Pediatric Drug Safety Surveillance: A 10-Year Analysis of Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Data in Calabria, Southern Italy

Evaluating the Economic Impact of the PedAMINES App in Reducing Medication Errors in Pediatric Emergency Care: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

BACKGROUND

The administration of drugs in pediatric emergency care is a time-consuming process and is associated with a higher occurrence of medication errors compared with adult care. This is attributed to the intricacies of administration, which involve calculating doses based on the child's weight or age. To mitigate the occurrence of adverse drug events (ADEs), the PedAMINES (Pediatric Accurate Medication in Emergency Situations; Geneva University Hospitals) mobile app has been developed. This app offers a step-by-step guide for preparing and administering pediatric drugs during emergency interventions by automating the dose calculation process. Although previous simulation-based randomized controlled trials conducted in emergency care have demonstrated the efficacy of the PedAMINES app in reducing drug administration errors, there is a lack of evidence regarding its economic implications.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of implementing the PedAMINES app for 4 emergency drugs: epinephrine, norepinephrine, dopamine, and midazolam.

METHODS

The economic evaluation was conducted by combining hospital data from 2019, previous trial outcomes, information extracted from existing literature, and PedAMINES maintenance costs. The cost per avoided medication error was calculated, along with the number of administrations needed to achieve a positive return on investment. Subsequently, Monte Carlo simulations were used to identify the key parameters contributing to result uncertainty.

RESULTS

The study revealed the number of preventable errors per administration for the 4 examined drugs: 0.513 for epinephrine, 0.484 for norepinephrine, 0.500 for dopamine, and 0.671 for midazolam. The cost-effectiveness ratios per ADE prevented were computed as follows: US $4808 for epinephrine, US $9705 for norepinephrine, US $6957 for dopamine, and US $2074 for midazolam. Accounting for the economic impact of ADEs, the analysis estimated that 16 administrations of epinephrine, 17 of norepinephrine and dopamine, and 13 of midazolam would be required to attain a positive return on investment. This corresponds to roughly one-third of the annual administrations at a major university hospital in Switzerland. The primary factors influencing the uncertainty in the estimated cost per ADE include the cost of maintenance of the app, the likelihood of an ADE resulting from an administration error, and the frequency of underdosing in the trial's control group.

CONCLUSIONS

A dedicated mobile app presents an economically viable solution to alleviate the health and economic burden of drug administration errors in in-hospital pediatric emergency care. The widespread adoption of this app is advocated to pool costs and extend the benefits on a national scale in Switzerland.

New exploration of signal detection of Regional Risks from the perspective of data mining: a pharmacovigilance analysis based on spontaneous reporting data in Zhenjiang, China

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to adopt the conventional signal detection methods to explore a new way of risk identification and to mine important drug risks from the perspective of big data based on Zhenjiang Adverse Event Reporting System (ZAERS).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Data were extracted from ZAERS database between 2012 and 2022. The risks of all the reported drug event combinations were identified at the preferred term level and the standardized MedDRA query level using disproportionality analysis. Then, we conducted signal assessment according to the descriptions of drug labels.

RESULTS

In total 41,473 ADE were reported and there were 12 risky signals. Signal assessment indicates the suspected causal associations in clindamycin-taste and smell disorders, valsartan-hepatic enzyme increased and valsartan-edema peripheral; the specific manifestations of allergic reactions triggered by clindamycin, cefotaxime, cefazodime, ShexiangZhuanggu plaster, ShexiangZhuifeng plaster, and Yanhuning need to be refined in drug labels. In addition, the drug labels of NiuHuangShangQing tablet/capsule, Fuyanxiao capsule, and BiYanLing tablet should be improved.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, we attempted a new way to find potential drug risks using small spontaneous reporting data. Our findings also suggested the need for more precise identification of allergic risks and the improvement of traditional Chinese medicine labels.

Safety profiles of methylphenidate, amphetamine, and atomoxetine: analysis of spontaneous reports submitted to the food and drug administration adverse event reporting system

Background: Methylphenidate, atomoxetine, and Amphetamine are the three most commonly used medications approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). However, a comprehensive analysis of their safety profiles across various age groups and genders in real-world contexts has yet to be conducted. In this study, a pharmacovigilance analysis was performed using the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database to examine differences in adverse events between methylphenidate, atomoxetine, and Amphetamine. Methods: From January 2014 to September 2022, FAERS reports listing "Methylphenidate," "Dexmethylphenidate," "Atomoxetine," "Amphetamine," "Lisdexamfetamine," "Dextroamphetamine," and "Methamphetamine" as primary suspects were analyzed after removing duplicate reports. We used the standardized Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) query generalized search for adverse events at the preferred term level based on case reports. After filtering duplicate reports, disproportionality analysis was used to detect safety signals according to the proportional reporting ratio (PRR). In order to delve into potential safety concerns, we undertook a two-step analysis of the data. Initially, the data was segmented based on age cohorts: 0-5 years, 6-12 years, 13-18 years, and individuals aged ≥19 years. Following this, after partitioning the data into males and females within the 0-18 years age group, and similarly for those aged ≥19 years, further analysis was conducted. Results: The pharmacovigilance analysis uncovered substantial safety signals in the standardized MedDRA queries. Methylphenidate was associated with dyskinesia (PRR = 21.15), myocardial infarction (PRR = 12.32), and hypertension (PRR = 8.95) in children aged 0-5, 6-12, and 13-18 years, respectively, as well as neonatal exposures via breast milk (PRR = 14.10) in adults aged ≥19 years. Atomoxetine was linked to hostility/aggression (PRR = 15.77), taste and smell disorders (PRR = 6.75), and hostility/aggression (PRR = 6.74) in children aged 0-5, 6-12, and 13-18 years, respectively, as well as hostility/aggression (PRR = 14.00) in adults aged ≥19 years. Amphetamine was associated with psychosis and psychotic disorders (PRR = 16.78), hostility/aggression (PRR = 4.39), and Other ischaemic heart disease (PRR = 10.77) in children aged 0-5 years, 6-12 years, and 13-18 years, respectively, and hostility/aggression in adults aged ≥19 years (PRR = 9.16). Significant and noteworthy adverse event signals were also identified at the preferred term level. Specifically, methylphenidate was associated with myocardial infarction, acute myocardial infarction, coronary artery dissection, electrocardiogram QT prolonged, growth retardation, self-destructive behavior, suicidal ideation, and completed suicide. Atomoxetine was linked to electrocardiogram QT prolonged, growth retardation, and tic. Amphetamine was recorded for coronary artery dissection, suicidal ideation, and completed suicide. It was observed that male patients, including both children and adults, showed a more significant and frequent occurrence of adverse events compared to females, particularly in terms of cardiac disorders. The intensity and quantity of adverse event signals were distinctly different between the two genders, with males having a higher number of signals. All detected safety signals were confirmed using signals obtained from the disproportionality analysis. Conclusion: This pharmacovigilance analysis demonstrated significant variations in the safety profiles of methylphenidate, atomoxetine, and Amphetamine across different age groups and between different genders. Following an in-depth analysis of the FAERS database, we discerned prominent safety signals. Notably, the strength of the signals associated with coronary artery dissection induced by methylphenidate and amphetamine, as well as those related to suicide, demand particular attention. Consequently, it remains imperative to persist in monitoring these medications, assessing the associated risks, and carrying out comparative studies particularly geared towards ADHD drugs.