Which drugs cause preventable admissions to hospital? A systematic review

Aim: Previous systematic reviews have found that drug-related morbidity accounts for 4.3% of preventable hospital admissions. None, however, has identified the drugs most commonly responsible for preventable hospital admissions. The aims of this study were to estimate the percentage of preventable drug-related hospital admissions, the most common drug causes of preventable hospital admissions and the most common underlying causes of preventable drug-related admissions. Methods: Bibliographic databases and reference lists from eligible articles and study authors were the sources for data. Seventeen prospective observational studies reporting the proportion of preventable drug-related hospital admissions, causative drugs and/or the underlying causes of hospital admissions were selected. Included studies used multiple reviewers and/or explicit criteria to assess causality and preventability of hospital admissions. Two investigators abstracted data from all included studies using a purpose-made data extraction form. Results: From 13 papers the median percentage of preventable drug-related admissions to hospital was 3.7% (range 1.4-15.4). From nine papers the majority (51%) of preventable drug-related admissions involved either antiplatelets (16%), diuretics (16%), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (11%) or anticoagulants (8%). From five studies the median proportion of preventable drug-related admissions associated with prescribing problems was 30.6% (range 11.1-41.8), with adherence problems 33.3% (range 20.9-41.7) and with monitoring problems 22.2% (range 0-31.3). Conclusions: Four groups of drugs account for more than 50% of the drug groups associated with preventable drug-related hospital admissions. Concentrating interventions on these drug groups could reduce appreciably the number of preventable drug-related admissions to hospital from primary care.

Proposed best practice for statisticians in the reporting and publication of pharmaceutical industry-sponsored clinical trials

In this paper we set out what we consider to be a set of best practices for statisticians in the reporting of pharmaceutical industry-sponsored clinical trials. We make eight recommendations covering: author responsibilities and recognition; publication timing; conflicts of interest; freedom to act; full author access to data; trial registration and independent review. These recommendations are made in the context of the prominent role played by statisticians in the design, conduct, analysis and reporting of pharmaceutical sponsored trials and the perception of the reporting of these trials in the wider community.

The potential for bias in reporting of industry-sponsored clinical trials

Concerns about potentially misleading reporting of pharmaceutical industry research have surfaced many times. The potential for duality (and thereby conflict) of interest is only too clear when you consider the sums of money required for the discovery, development and commercialization of new medicines. As the ability of major, mid-size and small pharmaceutical companies to innovate has waned, as evidenced by the seemingly relentless decline in the numbers of new medicines approved by Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency year-on-year, not only has the cost per new approved medicine risen: so too has the public and media concern about the extent to which the pharmaceutical industry is open and honest about the efficacy, safety and quality of the drugs we manufacture and sell. In 2005 an Editorial in Journal of the American Medical Association made clear that, so great was their concern about misleading reporting of industry-sponsored studies, henceforth no article would be published that was not also guaranteed by independent statistical analysis. We examine the precursors to this Editorial, as well as its immediate and lasting effects for statisticians, for the manner in which statistical analysis is carried out, and for the industry more generally.

Mechanisms of burst release from pH-responsive polymeric microparticles.

Microencapsulation of drugs into preformed polymers is commonly achieved through solvent evaporation techniques or spray drying. We compared these encapsulation methods in terms of controlled drug release properties of the prepared microparticles and investigated the underlying mechanisms responsible for the “burst release” effect. Using two different pH-responsive polymers with a dissolution threshold of pH 6 (Eudragit L100 and AQOAT AS-MG), hydrocortisone, a model hydrophobic drug, was incorporated into microparticles below and above its solubility within the polymer matrix. Although, spray drying is an attractive approach due to rapid particle production and relatively low solvent waste, the oil-in-oil microencapsulation method is superior in terms of controlled drug release properties from the microparticles. Slow solvent evaporation during the oil-in-oil emulsification process allows adequate time for drug and polymer redistribution in the microparticles and reduces uncontrolled drug burst release. Electron microscopy showed that this slower manufacturing procedure generated non-porous particles whereas thermal analysis and X-ray diffractometry showed that drug loading above the solubility limit of the drug in the polymer generated excess crystalline drug on the surface of the particles. Raman spectral mapping illustrated that drug was homogeneously distributed as a solid solution in the particles when loaded below saturation in the polymer with consequently minimal burst release.