Literature DB >> 15853446

Detecting adverse drug reactions on paediatric wards: intensified surveillance versus computerised screening of laboratory values.

Steffen Haffner1, Nicoletta von Laue, Stefan Wirth, Petra A Thürmann.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) contribute significantly to patient morbidity and mortality, as well as to costs for healthcare systems. Our aim was to evaluate the type and incidence of ADRs in a paediatric hospital population, comparatively ascertained by two different methodological approaches.
METHODS: Our prospective study enrolled all patients admitted to two of the general children wards (46 beds) and the paediatric intensive care unit (6 beds) at the HELIOS Klinikum Wuppertal teaching hospital in Germany, over the study period of 3 months. We used two methods to detect ADRs. The intensified surveillance system relied on a trained physician conducting ward rounds and assessing patient charts. The computer-assisted screening of pathological laboratory parameters used values slightly below or above the age-specific normal range as a trigger signal for a potential ADR, which was subsequently assessed by trained personnel.
RESULTS: By applying both methods simultaneously we observed that 14.1% of children experienced an ADR while they were hospitalised and 2.7% of children were admitted to hospital because of the ADR. Intensified surveillance resulted in the detection of 101 ADRs in 11.9% of patients, predominantly presenting with gastrointestinal symptoms, skin and CNS disorders; computer-assisted screening identified 45 ADRs in 5.7% of patients, mainly with drug-induced blood dyscrasia and liver damage. Furthermore, the ADRs detected by the intensified method were more severe, affected younger children and showed a closer causal attributability to the reaction than the ADRs observed by the computerised method. The spectra of drugs involved were similar, with the anti-infectives being suspected most frequently. The sensitivities of the intensified surveillance system and the computerised surveillance screening came to 67.2% and 44.8%, respectively, with computer-assisted screening having a specificity of 72.8%. The mean positive predictive value of the pathological laboratory values under surveillance by computer-assisted screening was 18.6%. Approximately 25% of ADR-related drugs administered were used for off-label indications.
CONCLUSION: Using the published literature for comparison, we found that ADRs occur as frequently in paediatric patients as in adult patients. Intensified surveillance and computerised surveillance applied in the paediatric setting show substantial differences in their detection specificities. A higher number of and more severe ADRs can be detected by intensified surveillance than by computerised surveillance, but require higher personnel resources.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15853446     DOI: 10.2165/00002018-200528050-00008

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


  39 in total

1.  Status of new medicines approved by the European Medicines Evaluation Agency regarding paediatric use.

Authors:  P Impicciatore; I Choonara
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  1999-07       Impact factor: 4.335

Review 2.  Methods and systems to detect adverse drug reactions in hospitals.

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

Review 3.  Adverse drug reactions in neonatal intensive care units.

Authors:  M Bonati; F Marchetti; M T Zullini; V Pistotti; G Tognoni
Journal:  Adverse Drug React Acute Poisoning Rev       Date:  1990

4.  A prospective study of adverse drug reactions as a cause of admission to a paediatric hospital.

Authors:  I Martínez-Mir; M García-López; V Palop; J M Ferrer; L Estañ; E Rubio; F J Morales-Olivas
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  1996-09       Impact factor: 4.335

5.  Paediatric inpatient morbidity patterns and drug usage in a teaching hospital serving an underdeveloped area.

Authors:  V R Dharnidharka; P Kandoth
Journal:  Indian J Public Health       Date:  1999 Apr-Jun

Review 6.  Incidence of adverse drug reactions in paediatric in/out-patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies.

Authors:  P Impicciatore; I Choonara; A Clarkson; D Provasi; C Pandolfini; M Bonati
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 4.335

7.  Adverse drug reactions to unlicensed and off-label drugs on paediatric wards: a prospective study.

Authors:  S Turner; A J Nunn; K Fielding; I Choonara
Journal:  Acta Paediatr       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 2.299

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

9.  Drug-related hospitalization in paediatric patients.

Authors:  S Yosselson-Superstine; T Weiss
Journal:  J Clin Hosp Pharm       Date:  1982-09

10.  Adverse drug reactions in a paediatric intensive care unit.

Authors:  A M Gill; H J Leach; J Hughes; C Barker; A J Nunn; I Choonara
Journal:  Acta Paediatr       Date:  1995-04       Impact factor: 2.299

View more
  22 in total

Review 1.  Pharmacovigilance in pediatrics: current challenges.

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

2.  [Adverse drugs reactions: diagnosis and assessment].

Authors:  P A Thürmann
Journal:  Pathologe       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 1.011

3.  Risk perception and reasons for noncompliance in pharmacovigilance: a qualitative study conducted in Canada.

Authors:  Vincent Nichols; Isabelle Thériault-Dubé; Julie Touzin; Jean-François Delisle; Denis Lebel; Jean-François Bussières; Benoît Bailey; Johanne Collin
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 5.606

Review 4.  Detection of medication-related problems in hospital practice: a review.

Authors:  Elizabeth Manias
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 4.335

Review 5.  Use of off-label and unlicenced drugs in hospitalised paediatric patients: a systematic review.

Authors:  Joana Magalhães; António Teixeira Rodrigues; Fátima Roque; Adolfo Figueiras; Amílcar Falcão; Maria Teresa Herdeiro
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2014-10-16       Impact factor: 2.953

6.  Mortality among patients due to adverse drug reactions that occur following hospitalisation: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Parvati B Patel; Tejas K Patel
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2019-06-11       Impact factor: 2.953

7.  Are computerised monitoring systems of value to improve pharmacovigilance in paediatric patients?

Authors:  Antje Neubert; Harald Dormann; Jutta Weiss; Manfred Criegee-Rieck; Andreas Ackermann; Micha Levy; Kay Brune; Wolfgang Rascher
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2006-10-05       Impact factor: 2.953

8.  Mortality among patients due to adverse drug reactions that lead to hospitalization: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Tejas K Patel; Parvati B Patel
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2018-03-19       Impact factor: 2.953

9.  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

10.  Improving reporting of adverse drug reactions: Systematic review.

Authors:  Mariam Molokhia; Shivani Tanna; Derek Bell
Journal:  Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2009-08-09       Impact factor: 4.790

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.