Adverse Drug Reactions and Quality Deviations Monitored by Spontaneous Reports

Overview

Journal Saudi Pharm J

Specialty Pharmacy

Date 2015 May 15

PMID 25972731

Citations 2

Authors

Marilia Berlofa Visacri

Cinthia Madeira de Souza

Catarina Miyako Shibata Sato

Silvia Granja

Mecia de Marialva

Priscila Gava Mazzola

Patricia Moriel

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine the frequency and profile of spontaneous reports of Adverse Drug Reactions (ADRs) and quality deviations in a Brazilian teaching hospital and propose a consistent classification to study quality deviations.

Methods: This is a descriptive and retrospective study involving the analysis of spontaneous reports of ADRs and quality deviations in 2010. ADRs were classified according to the reaction mechanism, severity, and causality. The drugs were classified according to their therapeutic classes and symptoms according to the affected organ. The quality deviations were classified according to the type of deviation and type of medicine available in the Brazilian market.

Results: A total of 68 forms were examined; ADRs accounted for 39.7% of the notifications, while quality deviations accounted for 60.3%. ADRs occurred more frequently in men (51.9%) and adults (63.0%). The skin (28.0%) was the most affected organ, while anti-infectives (40.7%) were the therapeutic class that caused the most ADRs. The most common ADRs were type B (74.0%), moderates (37.0%), and probables (55.6%). In relation to quality deviations, the most frequent notifications were breaks, splits and leaks (20.9%) and related to generic drugs (43.9%).

Conclusion: The classification system to study quality deviations was clear and consistent. This study demonstrated that practices and public policies related to more effective pharmacovigilance need to be implemented so that the number of spontaneous reports increases.

Citing Articles

Incidence and risk factors of adverse drug reactions in patients with coronavirus disease 2019: A pharmacovigilance experience utilizing an ADR trigger tool.

Alshehail B, Al Jamea Z, Chacko R, Alotaibi F, Ismail N, Alshayban D Saudi Pharm J. 2022; 30(4):407-413.

PMID: 35125905 PMC: 8800535. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsps.2022.01.021.

Substandard, falsified and unregistered medicines in Latin America, 2017-2018.

Rojas-Cortes R Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2020; 44:e125.

PMID: 33033498 PMC: 7537817. DOI: 10.26633/RPSP.2020.125.

References

Cereza G, Agusti A, Pedros C, Vallano A, Aguilera C, Danes I . Effect of an intervention on the features of adverse drug reactions spontaneously reported in a hospital. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2010; 66(9):937-45. DOI: 10.1007/s00228-010-0856-8. View

Aagaard L, Hansen E . Information about ADRs explored by pharmacovigilance approaches: a qualitative review of studies on antibiotics, SSRIs and NSAIDs. BMC Clin Pharmacol. 2009; 9:4. PMC: 2656469. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6904-9-4. View

Sriram S, Ghasemi A, Ramasamy R, Devi M, Balasubramanian R, Ravi T . Prevalence of adverse drug reactions at a private tertiary care hospital in south India. J Res Med Sci. 2011; 16(1):16-25. PMC: 3063432. View

Kolho K, Ruuska T, Savilahti E . Severe adverse reactions to Infliximab therapy are common in young children with inflammatory bowel disease. Acta Paediatr. 2006; 96(1):128-30. DOI: 10.1111/j.1651-2227.2007.00042.x. View

Coelho H, Arrais P, Gomes A . [Ceará State Pharmacovigilance System: a year of experience]. Cad Saude Publica. 1999; 15(3):631-40. DOI: 10.1590/s0102-311x1999000300021. View

Lopez-Gonzalez E, Herdeiro M, Figueiras A . Determinants of under-reporting of adverse drug reactions: a systematic review. Drug Saf. 2009; 32(1):19-31. DOI: 10.2165/00002018-200932010-00002. View

Hazell L, Shakir S . Under-reporting of adverse drug reactions : a systematic review. Drug Saf. 2006; 29(5):385-96. DOI: 10.2165/00002018-200629050-00003. View

Sharma R, Sharma C, Kapoor B . Antibacterial resistance: current problems and possible solutions. Indian J Med Sci. 2005; 59(3):120-9. View

Gonzalez-Gonzalez C, Lopez-Gonzalez E, Herdeiro M, Figueiras A . Strategies to improve adverse drug reaction reporting: a critical and systematic review. Drug Saf. 2013; 36(5):317-28. DOI: 10.1007/s40264-013-0058-2. View

10.

Jose J, Rao P . Pattern of adverse drug reactions notified by spontaneous reporting in an Indian tertiary care teaching hospital. Pharmacol Res. 2006; 54(3):226-33. DOI: 10.1016/j.phrs.2006.05.003. View

11.

Wysowski D, Swartz L . Adverse drug event surveillance and drug withdrawals in the United States, 1969-2002: the importance of reporting suspected reactions. Arch Intern Med. 2005; 165(12):1363-9. DOI: 10.1001/archinte.165.12.1363. View

12.

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

13.

Gudeman J, Jozwiakowski M, Chollet J, Randell M . Potential risks of pharmacy compounding. Drugs R D. 2013; 13(1):1-8. PMC: 3627035. DOI: 10.1007/s40268-013-0005-9. View

14.

Lazarou J, Pomeranz B, Corey P . Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. JAMA. 1998; 279(15):1200-5. DOI: 10.1001/jama.279.15.1200. View

15.

Lobo M, Pinheiro S, Castro J, Momente V, Pranchevicius M . Adverse drug reaction monitoring: support for pharmacovigilance at a tertiary care hospital in Northern Brazil. BMC Pharmacol Toxicol. 2013; 14:5. PMC: 3554560. DOI: 10.1186/2050-6511-14-5. View