Adverse drug reactions in the ambulatory internal patients at the emergency department: Focus on causality assessment and drug-drug interactions.

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Matej Dobravc Verbič, Miran Brvar, Mojca Kerec Kos
{"title":"Adverse drug reactions in the ambulatory internal patients at the emergency department: Focus on causality assessment and drug-drug interactions.","authors":"Matej Dobravc Verbič,&nbsp;Miran Brvar,&nbsp;Mojca Kerec Kos","doi":"10.2478/acph-2023-0013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A non-interventional retrospective study in ambulatory patients was conducted at the emergency department of the Division of internal medicine. In 2 months, 266 suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were identified in 224/3453 patients (6.5 %). In 158/3453 patients (4.6 %), an ADR was the reason for emergency department visit and in 49 patients (1.4 %), ADRs led to hospitalisation. A causality assessment algorithm was developed, which included Naranjo algorithm and levels of ADR recognition by the treating physician and the investigators. Using this algorithm, 63/266 ADRs (23.7 %) were classified as \"certain\", whereas using solely the Naranjo score calculation, only 19/266 ADRs (7.1 %) were assessed as \"probable\" or \"certain\", and the rest of ADRs (namely, 247/266 = 92.9 %) were assessed as \"possible\". There were 116/266 (43.6 %) ADRs related to potential drug-drug interactions (DDIs), stated in at least one of the literature sources used. Based on the causality relationship, the rate of the clinically expressed DDIs was 19.0 %, or 12/63 \"certain\" ADR cases. Of these, 10 cases presented serious DDI-related ADRs. In summary, ADR causality assessment based exclusively on Naranjo algorithm demonstrated low sensitivity at an ambulatory emergency setting. Additional clinical judgment, including the opinion of the treating physician, proved necessary to avoid under-rating of the causality relationship, and enabled the determination of clinically expressed DDIs.</p>","PeriodicalId":7034,"journal":{"name":"Acta Pharmaceutica","volume":"73 2","pages":"195-210"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Pharmaceutica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/acph-2023-0013","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

A non-interventional retrospective study in ambulatory patients was conducted at the emergency department of the Division of internal medicine. In 2 months, 266 suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were identified in 224/3453 patients (6.5 %). In 158/3453 patients (4.6 %), an ADR was the reason for emergency department visit and in 49 patients (1.4 %), ADRs led to hospitalisation. A causality assessment algorithm was developed, which included Naranjo algorithm and levels of ADR recognition by the treating physician and the investigators. Using this algorithm, 63/266 ADRs (23.7 %) were classified as "certain", whereas using solely the Naranjo score calculation, only 19/266 ADRs (7.1 %) were assessed as "probable" or "certain", and the rest of ADRs (namely, 247/266 = 92.9 %) were assessed as "possible". There were 116/266 (43.6 %) ADRs related to potential drug-drug interactions (DDIs), stated in at least one of the literature sources used. Based on the causality relationship, the rate of the clinically expressed DDIs was 19.0 %, or 12/63 "certain" ADR cases. Of these, 10 cases presented serious DDI-related ADRs. In summary, ADR causality assessment based exclusively on Naranjo algorithm demonstrated low sensitivity at an ambulatory emergency setting. Additional clinical judgment, including the opinion of the treating physician, proved necessary to avoid under-rating of the causality relationship, and enabled the determination of clinically expressed DDIs.

急诊科门诊住院患者的药物不良反应:关注因果关系评估和药物-药物相互作用。
对内科急诊科门诊患者进行了一项非介入性回顾性研究。在2个月内,224/3453例患者(6.5%)中发现266例疑似药物不良反应(adr)。在158/3453例患者(4.6%)中,不良反应是急诊就诊的原因,49例患者(1.4%)因不良反应住院。开发了一种因果关系评估算法,其中包括Naranjo算法和治疗医生和调查人员对不良反应的认识水平。使用该算法,63/266例adr(23.7%)被评为“确定”,而单独使用纳兰霍评分计算,只有19/266例adr(7.1%)被评为“可能”或“确定”,其余adr(即247/266 = 92.9%)被评为“可能”。至少有一个文献来源表明,266例adr中有116例(43.6%)与潜在药物-药物相互作用(ddi)有关。根据因果关系,临床表现为ddi的比率为19.0%,即12/63“某些”ADR病例。其中10例出现严重的ddi相关不良反应。综上所述,仅基于Naranjo算法的ADR因果关系评估在门诊急诊环境下灵敏度较低。额外的临床判断,包括治疗医生的意见,证明是必要的,以避免低估因果关系,并能够确定临床表达的ddi。
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
Acta Pharmaceutica
Acta Pharmaceutica PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY-
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
3.60%
发文量
20
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: AP is an international, multidisciplinary journal devoted to pharmaceutical and allied sciences and contains articles predominantly on core biomedical and health subjects. The aim of AP is to increase the impact of pharmaceutical research in academia, industry and laboratories. With strong emphasis on quality and originality, AP publishes reports from the discovery of a drug up to clinical practice. Topics covered are: analytics, biochemistry, biopharmaceutics, biotechnology, cell biology, cell cultures, clinical pharmacy, drug design, drug delivery, drug disposition, drug stability, gene technology, medicine (including diagnostics and therapy), medicinal chemistry, metabolism, molecular modeling, pharmacology (clinical and animal), peptide and protein chemistry, pharmacognosy, pharmacoepidemiology, pharmacoeconomics, pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics, protein design, radiopharmaceuticals, and toxicology.
×
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