Approach to the patient with drug allergy

Drug allergies are adverse drug reactions mediated by the specific immune system. Despite characteristic signs (eg, skin rash) that raise awareness for possible drug allergies, they are great imitators of disease and may hide behind unexpected symptoms. No single standardized diagnostic test can confirm the immune-mediated mechanism or identify the causative drug; therefore, immune-mediated drug hypersensitivity reactions and their causative drugs must be recognized by the constellation of exposure, timing, and clinical features including the pattern of organ manifestation. Additional allergologic investigations (skin tests, in vitro tests, provocation tests) may provide help in identifying the possible eliciting drug.

[Drug-induced Stevens-Johnson syndrome in a patient with AIDS]

The Stevens-Johnson syndrome is a severe potentially life-threatening form of the erythema multiforme, affecting both skin and mucous membranes. We present a case of a 49-year-old male patient with AIDS who developed a Stevens-Johnson syndrome while being treated with pyrimethamine, sulfadiazine and phenytoin for cerebral toxoplasmosis. Further diagnostic evaluation of this dangerous cutaneous affection may prove difficult for several reasons. In particular, in patients with AIDS who are more susceptible for adverse drug reactions and who are simultaneously receiving a variety of drugs with a considerable potential of cutaneous side effects, therapy cannot be withhold for lack of therapeutic alternatives. Moreover, the low lymphocyte count in this case may have made reliable testing with lymphocyte transformation studies impossible. The evaluation and the differential diagnosis of the drug-induced Stevens-Johnson syndrome are discussed. Especially long- and moderately long-acting sulfonamides belong to the most important agents that can cause a drug-induced Stevens-Johnson syndrome. The pathogenesis and the risk factors for cutaneous hypersensitivity reactions in HIV-infected patients are only poorly understood. These kind of reactions, however, seem to occur more often in patients with a more advanced immunodeficiency.

How is leflunomide prescribed and used in Australia? analysis of prescribing and adverse effect reporting

Purpose To evaluate the use of leflunomide in the Australian community since introduction in 2000. Trends in adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting were also studied. Methods Annual Australian prescription and dispensing statistics were analysed. Drug utilisation was estimated as defined daily doses (DDD)/1000 inhabitants/day. ADR data from the Therapeutic Goods Administration's Adverse Drug Reactions Advisory Committee (ADRAC) national monitoring system were compared with the World Health Organisation (WHO) Vigibase records. Results Leflunomide use in Australia (dispensing data) increased from 0.2 in 2000 to 0.4 DDD/1000 inhabitants/day in 2002. The same overall pattern was observed in the 'authority to prescribe' data. From 2000-2002, prescribing of the starter pack (3 x 100 mg loading dose plus 30 x 20 mg tablets) declined (down 74%); likewise for the 20mg (30 tablets) pack. Gradual increases were noted for the 10 mg (30 tablets) pack (up 40%). Approximately 135 reports, detailing about 370 individual ADR, were generated annually. Gastro-intestinal disorders predominated, accounting for 24% of reactions reported to ADRAC. Skin and appendages disorders constituted 14% of reported reactions. Deaths in leflunomide users were attributed to a combination of haematological and gastro-intestinal complications, but it was not possible to ascertain other medication usage or contributing factors. Trends observed with the ADRAC reports were consistent with the WHO database. Conclusions Leflunomide was the first registered DMARD in Australia in over a decade and its use has increased within the community. The ADR reports might have contributed to Australian rheumatologists gradually abandoning loading patients with high doses of leflunomide in favour of starting therapy at lower doses. Copyright (c) 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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.

Inappropriate Drug Prescribing in Older Adults: How to Reduce It?

Because older patients are more vulnerable to adverse drug-related events, there is a need to ensure appropriate pharmacotherapy in these patients. Screening to identify older patients at risk of drug-related problems (DRP) and adverse drug reactions (ADR) is the first critical step within a multistep approach to geriatric pharmacotherapy.

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

Purpose: Potentially Inappropriate Medications (PIM) use in elderly people may be responsible for the development of Adverse Drug Reaction (ADR) which, when severe, leads to hospital admissions. Objectives: to estimate the prevalence of elderly who had used PIM before being admitted to hospital and to identify the risk factors and the hospitalizations related to ADR arising from PIM. Methods: A descriptive and cross-sectional study was performed in the internal medicine ward of a teaching hospital (Brazil), in 2008. With the aid of a validated form, patients aged >= 60 years, with length of hospital stay >= 24 hours, were interviewed about drugs taken prior to the hospital admission and the complaints/reasons for hospitalization. Results: 19.1% (59/308) of older patients had taken PIM before hospital admission and in 4.9%; there were a causal relation between the PIM taken and the complaint reported. PIM responsible for admissions were: amiodarone, amitriptyline, cimetidine, clonidine, diazepam, digoxin, estrogen, fluoxetine, lorazepam, short-acting nifedipine and propranolol. 47.0% of the clinical manifestations of PIM-related ADR were: dizziness, fatigue, digoxin toxicity and erythema. Only polypharmacy was detected as a risk factor for the occurrence of ADR of PIM (p = 0.02). Conclusion: PIM use in elderly people is not a risk factor for ADR-related hospital admission. Probably, severe ADR, which lead to hospitalizations of older people, can be explained by idiosyncratic response or the predisposition of these patients to develop adverse drug events, whether or not drugs are classed as PIM.

A clinical audit of the prescribing of celecoxib and rofecoxib in Australian rural general practice

Aims The new cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) selective inhibitors, celecoxib (Celebrex®) and rofecoxib (Vioxx®), have been widely prescribed since their launch. No reviews currently appear in the literature of prescribing patterns in Australia. This paper describes a self-audit of the clinical use of selective COX-2 inhibitor therapy undertaken with rural general practitioners (GPs) in Australia. Methods A structured audit form was developed and distributed to interested GPs. The form was self-administered and focused on issues about COX-2 inhibitors and the types of patients who were receiving them, e.g. indications, patient demographics, risk factors and drug interactions. Results A total of 627 patients were recruited (569 celecoxib and 58 rofecoxib). A range of doses was prescribed. Osteoarthritis was the most common indication (68.1%). Risk factors known for the nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were identified in 65.1% of patients, with the most common being advanced age, hypertension and previous peptic ulcer disease. Potential drug interactions were common. A variety of reasons for initiation of therapy was identified; these included perceived increased efficacy, safety and failure of other treatment. Conclusions These results show that COX-2 inhibitors are being prescribed for patients with multiple risk factors that may place the patient at increased risk of adverse drug reactions to a COX-2 inhibitor. The perception of improved safety and efficacy was common and is of concern. Limitations of the study include the reliance on self-reporting.

Development of a quality use of medicines coding system to rate clinical pharmacists' medication review recommendations

Objective: To develop a 'quality use of medicines' coding system for the assessment of pharmacists' medication reviews and to apply it to an appropriate cohort. Method: A 'quality use of medicines' coding system was developed based on findings in the literature. These codes were then applied to 216 (111 intervention, 105 control) veterans' medication profiles by an independent clinical pharmacist who was supported by a clinical pharmacologist with the aim to assess the appropriateness of pharmacy interventions. The profiles were provided for veterans participating in a randomised, controlled trial in private hospitals evaluating the effect of medication review and discharge counselling. The reliability of the coding was tested by two independent clinical pharmacists in a random sample of 23 veterans from the study population. Main outcome measure: Interrater reliability was assessed by applying Cohen's kappa score on aggregated codes. Results: The coding system based on the literature consisted of 19 codes. The results from the three clinical pharmacists suggested that the original coding system had two major problems: (a) a lack of discrimination for certain recommendations e. g. adverse drug reactions, toxicity and mortality may be seen as variations in degree of a single effect and (b) certain codes e. g. essential therapy were in low prevalence. The interrater reliability for an aggregation of all codes into positive, negative and clinically non-significant codes ranged from 0.49-0.58 (good to fair). The interrater reliability increased to 0.72-0.79 (excellent) when all negative codes were excluded. Analysis of the sample of 216 profiles showed that the most prevalent recommendations from the clinical pharmacists were a positive impact in reducing adverse responses (31.9%), an improvement in good clinical pharmacy practice (25.5%) and a positive impact in reducing drug toxicity (11.1%). Most medications were assigned the clinically non-significant code (96.6%). In fact, the interventions led to a statistically significant difference in pharmacist recommendations in the categories; adverse response, toxicity and good clinical pharmacy practice measured by the quality use of medicine coding system. Conclusion: It was possible to use the quality use of medicine coding system to rate the quality and potential health impact of pharmacists' medication reviews, and the system did pick up differences between intervention and control patients. The interrater reliability for the summarised coding system was fair, but a larger sample of medication regimens is needed to assess the non-summarised quality use of medicines coding system.

Biological drugs for the treatment of psoriasis in a public health system

OBJECTIVE To analyze the access and utilization profile of biological medications for psoriasis provided by the judicial system in Brazil.METHODSThis is a cross-sectional study. We interviewed a total of 203 patients with psoriasis who were on biological medications obtained by the judicial system of the State of Sao Paulo, from 2004 to 2010. Sociodemographics, medical, and political-administrative characteristics were complemented with data obtained from dispensation orders that included biological medications to treat psoriasis and the legal actions involved. The data was analyzed using an electronic data base and shown as simple variable frequencies. The prescriptions contained in the lawsuits were analyzed according to legal provisions.RESULTS A total of 190 lawsuits requesting several biological drugs (adalimumab, efalizumab, etanercept, and infliximab) were analyzed. Patients obtained these medications as a result of injunctions (59.5%) or without having ever demanded biological medication from any health institution (86.2%), i.e., public or private health services. They used the prerogative of free legal aid (72.6%), even though they were represented by private lawyers (91.1%) and treated in private facilities (69.5%). Most of the patients used a biological medication for more than 13 months (66.0%), and some patients were undergoing treatment with this medication when interviewed (44.9%). Approximately one third of the patients discontinued treatment due to worsening of their illness (26.6%), adverse drug reactions (20.5%), lack of efficacy, or because the doctor discontinued this medication (13.8%). None of the analyzed medical prescriptions matched the legal prescribing requirements. Clinical monitoring results showed that 70.3% of the patients had not undergone laboratory examinations (blood work, liver and kidney function tests) for treatment control purposes.CONCLUSIONS The plaintiffs resorted to legal action to get access to biological medications because they were either unaware or had difficulty in accessing them through institutional public health system procedures. Access by means of legal action facilitated long-term use of this type of medication through irregular prescriptions and led to a high rate of adverse drug reactions as well as inappropriate clinical monitoring.