Causality assessment of adverse drug reaction in Pulmonology Department of a Tertiary Care Hospital

Exploration and Evaluation of Adverse Drug Reactions Documented in a Tertiary-Care Hospital in Chennai: An In-Depth Retrospective Observational Study

INTRODUCTION

 While drugs are intended to benefit patients, adverse drug reactions (ADRs) represent a significant negative outcome of drug consumption. They rank as the sixth leading cause of death among hospitalized patients. Many harmful effects are preventable and can reduce morbidity, mortality, and hospitalization duration. This study is a valuable resource for physicians, aiding in the safe and optimal use of medications.

METHODOLOGY

 This retrospective observational study, conducted at the Pharmacovigilance Center of Saveetha Medical College and Hospital, Chennai, India, received approval from the Institutional Ethics Committee. All adverse drug interactions reported in our hospital from January 2019 to February 2024 were included after screening for inclusion and exclusion criteria. The collected reactions were analyzed, assessed, and evaluated between February 2024 and April 2024. Data on the drugs causing adverse reactions, the types of reactions, and the treatments administered were collected and documented. The reactions were categorized using the Rawlins and Thompson classification, while causality and severity were assessed using the standard Naranjo causality and modified Hartwig and Siegel severity assessment scales.

RESULTS

 During the study, 252 ADRs were documented by the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization. The gender distribution showed 123 cases (48.8%) in males and 129 cases (51.2%) in females, with a higher prevalence in the 20-40 age group. The departmentwise distribution revealed the highest number of ADRs in Obstetrics and Gynecology (60 cases, 24%), followed by General Surgery (52 cases, 21%), General Medicine (44 cases, 17%), Pediatrics (22 cases, 9%), and Emergency Medicine (20 cases, 8%). Antimicrobial drugs constituted the majority of ADRs (149 cases, 59.1%), followed by vitamins and mineral supplements (21 cases, 13.8%), contrast dye (15 cases, 6%), antituberculosis drugs (15 cases, 6%), analgesics (13 cases, 5.2%), and gastrointestinal (GIT) drugs (8 cases, 3.2%). Cefotaxime was the most commonly reported antibiotic (42 cases, 28.2%), followed by Ciprofloxacin (41 cases, 27.5%). Among vitamins and mineral supplements, iron sucrose was implicated in the highest number of ADRs (15 cases, 71.4%). The parenteral route of drug administration showed the highest incidence of ADRs (229 cases, 91%), followed by oral (20 cases, 8%) and topical routes (3 cases, 1%). Dermatological manifestations were most frequently reported (196 cases, 77.8%), followed by GIT symptoms (27 cases, 10.7%), and other manifestations such as shivering, fever, seizures, and dyspnea (29 cases, 11.5%). Based on the Naranjo causality assessment scale, 179 ADRs (71%) were categorized as probable, 55 (22%) as possible, 10 (4%) as certain, and 8 (3%) as doubtful. Approximately 47.2% of ADRs were self-limiting, while 44.1% required symptomatic treatment and 8.7% necessitated aggressive treatment, leading to a prolonged hospital stay or admission to the intensive care unit.

CONCLUSION

 The pattern of ADRs in our hospital aligns with findings from other studies. While many of these reactions are unpredictable and mild, they underscore the importance of raising awareness among clinicians and regulatory authorities to promote safe medication use and prevent potentially serious outcomes.

Incidence, preventability, and causality of adverse drug reactions at a university hospital emergency department

Purpose

To investigate the characteristics of ADRs in patients admitting at the emergency room of a tertiary hospital.

Methods

We collected the patient records of 1600 emergency room visits of a university hospital in 2018. The patient files were studied retrospectively and all possible ADRs were identified and registered. Patient characteristics, drugs associated with ADRs, causality, severity, preventability, and the role of pharmacogenetics were assessed.

Results

There were 125 cases with ADRs, resulting in a 7.8% overall incidence among emergency visits. The incidence was greatest in visits among elderly patients, reaching 14% (men) to 19% (women) in the 80–89 years age group. The most common causative drugs were warfarin, acetylsalicylic acid (ASA), apixaban, and docetaxel, and the most common ADRs were bleedings and neutropenia and/or severe infections. Only two of the cases might have been prevented by pharmacogenetic testing, as advised in Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) guidelines.

Conclusion

The same ATC classes, antithrombotics and cytostatics, were involved in ADRs causing university clinic hospitalizations as those identified previously in drug-related hospital fatalities. It seems difficult to prevent these events totally, as the treatments are vitally important and their risk-benefit-relationships have been considered thoroughly, and as pharmacogenetic testing could have been useful in only few cases.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00228-020-03043-3.

Pharmacovigilance - The next chapter

The discovery and quantification of adverse drug reactions has long relied on the careful analysis of spontaneously reported cases. Causality assessment (imputation) was a fundamental feature of individual case report analysis. This was complemented by analysis of aggregated cases, and of disproportionality analyses in spontaneous reports databases. In the absence of more specific information sources, these have resulted in the discovery of many new adverse reactions, altering drug information. It has led to the withdrawal from the market of many drugs, but its use for risk quantification remains fraught with uncertainty. The recent access to population-wide claims or electronic health records databases have confirmed for spontaneous reporting a predominant role in hypothesis generation for serious adverse drug reactions, notably those that result in hospital admission or death. In these cases, the events are identifiable at the population level, and can be quantified precisely using the tools of modern pharmacoepidemiology, to generate specific benefit-risk analyses. Spontaneous reporting remains irreplaceable in signal and alert generation in drug safety, despite its inherent limitations. For signal strengthening and assessment, more systematic and quantitative methods should be sought, such as claims databases for reactions resulting in hospital admissions.

Improving the assessment of adverse drug reactions using the Naranjo Algorithm in daily practice: The Japan Adverse Drug Events Study

It is difficult to determine adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in daily complicated clinical practice in which many kinds of drugs are prescribed. We evaluated how well the Naranjo Algorithm (NA) categorized ADRs among suspected ADRs. The Japan Adverse Drug Events (JADE) study was a prospective cohort study of 3459 inpatients. After all suspected ADRs were reported from research assistants, a single physician reviewer independently assigned an NA score to each. After all NA score of suspected ADRs were scored, two physician reviewers discussed and determined ADRs based on the literature. We investigated the sensitivity and specificity of NA and each component to categorize ADRs among suspected ADRs. A total of 1579 suspected ADRs were reported in 962 patients. Physician reviewers determined 997 ADRs. The percentage of ADRs was 94% if the total NA score reached 5. The modified NA consisted of 5 components that showed high classification abilities; its area under the curve (AUC) was 0.92 for categorizing ADRs, the same as the original. When we set the total NA score cut-off value to 5, specificity was 0.95 and sensitivity was 0.59. When we reclassified NA components as binary variables, the specificity increased to 0.98 with a cut-off value of 4 and yielded an AUC of 0.93. In conclusion, we showed that both NA and modified NA could categorize ADRs among suspected ADRs with a high likelihood in daily clinical practice.

Tool to assess causality of direct and indirect adverse events associated with therapeutic interventions

OBJECTIVE

To develop and test a tool to assess the causality of direct and indirect adverse events associated with therapeutic interventions. The intervention was one or more drugs and/or natural health products, a device, or practice (professional delivering the intervention).

METHODS

Through the assessment of causality of adverse events, we can learn about factors contributing to the harm and consider what modification may prevent its reoccurrence. Existing scales (WHO-UMC, Naranjo and Horn) were adapted to develop a tool (algorithm and table) to evaluate cases of serious harmful events reported through a national surveillance study. We also incorporated a novel approach that assesses indirect harm (caused by the delay in diagnosis/treatment) and the health provider delivering the intervention (practice). The tool was tested, revised and then implemented to assess all reported cases of serious events resulting from use of complementary therapies. The use of complementary therapies was the trigger to report the event. Each case was evaluated by two assessors, out of a panel of five, representing different health care professionals.

RESULTS

The tool was used in assessment of eight serious adverse events. Each event was independently evaluated by two assessors. The algorithm facilitated assessment of a serious direct or indirect harm. Assessors agreed in the final score on seven of eight cases (weighted kappa coefficient of 0.75).

CONCLUSION

A tool to support the assessment of causality of adverse events was developed and tested. We propose a novel method to assess direct and indirect harms related to product(s), device(s), practice or a combination of the previous. Further research will probably help evaluate this approach across different settings and interventions.

Assessment of the expectancy, seriousness and severity of adverse drug reactions reported for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease therapy

INTRODUCTION

Adverse drug reactions can cause increased morbidity and mortality, and therefore information needs to be studied systematically. Little is known about the adverse drug reactions for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease therapy. The goal of this study is to assess the expectedness, seriousness and severity of adverse drug reactions during chronic obstructive pulmonary disease therapy based on their reporting in the national pharmacovigilance system.

METHODS

This was a prospective, observational, 1-year, real-life study about the pharmacotherapy of a sample of 390 chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients. Prescribed medicines were systematized and national pharmacovigilance databases were searched for reported adverse drug reactions. The expectedness was evaluated through the review of the summary of product characteristics, the seriousness was evaluated by the clinicians based on the life threatening nature of the adverse drug reactions, and the severity was evaluated through Hartwig's Severity Assessment Scale. Descriptive statistics of the reported adverse drug reactions was performed and the relative risk of developing an adverse drug reaction with all international non-proprietary names included in the analysis was calculated.

RESULTS

Results confirm that the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is a disease with high appearance of adverse drug reactions, and causes many additional costs to the healthcare system. Unexpected and severe adverse drug reactions are frequent. A total of 4.8% of adverse drug reactions were evaluated as life threatening. Majority of adverse drug reactions are classified in Levels 1 (32.6%), 2 (26.4%) and 3 (19%) according to Hartwig's Severity Assessment Scale. Approximately 22% of reported adverse drug reactions affect people's everyday life to a greater extent and require additional therapy which might further increase the risk. The relative risk of developing an adverse drug reaction was highest for novphyllin (relative risk = 0.65), followed by aclidinium bromide (relative risk = 0.09). Both indacaterol and salbutamol are with a relative risk of 0.07.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the medicines for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease cause many serious adverse drug reactions, most of them were unexpected, lacking in the short product characteristics. Appropriate reporting of adverse drug reactions is necessary to decrease the risk of patients and healthcare system.

An assessment of reported adverse drug reactions in a Tertiary Care Hospital in South India: A retrospective cross-sectional study

Objective:

The primary objective of this study was to assess the causality of ADRs using World Health Organization-Uppsala Monitoring Centre (WHO–UMC), Naranjo and Liverpool ADR Causality Assessment Tool (LCAT). Other primary objective was to assess the agreement between the WHO-UMC criterion, Naranjo algorithm and LCAT. The secondary objective was to assess the reported adverse drug reactions in a tertiary care hospital in South India.

Materials and Methods:

This was a cross-sectional retrospective study. All the ADRs which were reported by the Pharmacovigilance Unit between July 2016 and March 2017 were assessed. Causality assessment was performed by two well-trained independent pharmacologists by applying the three methods–WHO, Naranjo and LCAT. Concurrence between the two algorithms was compared using the Cohen's weighted kappa statistic.

Results:

Causality assessment of adverse reactions according to Naranjo criteria shows that 81% cases were of probable type, 9.5% cases were possible and 9.5% cases were unlikely. Causality assessment of adverse reactions according to WHO-UMC criteria shows that 85.7% cases were of probable type, 4.8% cases were possible, 4.8% cases were unlikely and 4.8% cases were definite. Causality assessment of adverse reactions according to Liverpool criteria shows that 61.9% cases were of probable type, 4.8% cases were possible and 33.3% cases were definite. Cohen's kappa test shows that negative and poor concurrence was seen between WHO and Naranjo causality comparison (κ = −0.161). Positive but poor concurrence based on kappa values was seen between Liverpool and Naranjo's causality comparison (κ = 0.133). Negative and poor concurrence based on kappa values was seen between WHO and Liverpool causality comparison (κ = −0.161).

Conclusion:

The most frequent causality category observed by the WHO-UMC criteria, Naranjo as well as the Liverpool algorithm was “Probable.” Full concurrence was not found between any of two scales of causality assessment.

Cutaneous Adverse Drug Reactions in Dogs Treated with Antiepileptic Drugs

Epilepsy is one of the most common neurologic disorders in dogs and life-long treatment with antiepileptic drugs (AED) is frequently required. Adverse events of AED targeting the skin are only rarely reported in veterinary medicine and the true incidence and spectrum of cutaneous reactions in epileptic dogs remains unknown. In this study, we hypothesized that cutaneous reactions commonly occur in epileptic dogs and are related to AED treatment. A retrospective case review of 185 dogs treated for epilepsy identified 20.0% with simultaneous appearance of dermatologic signs. In a subsequent prospective case investigation (n = 137), we identified newly appearing or distinct worsening of skin lesions following initiation of AED therapy in 10.9% of dogs treated for epilepsy (95% CI 6.8–17.7%). Cutaneous lesions were classified as probably drug-induced in 40.0% of these cases. Patch testing and intradermal testing were further investigated as potential diagnostic methods to confirm AED hypersensitivity. They were of high specificity but sensitivity and positive predictive value appeared inappropriate to recommend their routine use in clinical practice.