Literature DB >> 10672897

Incidence and costs of adverse drug reactions during hospitalisation: computerised monitoring versus stimulated spontaneous reporting.

H Dormann1, U Muth-Selbach, S Krebs, M Criegee-Rieck, I Tegeder, H T Schneider, E G Hahn, M Levy, K Brune, G Geisslinger.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To implement a computer-based adverse drug reaction monitoring system and compare its results with those of stimulated spontaneous reporting, and to assess the excess lengths of stay and costs of patients with verified adverse drug reactions.
DESIGN: A prospective cohort study was used to assess the efficacy of computer-based monitoring, and case-matching was used to assess excess length of stay and costs.
SETTING: This was a study of all patients admitted to a medical ward of a university hospital in Germany between June and December 1997. PATIENTS AND PARTICIPANTS: 379 patients were included, most of whom had infectious, gastrointestinal or liver diseases, or sleep apnoea syndrome. Patients admitted because of adverse drug reactions were excluded.
METHODS: All automatically generated laboratory signals and reports were evaluated by a team consisting of a clinical pharmacologist, a clinician and a pharmacist for their likelihood of being an adverse drug reaction. They were classified by severity and causality. For verified adverse drug reactions, control patients with similar primary diagnosis, age, gender and time of admission but without adverse drug reactions were matched to the cases in order to assess the excess length of hospitalisation caused by an adverse drug reaction.
RESULTS: Adverse drug reactions were detected in 12% of patients by the computer-based monitoring system and stimulated spontaneous reporting together (46 adverse reactions in 45 patients) during 1718 treatment days. Computer-based monitoring identified adverse drug reactions in 34 cases, and stimulated spontaneous reporting in 17 cases. Only 5 adverse drug reactions were detected by both methods. The relative sensitivity of computer-based monitoring was 74% (relative specificity 75%), and that of stimulated spontaneous reporting was 37% (relative specificity 98%). All 3 serious adverse drug reactions were detected by computer-based monitoring, but only 2 out of the 3 were detected by stimulated spontaneous reporting. The percentage of automatically generated laboratory signals associated with an adverse drug reaction (positive predictive value) was 13%. The mean excess length of stay was 3.5 days per adverse drug reaction. 48% of adverse reactions were predictable and detected solely by computer-based monitoring. Therefore, the potential for savings on this ward from the introduction of computer-based monitoring can be calculated as EUR56 200/year ($US59 600/year) [ 1999 values].
CONCLUSION: Computer monitoring is an effective method for improving the detection of adverse drug reactions in inpatients. The excess length of stay and costs caused by adverse drug reactions are substantial and might be considerably reduced by earlier detection.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10672897     DOI: 10.2165/00002018-200022020-00007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Drug Saf        ISSN: 0114-5916            Impact factor:   5.606


  27 in total

1.  Drug related admissions to medical wards: a population based survey.

Authors:  J Hallas; L F Gram; E Grodum; N Damsbo; K Brøsen; T Haghfelt; B Harvald; J Beck-Nielsen; J Worm; K B Jensen
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  1992-01       Impact factor: 4.335

2.  The nature of adverse events in hospitalized patients. Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study II.

Authors:  L L Leape; T A Brennan; N Laird; A G Lawthers; A R Localio; B A Barnes; L Hebert; J P Newhouse; P C Weiler; H Hiatt
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1991-02-07       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  Adverse drug reactions leading to hospital admission.

Authors:  L Ibáñez; J R Laporte; X Carné
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  1991 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 5.606

Review 4.  Principles of signal detection in pharmacovigilance.

Authors:  R H Meyboom; A C Egberts; I R Edwards; Y A Hekster; F H de Koning; F W Gribnau
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  1997-06       Impact factor: 5.606

5.  Evaluating the potential effectiveness of using computerized information systems to prevent adverse drug events.

Authors:  J G Anderson; S J Jay; M Anderson; T J Hunt
Journal:  Proc AMIA Annu Fall Symp       Date:  1997

Review 6.  Mechanisms of unpredictable adverse drug reactions.

Authors:  M J Rieder
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  1994-09       Impact factor: 5.606

7.  Retrospective analysis of the frequency and recognition of adverse drug reactions by means of automatically recorded laboratory signals.

Authors:  I Tegeder; M Levy; U Muth-Selbach; R Oelkers; F Neumann; H Dormann; T Azaz-Livshits; M Criegee-Rieck; H T Schneider; E Hahn; K Brune; G Geisslinger
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 4.335

8.  Computerized surveillance of adverse drug events in hospital patients.

Authors:  D C Classen; S L Pestotnik; R S Evans; J P Burke
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1991-11-27       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 9.  Risk factors for adverse drug reactions--epidemiological approaches.

Authors:  R Hoigné; D H Lawson; E Weber
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  1990       Impact factor: 2.953

10.  Frequency, severity and risk factors for adverse drug reactions in adult out-patients: a prospective study.

Authors:  T A Hutchinson; K M Flegel; M S Kramer; D G Leduc; H H Kong
Journal:  J Chronic Dis       Date:  1986
View more
  54 in total

Review 1.  Methods and systems to detect adverse drug reactions in hospitals.

Authors:  P A Thürmann
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 5.606

Review 2.  Detecting adverse events using information technology.

Authors:  David W Bates; R Scott Evans; Harvey Murff; Peter D Stetson; Lisa Pizziferri; George Hripcsak
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2003 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 4.497

3.  Risk factors associated with adverse drug reactions in hospitalised children: international multicentre study.

Authors:  Asia N Rashed; Ian C K Wong; Noel Cranswick; Stephen Tomlin; Wolfgang Rascher; Antje Neubert
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2011-12-14       Impact factor: 2.953

4.  Lack of awareness of community-acquired adverse drug reactions upon hospital admission : dimensions and consequences of a dilemma.

Authors:  Harald Dormann; Manfred Criegee-Rieck; Antje Neubert; Tobias Egger; Arnim Geise; Sabine Krebs; Thomas Schneider; Micha Levy; Eckhart Hahn; Kay Brune
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 5.606

Review 5.  Pharmacovigilance in pediatrics: current challenges.

Authors:  Antje Neubert
Journal:  Paediatr Drugs       Date:  2012-02-01       Impact factor: 3.022

6.  Development of a combined system for identification and classification of adverse drug reactions: Alerts Based on ADR Causality and Severity (ABACUS).

Authors:  Yvonne Koh; Chun Wei Yap; Shu-Chuen Li
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2010 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 4.497

7.  Comparison of three pharmacovigilance algorithms in the ICU setting: a retrospective and prospective evaluation of ADRs.

Authors:  Sandra L Kane-Gill; Elizabeth A Forsberg; Margaret M Verrico; Steven M Handler
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2012-08-01       Impact factor: 5.606

8.  Detection of adverse drug reactions in a neurological department: comparison between intensified surveillance and a computer-assisted approach.

Authors:  Petra A Thuermann; Roland Windecker; Joachim Steffen; Markus Schaefer; Ute Tenter; Erich Reese; Hermann Menger; Klaus Schmitt
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 5.606

Review 9.  Drug-related problems in hospitals: a review of the recent literature.

Authors:  Anita Krähenbühl-Melcher; Raymond Schlienger; Markus Lampert; Manuel Haschke; Jürgen Drewe; Stephan Krähenbühl
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 5.606

10.  E-pharmacovigilance: development and implementation of a computable knowledge base to identify adverse drug reactions.

Authors:  Antje Neubert; Harald Dormann; Hans-Ulrich Prokosch; Thomas Bürkle; Wolfgang Rascher; Reinhold Sojer; Kay Brune; Manfred Criegee-Rieck
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 4.335

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.