Adverse Drug Reactions in Children: Comparison of Reports Collected in a Pharmacovigilance Project Versus Spontaneously Collected ADR Reports.

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q1 PEDIATRICS
Sarah Leitzen, Diana Dubrall, Irmgard Toni, Julia Stingl, Patrick Christ, Ursula Köberle, Matthias Schmid, Antje Neubert, Bernhardt Sachs
{"title":"Adverse Drug Reactions in Children: Comparison of Reports Collected in a Pharmacovigilance Project Versus Spontaneously Collected ADR Reports.","authors":"Sarah Leitzen,&nbsp;Diana Dubrall,&nbsp;Irmgard Toni,&nbsp;Julia Stingl,&nbsp;Patrick Christ,&nbsp;Ursula Köberle,&nbsp;Matthias Schmid,&nbsp;Antje Neubert,&nbsp;Bernhardt Sachs","doi":"10.1007/s40272-022-00540-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and medication errors in children may result from a lack of appropriate drugs, dosages, and pharmaceutical forms. In addition, children may respond differently to drugs than adults. Reporting of ADRs in the pediatric population is therefore of importance in order to increase the amount of safety data. However, different methodological approaches are used to collect ADRs.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of the present study was to analyze whether there were differences in the ADRs collected in the KiDSafe project (845 ADR reports) compared with the spontaneous ADR reports sent to EudraVigilance (697 reports) in the same time period. The strengths and limitations of these two different approaches should be discussed.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The same inclusion criteria were applied for the systematically collected ADRs in the KiDSafe project and the spontaneous reports from EudraVigilance, and only reports of ADRs coded with hospitalization were considered. In both datasets, the number of reports (related to number of hospitals), their documentation quality (VigiGrade), causal relationship (World Health Organization-Uppsala Monitoring Centre [WHO-UMC] criteria), most frequently reported drugs and ADRs, demographical parameters of the patients, reported medical histories, and the seriousness of ADR reports were analyzed descriptively. The results of the two analyses were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was considerable underreporting of ADRs via the spontaneous reports (0.4 reports per hospital; 697/1902) compared with 70.4 reports per hospital (845/12) in the systematically collected KiDSafe reports. Documentation quality assessment yielded similar results in both datasets. Among the 10 most frequently reported drugs, anticonvulsants such as levetiracetam (6.6%), valproic acid (5.6%), oxcarbazepine (3.6%), and lamotrigine (3.4%) were mainly reported in the KiDSafe reports, while in the EudraVigilance reports, mite allergen extract (4.4%) and allergens (3.6%) were preferentially reported. Seizures were the most frequently reported clinically specific ADRs in the KiDSafe reports, whereas anaphylactic reactions and urticaria were prominent in the spontaneous reports from EudraVigilance. Notably, the proportion of reports referring to medication errors and other medication safety related issues were more prominent in KiDSafe than in the spontaneous reports (27.8% vs. 12.6% and 46.0% vs. 29.0%, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In general, reports from both data sources contributed to the identification of ADRs and dedicated issues related to drug therapy. However, these differed by nature and strength of the signal, likely due to the characteristics of the individual method. A combined approach could likely compensate for limitations inherent to the single approaches, but will most likely only be applied to dedicated pharmacovigilance topics or research objectives.</p>","PeriodicalId":19955,"journal":{"name":"Pediatric Drugs","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/6e/3d/40272_2022_Article_540.PMC9931796.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pediatric Drugs","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40272-022-00540-z","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and medication errors in children may result from a lack of appropriate drugs, dosages, and pharmaceutical forms. In addition, children may respond differently to drugs than adults. Reporting of ADRs in the pediatric population is therefore of importance in order to increase the amount of safety data. However, different methodological approaches are used to collect ADRs.

Objective: The aim of the present study was to analyze whether there were differences in the ADRs collected in the KiDSafe project (845 ADR reports) compared with the spontaneous ADR reports sent to EudraVigilance (697 reports) in the same time period. The strengths and limitations of these two different approaches should be discussed.

Methods: The same inclusion criteria were applied for the systematically collected ADRs in the KiDSafe project and the spontaneous reports from EudraVigilance, and only reports of ADRs coded with hospitalization were considered. In both datasets, the number of reports (related to number of hospitals), their documentation quality (VigiGrade), causal relationship (World Health Organization-Uppsala Monitoring Centre [WHO-UMC] criteria), most frequently reported drugs and ADRs, demographical parameters of the patients, reported medical histories, and the seriousness of ADR reports were analyzed descriptively. The results of the two analyses were compared.

Results: There was considerable underreporting of ADRs via the spontaneous reports (0.4 reports per hospital; 697/1902) compared with 70.4 reports per hospital (845/12) in the systematically collected KiDSafe reports. Documentation quality assessment yielded similar results in both datasets. Among the 10 most frequently reported drugs, anticonvulsants such as levetiracetam (6.6%), valproic acid (5.6%), oxcarbazepine (3.6%), and lamotrigine (3.4%) were mainly reported in the KiDSafe reports, while in the EudraVigilance reports, mite allergen extract (4.4%) and allergens (3.6%) were preferentially reported. Seizures were the most frequently reported clinically specific ADRs in the KiDSafe reports, whereas anaphylactic reactions and urticaria were prominent in the spontaneous reports from EudraVigilance. Notably, the proportion of reports referring to medication errors and other medication safety related issues were more prominent in KiDSafe than in the spontaneous reports (27.8% vs. 12.6% and 46.0% vs. 29.0%, respectively).

Conclusion: In general, reports from both data sources contributed to the identification of ADRs and dedicated issues related to drug therapy. However, these differed by nature and strength of the signal, likely due to the characteristics of the individual method. A combined approach could likely compensate for limitations inherent to the single approaches, but will most likely only be applied to dedicated pharmacovigilance topics or research objectives.

Abstract Image

儿童药物不良反应:药物警戒项目收集的报告与自发收集的ADR报告的比较。
背景:儿童药物不良反应(adr)和用药错误可能是由于缺乏适当的药物、剂量和药物形式造成的。此外,儿童对药物的反应可能与成人不同。因此,报告儿科人群的不良反应对于增加安全性数据的数量是非常重要的。然而,收集adr的方法不同。目的:本研究的目的是分析KiDSafe项目收集的845份ADR报告与同期发送到EudraVigilance的697份自发性ADR报告是否存在差异。应该讨论这两种不同方法的优点和局限性。方法:KiDSafe项目系统收集的adr与EudraVigilance的自发报告采用相同的纳入标准,仅考虑以住院为编码的adr报告。在这两个数据集中,对报告数量(与医院数量相关)、文件质量(vigiggrade)、因果关系(世界卫生组织-乌普萨拉监测中心[WHO-UMC]标准)、最常报告的药物和ADR、患者的人口统计学参数、报告的病史和ADR报告的严重性进行了描述性分析。比较了两种分析的结果。结果:自发报告的不良反应有相当大的漏报(每家医院0.4例;697/1902),而在系统收集的KiDSafe报告中,每家医院有70.4例报告(845/12)。文档质量评估在两个数据集中产生了相似的结果。在10种最常报道的药物中,抗惊厥药如左乙拉西坦(6.6%)、丙戊酸(5.6%)、奥卡西平(3.6%)和拉莫三嗪(3.4%)在KiDSafe报告中主要被报道,而在EudraVigilance报告中,螨过敏原提取物(4.4%)和过敏原(3.6%)被优先报道。在KiDSafe报告中,癫痫发作是最常见的临床特异性adr,而在EudraVigilance报告中,过敏反应和荨麻疹是最突出的。值得注意的是,涉及用药错误和其他用药安全相关问题的报告比例在KiDSafe中比在自发报告中更为突出(分别为27.8%比12.6%和46.0%比29.0%)。结论:总的来说,两种数据来源的报告都有助于识别不良反应和与药物治疗相关的专门问题。然而,这些方法因信号的性质和强度而不同,可能是由于个别方法的特点。联合方法可能弥补单一方法固有的局限性,但很可能只适用于专门的药物警戒主题或研究目标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Pediatric Drugs
Pediatric Drugs PEDIATRICS-PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
54
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Pediatric Drugs promotes the optimization and advancement of all aspects of pharmacotherapy for healthcare professionals interested in pediatric drug therapy (including vaccines). The program of review and original research articles provides healthcare decision makers with clinically applicable knowledge on issues relevant to drug therapy in all areas of neonatology and the care of children and adolescents. The Journal includes: -overviews of contentious or emerging issues. -comprehensive narrative reviews of topics relating to the effective and safe management of drug therapy through all stages of pediatric development. -practical reviews covering optimum drug management of specific clinical situations. -systematic reviews that collate empirical evidence to answer a specific research question, using explicit, systematic methods as outlined by the PRISMA statement. -Adis Drug Reviews of the properties and place in therapy of both newer and established drugs in the pediatric population. -original research articles reporting the results of well-designed studies with a strong link to clinical practice, such as clinical pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic studies, clinical trials, meta-analyses, outcomes research, and pharmacoeconomic and pharmacoepidemiological studies. Additional digital features (including animated abstracts, video abstracts, slide decks, audio slides, instructional videos, infographics, podcasts and animations) can be published with articles; these are designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. In addition, articles published in Pediatric Drugs may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist readers who have some knowledge of, but not in-depth expertise in, the area to understand important medical advances.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信