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.

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.

Warfarin toxicity: do discharge ICD-10 codes and yellow cards accurately identify serious adverse drug reactions?

Focal points: ICD-10 codings and spontaneous yellow card reports for warfarin toxicity were compared retrospectively over a one-year period Eighteen cases of ICD-10 coded warfarin toxicity were identified from a total of 55,811 coded episodes More than three times as many ADRs to warfarin were found by screening ICD-10 codes as were reported spontaneously using the yellow card scheme Valuable information is being lost to regulatory authorities and as recognised reporters to the yellow card scheme, pharmacists are well placed to report these ADRs, enhancing their role in the safe and appropriate prescribing of warfarin

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.

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.

Pharmacovigilance in children : detecting adverse drug reactions in routine electronic healthcare records. A systematic review

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Pharmacovigilance in children : detecting adverse drug reactions in routine electronic healthcare records. A systematic review

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Pharmacovigilance in children : detecting adverse drug reactions in routine electronic healthcare records. A systematic review

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Addressing Inpatient Admissions and Readmissions Due to Adverse Drug Reactions in the Oldest Old

Adverse drugs reactions (ADRs) in the older population are a major healthcare problem resulting in significant morbidity, healthcare consumption and high costs.

Impact Of Drug Formulation And Free Platinum/cisplatin Ratio On Hypersensitivity Reactions To Cisplatin: Formulation Matters.

Use of cisplatin can induce type I hypersensitivity reactions that may also be linked to the quality of the drug utilized. We observed cases of hypersensitivity that appeared to be associated with the brand of cisplatin used. The aim of this study was to compare two different brands of cisplatin in relation to type I hypersensitivity reactions. Brand A was used in a tertiary care teaching hospital until 2012, and use of brand B started from January 2013, when the first hypersensitivity cases were observed. Patients were categorized based on symptom. Cisplatin of both brands was analysed by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) and high-resolution electrospray ionization mass spectrometry (ESI-(+)-MS) and characterized according to US Pharmacopeia. There were no cases of hypersensitivity associated with the use of cisplatin brand A, whereas four of 127 outpatients that used cisplatin brand B were affected. The two brands were in accordance with the US Pharmacopeia parameters, and there was no significant difference in the total platinum levels between the two brands when analysed by HPLC. However, high-resolution ESI-(+)-MS analyses show that brand B contains approximately 2.7 times more hydrolysed cisplatin than brand A. The increase in the hydrolysed form of cisplatin found in brand B may be the cause of the hypersensitivity reaction observed in a subset of patients. We present the first study of the quality of drugs by high-resolution ESI-(+)-MS. Drug regulatory agencies and manufacturers should consider including measurement of hydrolysed cisplatin as a quality criterion for cisplatin formulations.

Comparative analysis of adverse events between infliximab and adalimumab in Crohn's disease management: a Brazilian single-centre experience

INTRODUCTION: Data is scarce regarding adverse events (AE) of biological therapy used in the management of Crohn's Disease (CD) among Brazilian patients. OBJECTIVES: To analyse AE prevalence and profile in patients with CD treated with Infliximab (IFX) or Adalimumab (ADA) and to verify whether there are differences between the two drugs. METHOD: Retrospective observational single-centre study of CD patients on biological therapy. Variables analysed: Demographic data, Montreal classification, biological agent administered, treatment duration, presence and type of AE and the need for treatment interruption. RESULTS: Forty-nine patients were analysed, 25 treated with ADA and 24 with IFX. The groups were homogeneous in relation to the variables studied. The average follow-up period for the group treated with ADA was 19.3 months and 21.8 months for the IFX group (p = 0.585). Overall, 40% (n = 10) of patients taking ADA had AE compared with 50% (n = 12) of IFX users (p = 0.571). There was a tendency towards higher incidence of cutaneous and infusion reactions in the IFX group and higher incidence of infections in the ADA treated group, although without significant difference. CONCLUSIONS: No difference was found in the AE prevalence and profile between ADA and IFX CD patients in the population studied.

Adverse drug events in an intensive care unit of a university hospital

Purpose Adverse drug events (ADEs) are harmful and occur with alarming frequency in critically ill patients. Complex pharmacotherapy with multiple medications increases the probability of a drug interaction (DI) and ADEs in patients in intensive care units (ICUs). The objective of the study is to determine the frequency of ADEs among patients in the ICU of a university hospital and the drugs implicated. Also, factors associated with ADEs are investigated. Methods This cross-sectional study investigated 299 medical records of patients hospitalized for 5 or more days in an ICU. ADEs were identified through intensive monitoring adopted in hospital pharmacovigilance and also ADE triggers. Adverse drug reactions (ADR) causality was classified using the Naranjo algorithm. Data were analyzed through descriptive analysis, and through univariate and multiple logistic regression. Results The most frequent ADEs were ADRs type A, of possible causality and moderate severity. The most frequent ADR was drug-induced acute kidney injury. Patients with ADEs related to DIs corresponded to 7% of the sample. The multiple logistic regression showed that length of hospitalization (OR = 1.06) and administration of cardiovascular drugs (OR = 2.2) were associated with the occurrence of ADEs. Conclusion Adverse drug reactions of clinical significance were the most frequent ADEs in the ICU studied, which reduces patient safety. The number of ADEs related to drug interactions was small, suggesting that clinical manifestations of drug interactions that harm patients are not frequent in ICUs.