916 resultados para Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems
Resumo:
ABSTRACT OBJECTIVE To describe different approaches to promote adverse drug reaction reporting among health care professionals, determining their cost-effectiveness. METHODS We analyzed and compared several approaches taken by the Northern Pharmacovigilance Centre (Portugal) to promote adverse drug reaction reporting. Approaches were compared regarding the number and relevance of adverse drug reaction reports obtained and costs involved. Costs by report were estimated by adding the initial costs and the running costs of each intervention. These costs were divided by the number of reports obtained with each intervention, to assess its cost-effectiveness. RESULTS All the approaches seem to have increased the number of adverse drug reaction reports. We noted the biggest increase with protocols (321 reports, costing 1.96 € each), followed by first educational approach (265 reports, 20.31 €/report) and by the hyperlink approach (136 reports, 15.59 €/report). Regarding the severity of adverse drug reactions, protocols were the most efficient approach, costing 2.29 €/report, followed by hyperlinks (30.28 €/report, having no running costs). Concerning unexpected adverse drug reactions, the best result was obtained with protocols (5.12 €/report), followed by first educational approach (38.79 €/report). CONCLUSIONS We recommend implementing protocols in other pharmacovigilance centers. They seem to be the most efficient intervention, allowing receiving adverse drug reactions reports at lower costs. The increase applied not only to the total number of reports, but also to the severity, unexpectedness and high degree of causality attributed to the adverse drug reactions. Still, hyperlinks have the advantage of not involving running costs, showing the second best performance in cost per adverse drug reactions report.
Resumo:
Spontaneous adverse drug events (ADE) reporting is the main source of data for assessing the risk/benefit of drugs available in the pharmaceutical market. However, its major limitation is underreporting, which hinders and delays the signal detection by Pharmacovigilance (PhV). To identify the techniques of educational intervention (EI) for promotion of PhV by health professionals and to assess their impact. A systematic review was performed in the PUBMED, PAHO, LILACS and EMBASE databases, from November/2011 to January/2012, updated in March/2013. The strategy search included the use of health descriptors and a manual search in the references cited by selected papers. 101 articles were identified, of which 16 met the inclusion criteria. Most of these studies (10) were conducted in European hospitals and physicians were the health professionals subjected to most EI (12), these studies lasted from one month to two years. EI with multifaceted techniques raised the absolute number, the rate of reporting related to adverse drug reactions (ADR), technical defects of health technologies, and also promoted an improvement in the quality of reports, since there was increased reporting of ADR classified as serious, unexpected, related to new drugs and with high degree of causality. Multifaceted educational interventions for multidisciplinary health teams working at all healthcare levels, with sufficient duration to reach all professionals who act in the institution, including issues related to medication errors and therapeutic ineffectiveness, must be validated, with the aim of standardizing the Good Practice of PhV and improve drug safety indicators.
Resumo:
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.
Resumo:
Objective: Identifying the main causes for underreporting of Adverse Drug Reaction (ADR) by health professionals. Method: A systematic review carried out in the following databases: LILACS, PAHO, SciELO, EMBASE and PubMed in the period between 1992 and 2012. Descriptors were used in the search for articles, and the identified causes of underreporting were analyzed according to the classification of Inman. Results: In total, were identified 149 articles, among which 29 were selected. Most studies were carried out in hospitals (24/29) for physicians (22/29), and pharmacists (10/29). The main causes related to underreporting were ignorance (24/29), insecurity (24/29) and indifference (23/29). Conclusion: The data show the eighth sin in underreporting, which is the lack of training in pharmacovigilance. Therefore, continuing education can increase adherence of professionals to the service and improve knowledge and communication of risks due to drug use.
Resumo:
QUESTION UNDER STUDY: The frequency of severe adverse drug reactions (ADRs) from psychotropic drugs was investigated in hospitalised psychiatric patients in relation to their age. Specifically, the incidence of ADRs in patients up to 60 years was compared to that of patients older than 60 years. METHODS: Prescription rates of psychotropic drugs and reports of severe ADRs were collected in psychiatric hospitals in Switzerland between 2001 and 2010. The data stem from the drug surveillance programme AMSP. RESULTS: A total of 699 patients exhibited severe ADRs: 517 out of 28,282 patients up to 60 years (1.8%); 182 out of 11,446 elderly patients (1.6%, ns). Logistic regression analyses showed a significantly negative relationship between the incidence of ADRs and patients' age in general and in particular for weight gain, extrapyramidal motor system (EPMS) symptoms, increased liver enzymes and galactorrhoea. A significantly negative relationship was observed for age and the dosages of olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, valproic acid and lamotrigine. When comparing age groups, frequency of ADRs was lower in general for antipsychotic drugs and anticonvulsants, in particular for valproic acid in the elderly. Weight gain was found to be lower in the elderly for antipsychotic drugs, in particular for olanzapine. For the group of mood-stabilising anticonvulsants (carbamazepine, lamotrigine and valproic acid) the elderly exhibited a lower incidence of reported allergic skin reactions. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that for psychiatric inpatients the incidence of common severe ADRs (e.g., weight gain or EPMS symptoms) arising from psychotropic medication decreases with the age of patients.
Resumo:
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.
Resumo:
Objective: Identifying the main causes for underreporting of Adverse Drug Reaction (ADR) by health professionals. Method: A systematic review carried out in the following databases: LILACS, PAHO, SciELO, EMBASE and PubMed in the period between 1992 and 2012. Descriptors were used in the search for articles, and the identified causes of underreporting were analyzed according to the classification of Inman. Results: In total, were identified 149 articles, among which 29 were selected. Most studies were carried out in hospitals (24/29) for physicians (22/29), and pharmacists (10/29). The main causes related to underreporting were ignorance (24/29), insecurity (24/29) and indifference (23/29). Conclusion: The data show the eighth sin in underreporting, which is the lack of training in pharmacovigilance. Therefore, continuing education can increase adherence of professionals to the service and improve knowledge and communication of risks due to drug use.
Resumo:
Objective: Identifying the main causes for underreporting of Adverse Drug Reaction (ADR) by health professionals. Method: A systematic review carried out in the following databases: LILACS, PAHO, SciELO, EMBASE and PubMed in the period between 1992 and 2012. Descriptors were used in the search for articles, and the identified causes of underreporting were analyzed according to the classification of Inman. Results: In total, were identified 149 articles, among which 29 were selected. Most studies were carried out in hospitals (24/29) for physicians (22/29), and pharmacists (10/29). The main causes related to underreporting were ignorance (24/29), insecurity (24/29) and indifference (23/29). Conclusion: The data show the eighth sin in underreporting, which is the lack of training in pharmacovigilance. Therefore, continuing education can increase adherence of professionals to the service and improve knowledge and communication of risks due to drug use.
Resumo:
BACKGROUND Challenges exist in the clinical diagnosis of drug-induced liver injury (DILI) and in obtaining information on hepatotoxicity in humans. OBJECTIVE (i) To develop a unified list that combines drugs incriminated in well vetted or adjudicated DILI cases from many recognized sources and drugs that have been subjected to serious regulatory actions due to hepatotoxicity; and (ii) to supplement the drug list with data on reporting frequencies of liver events in the WHO individual case safety report database (VigiBase). DATA SOURCES AND EXTRACTION (i) Drugs identified as causes of DILI at three major DILI registries; (ii) drugs identified as causes of drug-induced acute liver failure (ALF) in six different data sources, including major ALF registries and previously published ALF studies; and (iii) drugs identified as being subjected to serious governmental regulatory actions due to their hepatotoxicity in Europe or the US were collected. The reporting frequency of adverse events was determined using VigiBase, computed as Empirical Bayes Geometric Mean (EBGM) with 90% confidence interval for two customized terms, 'overall liver injury' and 'ALF'. EBGM of >or=2 was considered a disproportional increase in reporting frequency. The identified drugs were then characterized in terms of regional divergence, published case reports, serious regulatory actions, and reporting frequency of 'overall liver injury' and 'ALF' calculated from VigiBase. DATA SYNTHESIS After excluding herbs, supplements and alternative medicines, a total of 385 individual drugs were identified; 319 drugs were identified in the three DILI registries, 107 from the six ALF registries (or studies) and 47 drugs that were subjected to suspension or withdrawal in the US or Europe due to their hepatotoxicity. The identified drugs varied significantly between Spain, the US and Sweden. Of the 319 drugs identified in the DILI registries of adjudicated cases, 93.4% were found in published case reports, 1.9% were suspended or withdrawn due to hepatotoxicity and 25.7% were also identified in the ALF registries/studies. In VigiBase, 30.4% of the 319 drugs were associated with disproportionally higher reporting frequency of 'overall liver injury' and 83.1% were associated with at least one reported case of ALF. CONCLUSIONS This newly developed list of drugs associated with hepatotoxicity and the multifaceted analysis on hepatotoxicity will aid in causality assessment and clinical diagnosis of DILI and will provide a basis for further characterization of hepatotoxicity.
Resumo:
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.
Resumo:
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.
Resumo:
BACKGROUND: European Surveillance of Congenital Anomalies (EUROCAT) is a network of population-based congenital anomaly registries in Europe surveying more than 1 million births per year, or 25% of the births in the European Union. This paper describes the potential of the EUROCAT collaboration for pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety surveillance. METHODS: The 34 full members and 6 associate members of the EUROCAT network were sent a questionnaire about their data sources on drug exposure and on drug coding. Available data on drug exposure during the first trimester available in the central EUROCAT database for the years 1996-2000 was summarised for 15 out of 25 responding full members. RESULTS: Of the 40 registries, 29 returned questionnaires (25 full and 4 associate members). Four of these registries do not collect data on maternal drug use. Of the full members, 15 registries use the EUROCAT drug code, 4 use the international ATC drug code, 3 registries use another coding system and 7 use a combination of these coding systems. Obstetric records are the most frequently used sources of drug information for the registries, followed by interviews with the mother. Only one registry uses pharmacy data. Percentages of cases with drug exposure (excluding vitamins/minerals) varied from 4.4% to 26.0% among different registries. The categories of drugs recorded varied widely between registries. CONCLUSIONS: Practices vary widely between registries regarding recording drug exposure information. EUROCAT has the potential to be an effective collaborative framework to contribute to post-marketing drug surveillance in relation to teratogenic effects, but work is needed to implement ATC drug coding more widely, and to diversify the sources of information used to determine drug exposure in each registry.