after randomization, the comparison between bevacizumab and ranibizumab was inconclusive (bevacizumab minus ranibizumab -1.99 letters, 95% confidence interval [CI], -4.04 to 0.06). Discontinuous treatment was equivalent to continuous treatment (discontinuous minus continuous -0.35 letters; 95% CI, -2.40 to 1.70). Foveal total thickness did not differ by drug, but was 9% less with continuous treatment (geometric mean ratio [GMR], 0.91; 95% CI, 0.86 to 0.97; P = 0.005). Fewer participants receiving bevacizumab had an arteriothrombotic event or heart failure (odds ratio [OR], 0.23; 95% CI, 0.05 to 1.07; P = 0.03). There was no difference between drugs in the proportion experiencing a serious systemic adverse event (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 0.80 to 2.27; P = 0.25). Serum VEGF was lower with bevacizumab (GMR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.54; P

Correlates of spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions within primary care: the paradox of low prescribers who are high reporters

AIM(S) To examine Primary Care Trust (PCT) demographics influencing general practitioner (GP) involvement in pharmacovigilance. METHODS PCT adverse drug reaction (ADR) reports to the Yellow Card scheme between April 2004 and March 2006 were obtained for the UK West Midlands region. Reports were analysed by all drugs, and most commonly reported drugs (‘top drugs’). PCT data, adjusted for population size, were aggregated. Prescribing statistics and other characteristics were obtained for each PCT, and associations between these characteristics and ADR reporting rates were examined. RESULTS During 2004–06, 1175 reports were received from PCTs. Two hundred and eighty (24%) of these reports were for 14 ‘top drugs’. The mean rate of reporting for PCTs was 213 reports per million population. A total of 153 million items were prescribed during 2004–06, of which 33% were ‘top drugs’. Reports for all drugs and ‘top drugs’ were inversely correlated with the number of prescriptions issued per thousand population (rs = -0.413, 95% CI -0.673, -0.062, P < 0.05, and r = -0.420, 95% CI -0.678, -0.071, P < 0.05, respectively). Reporting was significantly negatively correlated with the percentages of male GPs within a PCT, GPs over 55 years of age, single-handed GPs within a PCT, the average list size of a GP within a PCT, the overall deprivation scores and average QOF total points. ADR reports did not correlate significantly with the proportion of the population over 65 years old. CONCLUSIONS Some PCT characteristics appear to be associated with low levels of ADR reporting. The association of low prescribing areas with high ADR reporting rates replicates previous findings.

An examination of adverse drug reaction reporting to the yellow card scheme

Chief pharmacists in 209 hospitals were surveyed about ADR reporting schemes, the priority given to ADR reporting, and attitudes towards ADR reporting. ADR reporting had a low managerial priority. Local reporting schemes were found to be operating in 37% trusts, but there were few plans to start new schemes. Few problems were discovered by the introduction of pharmacist ADR reporting. Chief pharmacists had concerns about the competence of hospital pharmacists to detect ADRs and were in favour of increased training. Lack of time on wards, and recruitment difficulties were suggested as reasons for hospital pharmacist under-reporting. Teaching hospitals appeared to have an increased interest in ADR reporting. A retrospective analysis of reporting trends within the West Midlands region from 1994, showed increasing or stable reporting rates for most sectors of reporters, except for general practitioners (GPs). The West Midlands region maintained higher ADR reporting rates than the rest of the UK. National reporting figures showed a worrying decline in ADR reports from healthcare professionals. Variation was found in the ADR reporting rates of Acute NHS Hospital Trusts and Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) in the West Midlands region, including correlations with prescribing rates and other PCT characteristics. Qualitative research into attitudes of GPs towards the Yellow Card scheme was undertaken. A series of qualitative interviews with GPs discovered barriers and positive motivators for their involvement in the Yellow Card scheme. A grounded theory of GP involvement in the Yellow Card scheme was developed to explain GP behaviour, and which could be used to inform potential solutions to halt declining rates of reporting. Under-reporting of ADRs continues to be a major concern to those who administer spontaneous reporting schemes.

The pharmacist's contribution towards monitoring and reporting adverse drug reactions

The activities and function of the West Midlands Adverse Drug Reaction Study Group are described. The impact of the Group on the reporting of adverse drug reactions to the CSM by the yellow card system has been evaluated in several ways including a comparison with the Trent Region. The role of the pharmacist in the Group is highlighted. A nationwide survey of the hospital pharmacist's involvement in adverse drug reaction reporting and monitoring is described, the results are reported and discussed. The available sources of information on adverse drug reactions, both primary and secondary, are critically reviewed. A checklist of necessary details for case reports is developed and examples of problems in the literature are given. The contribution of the drug information pharmacist in answering enquiries and encouraging reporting is examined. A role for the ward pharmacist in identifying, reporting, documenting and following up adverse drug reactions is proposed. Studies conducted to support this role are described and the results discussed. The ward pharmacist's role in preventing adverse drug reactions is also outlined. The reporting of adverse drug reactions in Australia is contrasted with the U.K. and particular attention is drawn to the pharmacist's contribution in the former. The problems in evaluating drug safety are discussed and examples are given where serious reactions have only been recognised after many patients have been exposed. To remedy this situation a case is made for enhancing the CSM yellow card scheme by further devolution of reporting, increasing the involvement of pharmacists and improving arrangements at the CSM. It is proposed that pharmacists should undertake the responsibility for reporting reactions to the CSM in some instances.

Adverse drug reaction teaching in UK undergraduate medical and pharmacy programmes

Objectives: To assess the extent of teaching about the Committee on Safety of Medicine's Yellow Card scheme and adverse drug reactions within UK Schools of Medicine and Pharmacy. Methods: A self-completed questionnaire sent to all heads of undergraduate schools of medicine and pharmacy within the UK. Results: The majority of undergraduate syllabuses feature the Yellow Card Scheme. Knowledge of the Yellow Card Scheme was assessed in 79% of pharmacy programmes and 57% of medical schools. Specialist speakers on the Yellow Card Scheme were infrequently used. Fewer than half of respondents provided students with a guide to reporting ADRs (43% pharmacy and 43% medical). There is some disagreement about the value of supplying students with printed material about the Yellow Card Scheme. Half of medical Schools did not think that supplying 'Current Problems In Pharmacovigilance' would be useful. Conclusions: It was found that in both medicine and pharmacy, courses differed substantially in teaching about the Yellow Card Scheme and adverse drug reactions (ADRs). There is scope for increased involvement of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency in undergraduate education, in line with recommendations from the National Audit Office.

Neurodegeneration is an early event in diabetic retinopathy:therapeutic implications

Diabetic retinopathy (DR) remains the leading cause of blindness among working-age individuals in developed countries. Current treatments for DR are indicated in advanced stages of the disease and are associated with significant adverse effects. Therefore, new pharmacological treatments for the early stages of DR are needed. DR has been classically considered to be a microcirculatory disease of the retina. However, there is growing evidence to suggest that retinal neurodegeneration is an early event in the pathogenesis of DR, which participates in the microcirculatory abnormalities that occur in DR. Therefore, the study of the underlying mechanisms that lead to neurodegeneration will be essential for identifying new therapeutic targets. From the clinical point of view, the identification of those patients in whom retinal neurodegeneration appears will be crucial for implementing early treatment based on neuroprotective drugs. When the early stages of DR are the therapeutic target, it would be inconceivable to recommend an aggressive treatment such as intravitreous injections. By contrast, topical administration of neuroprotective drugs by using eye drops is a possible option. However, clinical trials to determine the safety and effectiveness of this non-invasive route, as well as a standardisation of the methods for monitoring neurodegeneration, are needed.

Patient experiences of serious adverse drug reactions and their attitudes to medicines:a qualitative study of survivors of Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis in the UK

Background: Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) cause significant morbidity and mortality and account for around 6.5% of hospital admissions. Patient experiences of serious ADRs and their long-term impact on patients' lives, including their influence on current attitudes towards medicines, have not been previously explored. Objective: The aim of the study was to explore the experiences, beliefs, and attitudes of survivors of serious ADRs, using drug-induced Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis (TEN) as a paradigm. Methods: A retrospective, qualitative study was undertaken using detailed semi-structured interviews. Fourteen adult survivors of SJS and TEN, admitted to two teaching hospitals in the UK, one the location of a tertiary burns centre, were interviewed. Interview transcripts were independently analysed by three different researchers and themes emerging from the text identified. Results: All 14 patients were aware that their condition was drug induced, and all but one knew the specific drug(s) implicated. Several expressed surprise at the perceived lack of awareness of the ADR amongst healthcare professionals, and described how the ADR was mistaken for another condition. Survivors believed that causes of the ADR included (i) being given too high a dose of the drug; (ii) medical staff ignoring existing allergies; and (iii) failure to monitor blood tests. Only two believed that the reaction was unavoidable. Those who believed that the condition could have been avoided had less trust in healthcare professionals. The ADR had a persisting impact on their current lives physically and psychologically. Many now avoided medicines altogether and were fearful of becoming ill enough to need them. © 2011 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved. Conclusions: Life-threatening ADRs continued to affect patients’ lives long after the event. Patients’ beliefs regarding the cause of the ADR differed, and may have influenced their trust in healthcare professionals and medicines. We propose that clear communication during the acute phase of a serious ADR may therefore be important.

Anticholinergic burden in older adults with intellectual disability; relationships with multimorbidity and adverse effects

Background: Anticholinergic medications may be associated with adverse clinical outcomes, including acute impairments in cognition and anticholinergic side effects, the risk of adverse outcomes increasing with increasing anticholinergic exposure. Older people with intellectual disability may be at increased risk of exposure to anticholinergic medicines due to their higher prevalence of comorbidities. We sought to determine anticholinergic burden in ageing people with intellectual disability. Methods: Medication data (self-report/proxy-report) was drawn from Wave 1 of the Intellectual Disability Supplement to the Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing (IDS-TILDA), a study on the ageing of 753nationally representative people with an IDC40 years randomly selected from the National Intellectual Disability Database. Each individual’s cumulative exposure to anticholinergic medications was calculated using the Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden Scale (ACB) amended by a multi-disciplinary group with independent advice to account for the range of medicines in use in this population. Results: Overall, 70.1 % (527) reported taking medications with possible or definite anticholinergic properties (ACBC1), with a mean (±SD) ACB score of 4.5 (±3.0) (maximum 16). Of those reporting anticholinergic exposure (n=527), 41.3 % (217) reported an ACB score o fC5. Antipsychotics accounted for 36.4 % of the total cumulative ACB score followed by anticholinergics (16 %) and antidepressants (10.8 %). The most frequently reported medicine with anticholinergic activity was carbamazepine 16.8 % (127). The most frequently reported medicine with high anticholinergic activity (ACB 3) was olanzapine13.4 % (101). There was a significant association between higher anti-cholinergic exposure and multimorbidity, particularly mental health morbidity, and some anticholinergic adverse effects such as constipation and day-time drowsiness but not self-rated health. Conclusion: Using simple cumulative measures proved an effective means to capture total burden and helped establish that anticholinergic exposure in the study population was high. The finding highlights the need for comprehensive reviews of medications.