Adverse events targeted by drug-drug interaction alerts in hospitalized patients

Reporting, Monitoring, and Handling of Adverse Drug Reactions in Australia: Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are unintended consequences of medication use and may result in hospitalizations or deaths. Timely reporting of ADRs to regulators is essential for drug monitoring, research, and maintaining patient safety, but it has not been standardized in Australia.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to explore the ways that ADRs are monitored or reported in Australia. We reviewed how consumers and health care professionals participate in ADR monitoring and reporting.

METHODS

The Arksey and O'Malley framework provided a methodology to sort the data according to key themes and issues. Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, PubMed, CINAHL, and Computer & Applied Sciences Complete databases were used to extract articles published from 2010 to 2021. Two reviewers screened the papers for eligibility, extracted key data, and provided descriptive analysis of the data.

RESULTS

Seven articles met the inclusion criteria. The Adverse Medicine Events Line (telephone reporting service) was introduced in 2003 to support consumer reporting of ADRs; however, only 10.4% of consumers were aware of ADR reporting schemes. Consumers who experience side effects were more likely to report ADRs to their doctors or pharmacists than to the drug manufacturer. The documentation of ADR reports in hospital electronic health records showed that nurses and pharmacists were significantly less likely than doctors to omit the description of the drug reaction, and pharmacists were significantly more likely to enter the correct classification of the drug reaction than doctors. Review and analysis of all ADR reports submitted to the Therapeutic Goods Administration highlighted a decline in physician contribution from 28% of ADR reporting in 2003 to 4% in 2016; however, within this same time period, hospital and community pharmacists were a major source of ADR reporting (ie, 16%). In 2014, there was an increase in ADR reporting by community pharmacists following the introduction of the GuildLink ADR web-based reporting system; however, a year later, the reporting levels dropped. In 2018, the Therapeutic Goods Administration introduced a black triangle scheme on the packaging of newly approved medicines, to remind and encourage ADR reporting on new medicines, but this was only marginally successful at increasing the quantity of ADR reports.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the existence of national and international guidelines for ADR reporting and management, there is substantial interinstitutional variability in the standards of ADR reporting among individual health care facilities. There is room for increased ADR reporting rates among consumers and health care professionals. A thorough assessment of the barriers and enablers to ADR reporting at the primary health care institutional levels is essential. Interventions to increase ADR reporting, for example, the black triangle scheme (alert or awareness) or GuildLink (digital health), have only had marginal effects and may benefit from further improvement revisions and awareness programs.

Potential drug-drug interactions in drug therapy for older adults with chronic coronary syndrome at hospital discharge: A real-world study

Introduction: Polypharmacy are commonly observed among older adults with cardiovascular disease. However, multiple medications lead to increased risk of drug-drug interactions (DDIs). Therefore, identification and prevention actions related to harmful DDIs are expected in older adults. The study aimed to describe the prevalence of potential DDIs (pDDIs) in discharge prescriptions among older adults with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS).

Methods: A single-center cross-sectional study was performed in a tertiary public hospital in Beijing, China. CCS patients aged 65 years and above who were admitted to cardiology wards over a 3-month period and alive at discharge were included. Electronic medical records and discharge prescriptions were reviewed. pDDIs were evaluated through the Lexi-Interact online.

Results: pDDIs were identified in 72.9% of the 402 individuals (n = 293). A total of 864 pDDIs were obtained. 72.1% of patients were found with C DDIs (n = 290) and 20.3% were categorized in D and X DDIs (n = 82). The only X DDI was between cyclosporine and atorvastatin. Under category D, glycemia alterations within antidiabetics and increased chances of bleeding with antithrombotic were the most common. Concomitant use of clopidogrel and calcium channel blockers was a frequent situation within category C, followed by synergic blood pressure lowering agents and increased rosuvastatin concentration induced by clopidogrel.

Conclusion: DDIs exposure was common in older CCS. DDIs screening tools should be introduced to alert potential adverse effects. Prescribers need to rigorously review or modulate therapies to prevent DDI-related adverse outcomes. Clinical pharmacists should be more involved in complex drug regimen management.

Clinician Responses to a Clinical Decision Support Advisory for High Risk of Torsades de Pointes

Background

Torsade de pointes (TdP) is a potentially fatal cardiac arrhythmia that is often drug induced. Clinical decision support (CDS) may help minimize TdP risk by guiding decision making in patients at risk. CDS has been shown to decrease prescribing of high‐risk medications in patients at risk of TdP, but alerts are often ignored. Other risk‐management options can potentially be incorporated in TdP risk CDS. Our goal was to evaluate actions clinicians take in response to a CDS advisory that uses a modified Tisdale QT risk score and presents management options that are easily selected (eg, single click).

Methods and Results

We implemented an inpatient TdP risk advisory systemwide across a large health care system comprising 30 hospitals. This CDS was programmed to appear when prescribers attempted ordering medications with a known risk of TdP in a patient with a QT risk score ≥12. The CDS displayed patient‐specific information and offered relevant management options including canceling offending medications and ordering electrolyte replacement protocols or ECGs. We retrospectively studied the actions clinicians took within the advisory and separated by drug class. During an 8‐month period, 7794 TdP risk advisories were issued. Antibiotics were the most frequent trigger of the advisory (n=2578, 33.1%). At least 1 action was taken within the advisory window for 2700 (34.6%) of the advisories. The most frequent action taken was ordering an ECG (n=1584, 20.3%). Incoming medication orders were canceled in 793 (10.2%) of the advisories. The frequency of each action taken varied by drug class (P<0.05 for all actions).

Conclusions

A modified Tisdale QT risk score–based CDS that offered relevant single‐click management options yielded a high action/response rate. Actions taken by clinicians varied depending on the class of the medication that evoked the TdP risk advisory, but the most frequent was ordering an ECG.