» Articles » PMID: 35241911

Development and Validation of 'Prediction of Adverse Drug Reactions in Older Inpatients (PADROI)' Risk Assessment Tool

Overview
Publisher Dove Medical Press
Specialty Geriatrics
Date 2022 Mar 4
PMID 35241911
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Adverse drug reactions (ADR) detection and prediction methods in hospitalized older adults remain imprecise. The identification of the risk factors for ADRs in this group of patients is crucial to develop plausible prediction models.

Objective: This study aimed at developing and validating a "Prediction of ADR in Older Inpatients (PADROI)" risk assessment tool in hospitalized older adults.

Methods And Materials: We had previously conducted a derivational study that aimed to determine the risk factors of ADRs in hospitalized older adults. We developed the PADROI model as a potential ADR risk assessment tool incorporating 8 predictors each given a score by rounding off the respective adjusted odds ratios (AORs) to the nearest whole number. Subsequently, we conducted another prospective cohort among adults aged 60 years and older admitted to Gynecology and Obstetrics, Medical, Oncology, Surgery, and Psychiatry wards at Mbarara Regional Referral Hospital (MRRH) from July 5 to September 17, 2021.

Results: A total of 124 participants, 70 females and 54 males aged 60-95 years, were included in this validation cohort; 62 of them experienced 90 ADRs. When applied to the derivational cohort, the area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) for the PADROI model was shown to be 0.896 (0.869-0.923; at 95% CI). In the validation study, AUROC of PADROI was 0.917 (0.864-0.971 at 95% CI; p < 0.001). Overall, PADROI correctly predicted 91.7% of those who experienced an ADR.

Conclusion: Using the adjusted odds ratios from our derivational cohort, we developed an ADR prediction tool (PADROI) that achieved an excellent AUROC (0.917), high sensitivity (87.1%) and specificity (90.3%). The current model demonstrated a high potential for clinical applicability which can be strengthened if similar results are reproduced in larger and multi-centered studies.

Citing Articles

Adverse drug reactions and events in an Ageing PopulaTion risk Prediction (ADAPTiP) tool: the development and validation of a model for predicting adverse drug reactions and events in older patients.

Frydenlund J, Cosgrave N, Moriarty F, Wallace E, Kirke C, Williams D Eur Geriatr Med. 2025; .

PMID: 39821882 DOI: 10.1007/s41999-024-01152-1.


Risk prediction models for adverse drug reactions and adverse drug events in older adults-a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Cosgrave N, Saleh S, Ong W, Frydenlund J, Williams D, Cahir C Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2024; 81(1):93-110.

PMID: 39557638 DOI: 10.1007/s00228-024-03774-7.


Opportunities and challenges of pharmacovigilance in special populations: a narrative review of the literature.

Li Y, Wu Y, Jiang T, Xing H, Xu J, Li C Ther Adv Drug Saf. 2023; 14:20420986231200746.

PMID: 37780667 PMC: 10540608. DOI: 10.1177/20420986231200746.

References
1.
Conforti A, Costantini D, Zanetti F, Moretti U, Grezzana M, Leone R . Adverse drug reactions in older patients: an Italian observational prospective hospital study. Drug Healthc Patient Saf. 2012; 4:75-80. PMC: 3413040. DOI: 10.2147/DHPS.S29287. View

2.
Stevenson J, Williams J, Burnham T, Prevost A, Schiff R, Erskine S . Predicting adverse drug reactions in older adults; a systematic review of the risk prediction models. Clin Interv Aging. 2014; 9:1581-93. PMC: 4178502. DOI: 10.2147/CIA.S65475. View

3.
Pencina M, DAgostino Sr R . Evaluating Discrimination of Risk Prediction Models: The C Statistic. JAMA. 2015; 314(10):1063-4. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2015.11082. View

4.
Akobeng A . Understanding diagnostic tests 3: Receiver operating characteristic curves. Acta Paediatr. 2007; 96(5):644-7. DOI: 10.1111/j.1651-2227.2006.00178.x. View

5.
Preskorn S . Multiple medication use in patients seen in the veterans affairs healthcare system: so what?. J Psychiatr Pract. 2005; 11(1):46-50. DOI: 10.1097/00131746-200501000-00006. View