Retrospective Analysis of the Frequency and Recognition of Adverse Drug Reactions by Means of Automatically Recorded Laboratory Signals

Overview

Journal Br J Clin Pharmacol

Specialty Pharmacology

Date 1999 May 21

PMID 10336581

Citations 30

Authors

I Tegeder

M Levy

U Muth-Selbach

R Oelkers

F Neumann

H Dormann

T Azaz-Livshits

M Criegee-Rieck

H T Schneider

E Hahn

K Brune

G Geisslinger

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Aims: To estimate the frequency of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) identified through the use of automatic signals generated from laboratory data (ALS) in hospitalised patients. To determine the frequency of spontaneous recognition of these ADRs by the attending physicians and to assess the potential value of ALS for detection of ADRs.

Methods: Laboratory results of patients hospitalised in a nine bed medical ward were automatically recorded over a period of 17 months. Values exceeding defined boundaries were used as ALS. Charts of every third patient were analysed retrospectively with regard to adverse drug related reactions and causality was evaluated as well as whether the ADR had been recognised during the period of hospitalisation.

Results: The charts and ALS of 98 patients were analysed. In 18 cases a drug-related adverse reaction was probable. Awareness to the reaction by the treating physicians was evident in 6 out of these 18 ADRs. Approximately 80% of the ADRs were considered predictable. Three ADRs were regarded as serious.

Conclusions: Adverse drug reactions are common and often preventable. Only one third of ADRs which could have been detected through ALS were recognised by the attending physicians. An increased doctor's awareness of the frequency of drug related abnormal laboratory results by means of ALS is likely to increase the recognition rate of ADRs and might help to prevent them.

Citing Articles

Utility of a Laboratory Alert System for Detecting Adverse Drug Reactions in Hospitalised Patients: Hyponatremia and Rhabdomyolysis.

Valdes-Garicano M, Mejia-Abril G, Campodonico D, Parra-Garces R, Abad-Santos F Front Pharmacol. 2022; 13:937045.

PMID: 35873584 PMC: 9299062. DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.937045.

Drug Induced Liver Injury in Geriatric Patients Detected by a Two-Hospital Prospective Pharmacovigilance Program: A Comprehensive Analysis Using the Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method.

Pedraza L, Laosa O, Rodriguez-Manas L, Gutierrez-Romero D, Frias J, Antonio Carnicero J Front Pharmacol. 2021; 11:600255.

PMID: 33613279 PMC: 7892439. DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2020.600255.

Identifying and Characterizing Serious Adverse Drug Reactions Associated With Drug-Drug Interactions in a Spontaneous Reporting Database.

Magro L, Arzenton E, Leone R, Stano M, Vezzaro M, Rudolph A Front Pharmacol. 2021; 11:622862.

PMID: 33536925 PMC: 7848121. DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2020.622862.

Evaluation of Drug-Induced Liver Injury Developed During Hospitalization Using Electronic Health Record (EHR)-Based Algorithm.

Kang Y, Kim S, Park S, Park B, Lee J, An J Allergy Asthma Immunol Res. 2020; 12(3):430-442.

PMID: 32141257 PMC: 7061161. DOI: 10.4168/aair.2020.12.3.430.

Prediction of clinically relevant adverse drug events in surgical patients.

Bos J, Kalkman G, Groenewoud H, Van den Bemt P, De Smet P, Nagtegaal J PLoS One. 2018; 13(8):e0201645.

PMID: 30138343 PMC: 6107128. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0201645.

References

Ouslander J . Drug therapy in the elderly. Ann Intern Med. 1981; 95(6):711-22. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-95-6-711. View

Naranjo C, Busto U, Sellers E, Sandor P, Ruiz I, Roberts E . A method for estimating the probability of adverse drug reactions. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1981; 30(2):239-45. DOI: 10.1038/clpt.1981.154. View

Naranjo C, Lane D, Ho-Asjoe M, Lanctot K . A Bayesian assessment of idiosyncratic adverse reactions to new drugs: Guillain-Barré syndrome and zimeldine. J Clin Pharmacol. 1990; 30(2):174-80. DOI: 10.1002/j.1552-4604.1990.tb03459.x. View

Brennan T, Leape L, Laird N, Hebert L, Localio A, Lawthers A . Incidence of adverse events and negligence in hospitalized patients. Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study I. N Engl J Med. 1991; 324(6):370-6. DOI: 10.1056/NEJM199102073240604. View

Leape L, Brennan T, Laird N, Lawthers A, Localio A, BARNES B . The nature of adverse events in hospitalized patients. Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study II. N Engl J Med. 1991; 324(6):377-84. DOI: 10.1056/NEJM199102073240605. View

Naranjo C, Lanctot K, Lane D . The Bayesian differential diagnosis of neutropenia associated with antiarrhythmic agents. J Clin Pharmacol. 1990; 30(12):1120-7. DOI: 10.1002/j.1552-4604.1990.tb01855.x. View

Classen D, Pestotnik S, Evans R, Burke J . Computerized surveillance of adverse drug events in hospital patients. JAMA. 1991; 266(20):2847-51. View

Evans R, Pestotnik S, Classen D, Bass S, Menlove R, Gardner R . Development of a computerized adverse drug event monitor. Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care. 1991; :23-7. PMC: 2247488. View

Evans R, Classen D, Stevens L, Pestotnik S, Gardner R, Lloyd J . Using a hospital information system to assess the effects of adverse drug events. Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care. 1993; :161-5. PMC: 2248496. View

10.

Stewart R, Cooper J . Polypharmacy in the aged. Practical solutions. Drugs Aging. 1994; 4(6):449-61. DOI: 10.2165/00002512-199404060-00002. View

11.

Walker J, Wynne H . Review: the frequency and severity of adverse drug reactions in elderly people. Age Ageing. 1994; 23(3):255-9. DOI: 10.1093/ageing/23.3.255. View

12.

Rieder M . Mechanisms of unpredictable adverse drug reactions. Drug Saf. 1994; 11(3):196-212. DOI: 10.2165/00002018-199411030-00005. View

13.

Bates D, ONeil A, Boyle D, Teich J, Chertow G, Komaroff A . Potential identifiability and preventability of adverse events using information systems. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1994; 1(5):404-11. PMC: 116222. DOI: 10.1136/jamia.1994.95153428. View

14.

Bates D, Cullen D, Laird N, Petersen L, Small S, Servi D . Incidence of adverse drug events and potential adverse drug events. Implications for prevention. ADE Prevention Study Group. JAMA. 1995; 274(1):29-34. View

15.

Johnson J, Bootman J . Drug-related morbidity and mortality. A cost-of-illness model. Arch Intern Med. 1995; 155(18):1949-56. View

16.

Dartnell J, Anderson R, Chohan V, Galbraith K, Lyon M, Nestor P . Hospitalisation for adverse events related to drug therapy: incidence, avoidability and costs. Med J Aust. 1996; 164(11):659-62. DOI: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.1996.tb122235.x. View

17.

Bates D, Spell N, Cullen D, Burdick E, Laird N, Petersen L . The costs of adverse drug events in hospitalized patients. Adverse Drug Events Prevention Study Group. JAMA. 1997; 277(4):307-11. View

18.

Lesar T, Lomaestro B, Pohl H . Medication-prescribing errors in a teaching hospital. A 9-year experience. Arch Intern Med. 1997; 157(14):1569-76. View

19.

Anderson J, Jay S, Anderson M, Hunt T . Evaluating the potential effectiveness of using computerized information systems to prevent adverse drug events. Proc AMIA Annu Fall Symp. 1997; :228-32. PMC: 2233438. View

20.

Mannesse C, Derkx F, de Ridder M, Man in t Veld A, van der Cammen T . Adverse drug reactions in elderly patients as contributing factor for hospital admission: cross sectional study. BMJ. 1997; 315(7115):1057-8. PMC: 2127685. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.315.7115.1057. View