Table of Contents  
REVIEW ARTICLE
Year : 2013  |  Volume : 4  |  Issue : 5  |  Page : 73-77  

Clinical and economic burden of adverse drug reactions


Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Messina, Messina, Italy

Date of Web Publication2-Nov-2013

Correspondence Address:
Janet Sultana
Policlino Universitario G. Martino, Via Consolare Valeria Gazzi, Messina
Italy
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0976-500X.120957

Rights and Permissions
   Abstract 

Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are unwanted drug effects that have considerable economic as well as clinical costs as they often lead to hospital admission, prolongation of hospital stay and emergency department visits. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the main premarketing methods used to detect and quantify ADRs but these have several limitations, such as limited study sample size and limited heterogeneity due to the exclusion of the frailest patients. In addition, ADRs due to inappropriate medication use occur often in the real world of clinical practice but not in RCTs. Postmarketing drug safety monitoring through pharmacovigilance activities, including mining of spontaneous reporting and carrying out observational prospective cohort or retrospective database studies, allow longer follow-up periods of patients with a much wider range of characteristics, providing valuable means for ADR detection, quantification and where possible reduction, reducing healthcare costs in the process.
Overall, pharmacovigilance is aimed at identifying drug safety signals as early as possible, thus minimizing potential clinical and economic consequences of ADRs. The goal of this review is to explore the epidemiology and the costs of ADRs in routine care.

Keywords: Adverse drug reactions, costs, pharmacovigilance, randomized controlled trials


How to cite this article:
Sultana J, Cutroneo P, Trifirò G. Clinical and economic burden of adverse drug reactions. J Pharmacol Pharmacother 2013;4, Suppl S1:73-7

How to cite this URL:
Sultana J, Cutroneo P, Trifirò G. Clinical and economic burden of adverse drug reactions. J Pharmacol Pharmacother [serial online] 2013 [cited 2019 Jun 19];4, Suppl S1:73-7. Available from: http://www.jpharmacol.com/text.asp?2013/4/5/73/120957


   Introduction Top


The World Health Organization has defined pharmacovigilance as "the science and activities relating to the detection, assessment, understanding, and prevention of adverse effects or any other drug-related problems". [1] Such 'drug-related problems' include adverse drug reactions (ADRs), unintended injuries or complications that arise from iatrogenic drug related causes and which cause or prolong hospital admission and result in disability or death. [2],[3],[4] The risk of ADRs is necessarily an inherent risk of all drug therapy and is modulated by several factors, including dose and frequency of administration, genotype, and pharmacokinetic characteristics of special populations, such as pediatric and geriatric patients and those with hepatic or renal impairment. Due to the high frequency and potentially serious consequences, ADRs may have a dramatic impact in clinical practice both from a clinical and economic perspective. The aim of this review is to explore the impact of ADRs in clinical practice from both the clinical and economic perspective.

Limitation of premarketing drug safety evaluations

Along with evaluations of drug efficacy, the detection and quantification of risks associated with drug treatment is a critical component of preclinical studies as well as the clinical phases (phases 1-3) of the drug development process before a drug is released in the market. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), the main component of the premarketing clinical phases of drug development are the gold standard for evaluating drug efficacy but are much less effective at detecting ADRs. [5]

RCTs have several limitations with regard to ADR detection. There are several issues that limit the generalizability of RCT results to clinical practice, such as limited study population size and duration of study, the selective recruitment of patients with resulting limited heterogeneity and the consideration of few predefined ADRs. The generalizability of clinical findings from RCTs to clinical practice, including that concern ADRs, has often been criticized as being inadequate and a major limitation. [6 ],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12],[13] The selection of patients for RCTs may also not be representative of patients who will receive the treatment and who may be more vulnerable to ADRs. It has been observed that often, less than 10% of patients in RCTs in most areas of medicine and surgery have the relevant disorder under investigation. [14],[15],[16],[17],[18],[19] In addition, the inclusion criteria for RCT patients are frequently not reported, leading to significant limitations in conclusions regarding which populations are most at risk of the ADRs detected in RCTs. [20] Even in patients with the relevant disease, the severity and staging of the disease as well as comorbidities in RCTs may not reflect those found in routine clinical care and affect the extrapolation of RCT results to populations in clinical practice. [21] In particular, the frailest populations such as pediatric and geriatric patients are often underrepresented in RCTs, leading to limited premarketing drug-safety information about these patients. [22],[23],[24]

Another main limitation of ADR detection and quantification using RCTs is their limited sample size. [25],[26],[27] With a small sample size, RCTs can detect ADRs that are common and that develop over short periods, [22] but their relatively short follow up time compared with the length of drug use in clinical practice, particularly in the cases of interventions that require chronic treatment such as epilepsy and schizophrenia, limits the ability of RCTs to detect ADRs. [28],[29],[30],[31] This presents an obstacle to detecting ADRs that appear at a time lag from the drug exposure, such as cancer, or those that develop after chronic use such as the long-term ADRs of oral contraceptives and hormone replacement therapy that can take years to develop.­ [26] In addition, rare ADRs cannot be detected by RCTs because RCTs do not contain sufficiently large populations. [32]

The low quality of ADR reporting in RCTs and the known publication bias associated with the pharmaceutical industry are other obstacles to ADR detection, quantification, and dissemination. [33] On one hand, RCTs often have few or no predefined ADR screening protocols and cannot detect ADRs that are genuinely unexpected and for which no screening tests may therefore be carried out. This is a limitation inherent to the RCT design and such new ADRs can only be detected serendipitously. On the other hand, the quality of published RCT reports have been heavily criticized for a lack of transparency in their published ADRs reports. [34] A review of 113 RCTs published in high impact factor journals found that 15% of studies did not provide numerical data on the frequency of ADRs, 27% provided no information on the severity of ADRs, and 48% did not report the number of patients drop-outs due to ADRs. [35] There are several cases of such suspected low-quality ADR reporting in the literature. A review of 25 non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) RCTs with a total of 2566 patients, found that not one of the trials explicitly reported any renal ADRs, potentially suggesting underreporting. [24] Although renal damage is not common, it is unlikely that not a single patient experienced renal ADRs. In RCTs, warfarin had much lower reported ADR rates than in clinical practice, contributing to concerns about the validity of RCT ADR data that consequently led to under-prescribing of warfarin in patients who could most benefit from warfarin therapy. [36],[37],[38] The low-quality ADR reporting in RCTs has prompted concerted efforts to improve ADR reporting, as through the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines. [39] Nevertheless, the quality of published ADR reporting from RCTs has remained low. [35]

Inappropriate use of medicine as cause for ADRs

The relevance of pharmacovigilance to ADR detection is highlighted by considering that a major cause of ADRs is the inappropriate use of medicines. [40] However, the use of drugs in RCTs is according to strict protocols, often in patients who are not frail and in a very controlled environment, which is very unlike the use of drugs observed in the more dynamic clinical settings where the mode and consequences of drug use can be more complex. RCTs therefore cannot detect ADRs due to inappropriate drug use. ADRs arising from inappropriate drug use can be due to inappropriate dosage or duration of treatment, drug interactions, off-label use or use in contraindicated circumstance [40],[41] all of which can occur in the general population or in a hospital setting. ADRs arising from inappropriate medications use are a particular risk in the elderly, due to increased susceptibility as a result of age-related pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic changes as well as comorbidities and multiple drug use. [42] The proportion of patients using potentially inappropriate medication increases from the community to the hospital setting. [43] This risk of inappropriate drug use is compounded by patients self-medicating with over-the-counter medications. The role of pharmacovigilance in detecting and quantifying ADRs due to inappropriate medication use in a clinical setting is particularly important because such ADRs are potentially preventable. [44]

Epidemiology of adverse drug reactions in clinical practice

Several epidemiological studies have been conducted that give an indication of the frequency of ADRs and the related healthcare costs in clinical practice. Such consequences include drug-related hospital admission, prolongation of hospital stay, and emergency department visits. Estimates from France suggest that up to 123,000 patients a year present to their general practitioner with an ADR. [45] Drug related causes are also often the cause of hospital admission.

ADRs account for 4.2-30% of hospital admissions in the USA and Canada, 5.7-18.8% of admissions in Australia, and 2.5-10.6% of admissions in Europe. [46] Some studies focused on more vulnerable populations such as the pediatric and geriatric patients. Between 2.1% and 5.2% of ADRs in children lead to hospitalization, and up to 39% of ADRs in pediatric patients can be life-threatening or fatal. [47] A national study from the USA estimated that 11.4-35.5% of emergency department visits in older adults are due to drug-related causes. [48] Studies from Europe similarly found that up to 20% of ambulatory patients experience ADRs and approximately 10-20% of geriatric hospital admissions are drug-related. [49],[50] Another consequence of ADRs is the prolongation of hospital stay. [51] A prospective study showed that ADRs increased the mean hospital stay from a mean of 8 days in patients without ADRs to 20 days in patients with ADRs. [52] Davies et al. also found an increased risk of mortality in patients who experienced an ADR compared with those who did not. [52] A high frequency of ADRs is also seen in nursing homes, with 32-65% of ADRs occurring in these populations. [53],[54] In general the role of drug surveillance measures is highlighted considering that between 32% and 69% of drug-related admissions were reported as definitely or possibly preventable. [7] Through these pharmacovigilance and active drug monitoring studies, potential general a priori predictors of drug related adverse reactions such as female sex, increasing age and polytherapy have been identified. [55] In addition, the type of drugs most likely to result in ADRs and the most common type of ADRs observed have also been characterized (e.g., mostly drugs that have been on the market for a long time such as NSAIDs, coumarins, antibiotics, beta-blockers etc.), facilitating their recognition and prevention. [41],[44],[45],[46],[48],[52],[55],[56]

Costs of adverse drug reactions

The impact and the management of ADRs is complex and in the USA may cost up to 30.1 billion dollars annually. ADRs may increase costs due to increased hospitalization, prolongation of hospital stay and additional clinical investigations in more serious cases. In addition ADRs may trigger prescription cascades when new medications are prescribed for conditions that are a consequence of another medication, which is often an unrecognized ADR. Examples include the use of antipsychotics in Parkinson's disease patients treated with dopaminergic drugs or the use of anticholinergic drugs for urinary retention in Alzheimer's disease patients treated with cholinesterase inhibitors. [57] This increases the costs of pharmacotherapy as well as compounding the risk of further ADRs.

Out of incident ADRs that resulted in hospitalization, the cost per preventable ADR was estimated to be higher than for non-preventable ADRs. [58] Another study conducted in inpatient setting found the cost to be $US 2262 per ADR. [59] The costs of ADRs in inpatient setting varies within different hospital wards, costing $US 13,994 in a non-intensive care unit (ICU), but $US 19,685 in ICU. [60] In addition, drug surveillance studies have been able to identify the following ADRs as those having the greatest economic burden in hospital setting: fever, bleeding, diarrhea and cardiac arrhythmia, in decreasing order.­ [59] NSAIDs, antibacterial agents, anticoagulant agents and antineoplastic agents are a major cause of ADR-related costs. [61] Both the extended duration of hospital stay as well as the out patient care as a result of ADRs constitute the source of financial burden. [62] The main costs of ADRs in a hospital are wages, disposable goods and medications. [63] Aside from the direct financial costs, there are also several indirect costs for patients and their care givers that are incurred by ADRs, such as missed days from work and/or morbidity such as anxiety due to the ADR episode. [64]

Strategies for improving quality of care and reducing healthcare costs

It is clear that ADRs are a source of additional economic burden on patients, their care-givers, and the healthcare systems that treat them. It is also clear that RCTs on their own are not sufficient to detect and assess the frequency of ADRs. Postmarketing pharmacovigilance activities such as spontaneous reporting, cohort event monitoring and retrospective database studies that complement RCT data provide more clinically relevant data with longer follow up periods and larger population sizes that are necessary for a more accurate and on-going evaluation of the risk-benefit ratio for healthcare interventions. [25],[26],[32] Irrespective of the type of postmarketing study, drug safety is more likely to improve when there is the joint involvement of regulatory agencies the pharmaceutical industry, and prescribers. [65] This has recently taken place in the form of EU guidance EMA/813938/2011 Revision 1, [66] where the EU medicines safety regulatory agency (EMA) has made postauthorization safety studies (PASS) legally binding when requested at the medicines regulating bodies' discretion and where they deem necessary. This new guidance strengthens the legal power of regulatory agencies as they regulate and process applications for the drug marketing authorization (MA). A requested PASS is legally binding both at first MA granting as well as postauthorization.

 
   References Top

1.World Health Organization, The safety of medicines in public health programmes: Pharmacovigilance an essential tool. 2006. Available from: http://www.who.int/medicines/areas/quality_safety/safety_efficacy/Pharmacovigilance_B.pdf. [Last accessed on 25 of June 2013].  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.Olsen S, Neale G, Schwab K, Psaila B, Patel T, Chapman EJ, et al. Hospital staff should use more than one method to detect adverse events and potential adverse events: Incident reporting, pharmacist surveillance and local real-time record review may all have a place. Qual Saf Health Care 2007;16:40-4.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.Pirmohamed M, James S, Meakin S, Green C, Scott AK, Walley TJ, et al. Adverse drug reactions as cause of admission to hospital: Prospective analysis of 18 820 patients. BMJ 2004;329:15-9.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.Aronson JK. Distinguishing hazards and harms, adverse drug effects and adverse drug reactions: Implications for drug development, clinical trials, pharmacovigilance, biomarkers, and monitoring. Drug Saf 2013;36:147-53.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.Martin K, Begaud B, Latry P, Miremont-Salame G, Fourrier A, Moore N. Differences between clinical trials and postmarketing use. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2004;57:86-92.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.Black D. The limitations of evidence. J R Coll Physicians Lond 1998;32:23-6.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.Caplan LR. Evidence based medicine: Concerns of a clinical neurologist. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2001;71:569-74.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.Charlton BG, Miles A. The rise and fall of EBM. QJM 1998;91:371-4.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.Evans JG. Evidence-based and evidence-biased medicine. Age Ageing 1995;24:461-3.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.Feinstein AR, Horwitz RI. Problems in the "evidence" of "evidence-based medicine". Am J Med 1997;103:529-35.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.Hampton JR. Size isn't everything. Stat Med 2002;21:2807-14.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.Morgan WK. On evidence, embellishment and efficacy. J Eval Clin Pract 1997;3:117-22.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.Naylor CD. Grey zones of clinical practice: Some limits to evidence-based medicine. Lancet 1995;345:840-2.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.Cairns JA. Stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation trial. Circulation 1991;84:933-5.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study Group, Carotid endarterectomy for patients with asymptomatic internal carotidartery stenosis. JAMA 1995;273:1421-8.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.Henderson RA, Raskino CL, Hampton JR. Variations in the use of coronary arteriography in the UK: The RITA trial coronary arteriogram register. QJM 1995;88:167-73.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.Muller DW, Topol EJ. Selection of patients with acute myocardial infarction for thrombolytic therapy. Ann Intern Med 1990;113:949-60.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.Rovers MM, Zielhuis G, Bennett K, Haggard M. Generalisability of clinical trials in otitis media with effusion. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2001;60:29-40.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.Steiner TJ, Clifford Rose F. Towards a model stroke trial. The single-centre naftidrofuryl study. Neuroepidemiology 1986;5:121-47.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.Shapiro SH, Weijer C, Freedman B. Reporting the study populations of clinical trials. Clear transmission or static on the line? J Clin Epidemiol 2000;53:973-9.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.Rothwell PM. External validity of randomised controlled trials: "to whom do the results of this trial apply?" Lancet 2005;365:82-93.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.Weiner WJ. What do clinical trials tell us about treating patients? Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2009;15 Suppl 3:S34-7.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.Cheng H. Randomized, controlled trials: Gold or bronze? J Am Med Dir Assoc 2006;7:611-2.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.Bartlett C, Doyal L, Ebrahim S, Davey P, Bachmann M, Egger M, et al. The causes and effects of socio-demographic exclusions from clinical trials. Health Technol Assess 2005;9:1-152.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.Hannan EL. Randomized clinical trials and observational studies: Guidelines for assessing respective strengths and limitations. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2008;1:211-7.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.Black N. Why we need observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of health care. BMJ 1996;312:1215-8.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.Nichol AD, Bailey M, Cooper DJ. Challenging issues in randomised controlled trials. Injury 2010;41 Suppl 1:S20-3.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.Binnie CD. Design of clinical antiepileptic drug trials. Seizure 1995;4:187-92.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.Gilbody S, Wahlbeck K, Adams C. Randomized controlled trials in schizophrenia: A critical perspective on the literature. Acta Psychiatr Scand 2002;105:243-51.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.Hemminki E. Study of information submitted by drug companies to licensing authorities. Br Med J 1980;280:833-6.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.Walker MC, Sander JW. Difficulties in extrapolating from clinical trial data to clinical practice: The case of antiepileptic drugs. Neurology 1997;49:333-7.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.Yang W, Zilov A, Soewondo P, Bech OM, Sekkal F, Home PD. Observational studies: Going beyond the boundaries of randomized controlled trials. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2010;8 Suppl 1:S3-9.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.Ioannidis JP, Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG. Reporting of safety data from randomised trials. Lancet 1998;352:1752-3.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.Seruga B, Sterling L, Wang L, Tannock IF. Reporting of serious adverse drug reactions of targeted anticancer agents in pivotal phase III clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 2010;29:174-85.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.Pitrou I, Boutron I, Ahmad N, Ravaud P. Reporting of safety results in published reports of randomized controlled trials. Arch Intern Med 2009;169:1756-61.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.Antani MR, Beyth RJ, Covinsky KE, Anderson PA, Miller DG, Cebul RD, et al. Failure to prescribe warfarin to patients with nonrheumatic atrial fibrillation. J Gen Intern Med 1996;11:713-20.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.Landefeld CS, Beyth RJ. Anticoagulant-related bleeding: Clinical epidemiology, prediction, and prevention. Am J Med 1993;95:315-28.  Back to cited text no. 37
    
38.Oswald N, Bateman H. Applying research evidence to individuals in primary care: A study using non-rheumatic atrial fibrillation. Fam Pract 1999;16:414-9.  Back to cited text no. 38
    
39.Ioannidis JP, Evans SJ, Gotzsche PC, O'Neill RT, Altman DG, Schulz K, et al. Better reporting of harms in randomized trials: An extension of the CONSORT statement. Ann Intern Med 2004;141:781-8.  Back to cited text no. 39
    
40.Lindley CM, Tully MP, Paramsothy V, Tallis RC. Inappropriate medication is a major cause of adverse drug reactions in elderly patients. Age Ageing 1992;21:294-300.  Back to cited text no. 40
    
41.Jonville-Bera AP, Bera F, Autret-Leca E. Are incorrectly used drugs more frequently involved in adverse drug reactions? A prospective study. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2005;61:231-6.  Back to cited text no. 41
    
42.Trifiro G, Spina E. Age-related changes in pharmacodynamics: Focus on drugs acting on central nervous and cardiovascular systems. Curr Drug Metab 2011;12:611-20.  Back to cited text no. 42
    
43.Fleming RM, Alford SJ, Moulin J, Cartwright OM, Griffin AE, Hale LS. Potentially inappropriate medication use in hospitalized older adults: A DUE using the full Beers criteria. Formulary 2008;43:326-39.  Back to cited text no. 43
    
44.Laroche ML, Charmes JP, Nouaille Y, Picard N, Merle L. Is inappropriate medication use a major cause of adverse drug reactions in the elderly? Br J Clin Pharmacol 2007;63:177-86.  Back to cited text no. 44
    
45.Lacoste-Roussillon C, Pouyanne P, Haramburu, F, Miremont G, Begaud B. Incidence of serious adverse drug reactions in general practice: A prospective study. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2001;69:458-62.  Back to cited text no. 45
    
46.Howard RL, Avery AJ, Slavenburg S, Royal S, Pipe G, Lucassen P, et al. Which drugs cause preventable admissions to hospital? A systematic review. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2007;63:136-47.  Back to cited text no. 46
    
47.Impicciatore P, Choonara I, Clarkson A, Provasi D, Pandolfini C, Bonati M. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in paediatric in/out-patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2001;52:77-83.  Back to cited text no. 47
    
48.Budnitz DS, Shehab N, Kegler SR, Richards CL. Medication use leading to emergency department visits for adverse drug events in older adults. Ann Intern Med 2007;147:755-65.  Back to cited text no. 48
    
49.Routledge PA, O'Mahony MS, Woodhouse KW. Adverse drug reactions in elderly patients. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2004;57:121-6.  Back to cited text no. 49
    
50.Atkin PA, Veitch PC, Veitch EM, Ogle SJ. The epidemiology of serious adverse drug reactions among the elderly. Drugs Aging 1999;14:141-52.  Back to cited text no. 50
    
51.Kojima T, Akishita M, Kameyama Y, Yamaguchi K, Yamamoto H, Eto M, et al. Factors associated with prolonged hospital stay in a geriatric ward of a university hospital in Japan. J Am Geriatr Soc 2012;60:1190-1.  Back to cited text no. 51
    
52.Davies EC, Green CF, Taylor S, Williamson PR, Mottram DR, Pirmohamed M. Adverse drug reactions in hospital in-patients: A prospective analysis of 3695 patient-episodes. PLoS One 2009;4:e4439.  Back to cited text no. 52
    
53.Cooper JW. Probable adverse drug reactions in a rural geriatric nursing home population: A four-year study. J Am Geriatr Soc 1996;44:194-7.  Back to cited text no. 53
    
54.Gerety MB, Cornell, JE, Plichta DT, Eimer M. Adverse events related to drugs and drug withdrawal in nursing home residents. J Am Geriatr Soc 1993;41:1326-32.  Back to cited text no. 54
    
55.Trifiro G, Calogero G, Ippolito FM, Cosentino M, Giuliani R, Conforti A, et al. Adverse drug events in emergency department population: A prospective Italian study. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2005;14:333-40.  Back to cited text no. 55
    
56.Ventura MT, Laddaga R, Cavallera P, Pugliese P, Tummolo RA, Buquicchio R, et al. Adverse drug reactions as the cause of emergency department admission: Focus on the elderly. Immunopharmacol Immunotoxicol 2010;32:426-9.  Back to cited text no. 56
    
57.Kalisch LM, Caughey GE, Roughead RE, Gilbert AL. The prescribing cascade. Aust Prescr 2011;34:162-6.  Back to cited text no. 57
    
58.Bates DW, Spell N, Cullen DJ, Burdick E, Laird N, Petersen LA, et al. The costs of adverse drug events in hospitalized patients. Adverse Drug Events Prevention Study Group. JAMA 1997;277:307-11.  Back to cited text no. 58
    
59.Classen DC, Pestotnik SL, Evans RS, Lloyd JF, Burke JP. Adverse drug events in hospitalized patients. Excess length of stay, extra costs, and attributable mortality. JAMA 1997;277:301-6.  Back to cited text no. 59
    
60.Cullen DJ, Sweitzer BJ, Bates DW, Burdick E, Edmondson A, Leape LL. Preventable adverse drug events in hospitalized patients: A comparative study of intensive care and general care units. Crit Care Med 1997;25:1289-97.  Back to cited text no. 60
    
61.White TJ, Arakelian A, Rho JP. Counting the costs of drug-related adverse events. Pharmacoeconomics 1999;15:445-58.  Back to cited text no. 61
    
62.Field TS, Gilman BH, Subramanian S, Fuller JC, Bates DW, Gurwitz JH. The costs associated with adverse drug events among older adults in the ambulatory setting. Med Care 2005;43:1171-6.  Back to cited text no. 62
    
63.Wasserfallen J, Livio F, Buclin T, Tillet L, Yersin B, Biollaz J. Rate, type, and cost of adverse drug reactions in emergency department admissions. Eur J Intern Med 2001;12:442-7.  Back to cited text no. 63
    
64.Wu WK, Pantaleo N. Evaluation of outpatient adverse drug reactions leading to hospitalization. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2003;60:253-9.  Back to cited text no. 64
    
65.Wood AJ. The safety of new medicines: The importance of asking the right questions. JAMA 1999;281:1753-4.  Back to cited text no. 65
    
66.European Medicines Agency. Guideline on good pharmacovigilance practices (GVP) EMA/813938/2011 Rev 1. 2012.  Back to cited text no. 66
    



This article has been cited by
1 Pharmacovigilance in Calabria (Italy): Local experiences resonate international relevance
Russo, E., De Sarro, G.
Journal of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapeutics. 4; 1(S1): S3
[Pubmed]
2 Learning predictive models of drug side-effect relationships from distributed representations of literature-derived semantic predications
Justin Mower,Devika Subramanian,Trevor Cohen
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 2018;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
3 Adverse Drug Reactions Reported by Healthcare Professionals: Reaction Characteristics and Time to Reporting
Ar Kar Aung,Mei Jie Tang,Nikki Rae Adler,Sara Lee de Menezes,Michelle Sue Yen Goh,Hui Wen Tee,Jason Anthony Trubiano,Robert Puy,Celia Mary Zubrinich,Linda Velta Graudins
The Journal of Clinical Pharmacology. 2018;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
4 The economic burden of preventable adverse drug reactions: a systematic review of observational studies
D Formica,J Sultana,PM Cutroneo,S Lucchesi,R Angelica,S Crisafulli,Y Ingrasciotta,F Salvo,E Spina,G Trifirò
Expert Opinion on Drug Safety. 2018; 17(7): 681
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
5 OpenPVSignal: Advancing Information Search, Sharing and Reuse on Pharmacovigilance Signals via FAIR Principles and Semantic Web Technologies
Pantelis Natsiavas,Richard D. Boyce,Marie-Christine Jaulent,Vassilis Koutkias
Frontiers in Pharmacology. 2018; 9
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
6 Healthcare professionals’ knowledge, attitude and practice towards adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting at the health center level in Ethiopia
Mohammed Assen Seid,Asmamaw Emagn Kasahun,Bamlak Markos Mante,Saron Naji Gebremariam
International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy. 2018;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
7 Biomarkers of adverse drug reactions
Daniel F Carr,Munir Pirmohamed
Experimental Biology and Medicine. 2018; 243(3): 291
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
8 An Interdigitated Electrode Biosensor Platform for Rapid HLA-B*15:02 Genotyping for Prevention of Drug Hypersensitivity
Gita V. Soraya,Jianxiong Chan,Thanh C. Nguyen,Duc H. Huynh,Chathurika D. Abeyrathne,Gursharan Chana,Marian Todaro,Efstratios Skafidas,Patrick Kwan
Biosensors and Bioelectronics. 2018;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
9 Predicting serious rare adverse reactions of novel chemicals
Aleksandar Poleksic,Lei Xie
Bioinformatics. 2018;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
10 Impact of nanomedicine on hepatic cytochrome P450 3A4 activity: things to consider during pre-clinical and clinical studies
Kristina Jonsson-Schmunk,Stephen C. Schafer,Maria A. Croyle
Journal of Pharmaceutical Investigation. 2018; 48(1): 113
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
11 Pharmacomicrobiomics: a novel route towards personalized medicine?
Marwah Doestzada,Arnau Vich Vila,Alexandra Zhernakova,Debby P. Y. Koonen,Rinse K. Weersma,Daan J. Touw,Folkert Kuipers,Cisca Wijmenga,Jingyuan Fu
Protein & Cell. 2018;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
12 Adverse Drug Reactions in Hospitalized Patients: Results of the FORWARD (Facilitation of Reporting in Hospital Ward) Study
Claudia Giardina,Paola M. Cutroneo,Eleonora Mocciaro,Giuseppina T. Russo,Giuseppe Mandraffino,Giorgio Basile,Franco Rapisarda,Rosarita Ferrara,Edoardo Spina,Vincenzo Arcoraci
Frontiers in Pharmacology. 2018; 9
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
13 Urgent need to modernize pharmacovigilance education in healthcare curricula: review of the literature
Michael Reumerman,J. Tichelaar,B. Piersma,M. C. Richir,M. A. van Agtmael
European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology. 2018;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
14 Detecting Adverse Drug Reactions on Twitter with Convolutional Neural Networks and Word Embedding Features
Aaron J. Masino,Daniel Forsyth,Alexander G. Fiks
Journal of Healthcare Informatics Research. 2018;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
15 Pharmacovigilance in developing countries (part I): importance and challenges
Shaimaa Elshafie,Iman Zaghloul,Anne Marie Roberti
International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy. 2017;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
16 Identifying the common genetic networks of ADR (adverse drug reaction) clusters and developing an ADR classification model
Youhyeon Hwang,Min Oh,Giup Jang,Taekeon Lee,Chihyun Park,Jaegyoon Ahn,Youngmi Yoon
Mol. BioSyst.. 2017;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
17 Pharmacogenomics of GPCR Drug Targets
Alexander S. Hauser,Sreenivas Chavali,Ikuo Masuho,Leonie J. Jahn,Kirill A. Martemyanov,David E. Gloriam,M. Madan Babu
Cell. 2017;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
18 Pharmacokinetics and Safety of Omadacycline in Subjects with Impaired Renal Function
Jolene K. Berg,Evan Tzanis,Lynne Garrity-Ryan,Stephen Bai,Surya Chitra,Amy Manley,Stephen Villano
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 2017; 62(2): e02057-17
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
19 Machine learning workflow to enhance predictions of Adverse Drug Reactions (ADRs) through drug-gene interactions: application to drugs for cutaneous diseases
Kalpana Raja,Matthew Patrick,James T. Elder,Lam C. Tsoi
Scientific Reports. 2017; 7(1)
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
20 Prescribing indicators in primary health care in Belo Horizonte, Brazil: associated factors
Marina Guimarães Lima,Kátia Reis Dutra,Ursula Carolina Morais Martins
International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy. 2017;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
21 Use of a trigger tool to detect adverse drug reactions in an emergency department
Silvana Maria de Almeida,Aruana Romualdo,Andressa de Abreu Ferraresi,Giovana Roberta Zelezoglo,Alexandre R. Marra,Michael B. Edmond
BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology. 2017; 18(1)
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
22 Models of Models: A Translational Route for Cancer Treatment and Drug Development
Lesley A. Ogilvie,Aleksandra Kovachev,Christoph Wierling,Bodo M. H. Lange,Hans Lehrach
Frontiers in Oncology. 2017; 7
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
23 Is inpatient bed number associated with the length of stay? A retrospective, single centre analysis
Daniel Cromb,Ronny Cheung,Paul Blaker
British Journal of Healthcare Management. 2017; 23(9): 426
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
24 A dataset quantifying polypharmacy in the United States
Katie J. Quinn,Nigam H. Shah
Scientific Data. 2017; 4: 170167
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
25 Intensive Care in a Patient with Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis
J. Wallenborn,M. Fischer
Case Reports in Critical Care. 2017; 2017: 1
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
26 Adverse Health Events Related to Self-Medication Practices Among Elderly: A Systematic Review
Médéa Locquet,Germain Honvo,Véronique Rabenda,Thierry Van Hees,Jean Petermans,Jean-Yves Reginster,Olivier Bruyère
Drugs & Aging. 2017;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
27 Deep learning for pharmacovigilance: recurrent neural network architectures for labeling adverse drug reactions in Twitter posts
Anne Cocos,Alexander G Fiks,Aaron J Masino
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 2017;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
28 ß-Lactam Therapy for Methicillin-Susceptible Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia: A Comparative Review of Cefazolin versus Antistaphylococcal Penicillins
Julius Li,Kelly L. Echevarria,Kristi A. Traugott
Pharmacotherapy: The Journal of Human Pharmacology and Drug Therapy. 2017;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
29 FarmaREL: An Italian pharmacovigilance project to monitor and evaluate adverse drug reactions in haematologic patients
Nicola S. Fracchiolla,Silvia Artuso,Agostino Cortelezzi,Anna M. Pelizzari,Paola Tozzi,Maurizio Bonfichi,Federica Bocchio,Livio Gargantini,Elisa De Rosa,Giuseppe D. Vighi,Lucia Prestini,Simona Sammassimo,Niccolò Frungillo,Maria C. Pasquini,Alessandra Ragazzi,Daniele Boghi,Alessia Pastore,Eraldo Lanzi,Giuseppe Gritti,Giulia Quaresmini,Simone Voltolini,Roberta Gaiardoni,Consuelo Corti,Maria C. Vilardo,Maria L. La Targia,Giacomo Berini,Massimo Magagnoli,Claudia Bacci,Dario Consonni,Alma L. Rivolta,Giuliana Muti
Hematological Oncology. 2017;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
30 The key role of clinical and community health nurses in pharmacovigilance
Caterina Bigi,Guido Bocci
European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology. 2017;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
31 Facilitating prediction of adverse drug reactions by using knowledge graphs and multi-label learning models
Emir Muñoz,Vít Novácek,Pierre-Yves Vandenbussche
Briefings in Bioinformatics. 2017;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
32 Testing an explanatory model of nurses’ intention to report adverse drug reactions in hospital settings
Alessia De Angelis,Luca Pancani,Patrizia Steca,Sofia Colaceci,Angela Giusti,Laura Tibaldi,Rosaria Alvaro,Davide Ausili,Ercole Vellone
Journal of Nursing Management. 2017;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
33 Feasibility and Educational Value of a Student-Run Pharmacovigilance Programme: A Prospective Cohort Study
Tim Schutte,Jelle Tichelaar,Michael O. Reumerman,Rike van Eekeren,Leàn Rolfes,Eugène P. van Puijenbroek,Milan C. Richir,Michiel A. van Agtmael
Drug Safety. 2017;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
34 Adverse drug reactions reporting in Calabria (Southern Italy) in the four-year period 2011-2014: impact of a regional pharmacovigilance project in light of the new European Legislation
Christian Leporini,Giuseppina Marrazzo,Laura Mumoli,Stefania Esposito,Luca Gallelli,Giovanna Mangano,Giacomino Brancati,Emanuela Adele De Francesco,Emilio Russo,Giovambattista De Sarro
Expert Opinion on Drug Safety. 2017; : 1
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
35 Adverse drug reactions in high-risk pregnant women: A prospective study
Alfredo Dias de Oliveira-Filho,Antonio Emanuel Soares Vieira,Roberta Cruz da Silva,Sabrina Joany Felizardo Neves,Thiago Antonio Barros Gama,Ryane Vieira Lima,Wlisses Ramon Oliveira,Júlia Maria de Gonçalves Dias
Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal. 2017;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
36 Using deep learning to improve medication safety: the untapped potential of social media
Jiaheng Xie,Daniel Dajun Zeng,Zachary A. Marcum
Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety. 2017; 8(12): 375
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
37 Concurrent Use of Prescription Drugs and Herbal Medicinal Products in Older Adults: A Systematic Review
Taofikat B. Agbabiaka,Barbara Wider,Leala K. Watson,Claire Goodman
Drugs & Aging. 2017;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
38 Concurrent use of prescription drugs and herbal medicinal products in older adults: a systematic review protocol
Taofikat Agbabiaka,Barbara Wider,Leala Kay Watson,Claire Goodman
Systematic Reviews. 2016; 5(1)
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
39 Role of pharmacogenetics in public health and clinical health care: a SWOT analysis
Ritika Kapoor,Wei Chuen Tan-Koi,Yik-Ying Teo
European Journal of Human Genetics. 2016;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
40 Pharmacovigilance Skills, Knowledge and Attitudes in our Future Doctors - A Nationwide Study in the Netherlands
Tim Schutte,Jelle Tichelaar,Michael O. Reumerman,Rike van Eekeren,Robert Rissmann,Cornelis Kramers,Milan C. Richir,Eugène P. van Puijenbroek,Michiel A. van Agtmael
Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology. 2016;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
41 Generalized enrichment analysis improves the detection of adverse drug events from the biomedical literature
Rainer Winnenburg,Nigam H. Shah
BMC Bioinformatics. 2016; 17(1)
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
42 Risk management of QTc-prolongation in patients receiving haloperidol: an epidemiological study in a University hospital in Belgium
Eline Vandael,Bert Vandenberk,Joris Vandenberghe,Isabel Spriet,Rik Willems,Veerle Foulon
International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy. 2016;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
43 Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Pattern in Turkey: Analysis of the National Database in the Context of the First Pharmacovigilance Legislation
Gulnihal Ozcan,Emel Aykac,Yelda Kasap,Nergiz T. Nemutlu,Ebru Sen,N. Demet Aydinkarahaliloglu
Drugs - Real World Outcomes. 2016;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
44 Regulatory development of geriatric medicines: To GIP or not to GIP?
Bart De Spiegeleer,Evelien Wynendaele,Nathalie Bracke,Lieselotte Veryser,Lien Taevernier,Agnes Degroote,Sofie Stalmans
Ageing Research Reviews. 2016; 27: 23
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
45 Adverse drug reactions reporting: a questionnaire-based study on Egyptian pharmacists’ attitudes following an awareness workshop
Nehal A Alraie,Amr A Saad,Nirmeen A Sabry,Samar F Farid
Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice. 2016; : n/a
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
46 Purification and biochemical characterization of glucose 6-phosphate dehydrogenase, 6-phosphogluconate dehydrogenase and glutathione reductase from rat lung and inhibition effects of some antibiotics
Sevki Adem,Mehmet Ciftci
Journal of Enzyme Inhibition and Medicinal Chemistry. 2016; : 1
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
47 UK Pharmacogenetics and Stratified Medicine Network
Christine J McNamee
Personalized Medicine. 2016; 13(2): 107
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
48 Prevalence and characteristics of adverse drug reactions at admission to hospital: a prospective observational study
Sze Ling Chan,Xiaohui Ang,Levana L. Sani,Hong Yen Ng,Michael D. Winther,Jian Jun Liu,Liam R. Brunham,Alexandre Chan
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology. 2016; 82(6): 1636
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
49 Introducing the Microbiome into Precision Medicine
Thomas M. Kuntz,Jack A. Gilbert
Trends in Pharmacological Sciences. 2016;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
50 Adverse drug reactions experience in a teaching hospital in Jordan
Mohammed Alsbou,Sameh Alzubiedi,Hamed Alzobi,Nawal Abu Samhadanah,Yousef Alsaraireh,Omar Alrawashdeh,Amin Aqel,Khalil Al-Salem
International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy. 2015; 37(6): 1188
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
51 Pharmacovigilance in resource-limited countries
Sten Olsson,Shanthi N Pal,Alex Dodoo
Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology. 2015; 8(4): 449
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
52 Anticoagulant-related hospital admissions: serious adverse reactions identified through hospital databases
Charles Heng,Marie Christine Rybarczyk-Vigouret,Bruno Michel
Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety. 2015; 24(2): 144
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
53 Telemedicine and the Patient with Sepsis
Omar Badawi,Erkan Hassan
Critical Care Clinics. 2015; 31(2): 291
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
54 Factors that condition the spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions among nurses: an integrative review
Alessia De Angelis,Sofia Colaceci,Angela Giusti,Ercole Vellone,Rosaria Alvaro
Journal of Nursing Management. 2015; : n/a
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
55 Pharmacometabonomics in humans: a new tool for personalized medicine
Jeremy R Everett
Pharmacogenomics. 2015; 16(7): 737
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
56 Nurse-Led Medicinesæ Monitoring for Patients with Dementia in Care Homes: A Pragmatic Cohort Stepped Wedge Cluster Randomised Trial
Susan Jordan,Marie Ellenor Gabe-Walters,Alan Watkins,Ioan Humphreys,Louise Newson,Sherrill Snelgrove,Michael S Dennis,Matthias Briel
PLOS ONE. 2015; 10(10): e0140203
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
57 The emergence of precision therapeutics
Jim Slater,Laura Shields,Ray J. Racette,Donald Juzwishin,Max Coppes
Healthcare Management Forum. 2015; 28(6_suppl): S33
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
58 L’émergence de la thérapeutique de précision
Jim Slater,Laura Shields,Ray J. Racette,Donald Juzwishin,Max Coppes
Healthcare Management Forum. 2015; 28(6_suppl): S40
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
59 Drug disposition alterations in liver disease: extrahepatic effects in cholestasis and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis
Mark J Canet,Nathan J Cherrington
Expert Opinion on Drug Metabolism & Toxicology. 2014; 10(9): 1209
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
60 Medicinesæ management: a public health problem on nursingæs agenda
Sue Jordan,Una Kyriacos
Journal of Nursing Management. 2014; 22(3): 271
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
61 Adherence to therapy and adverse drug reactions: is there a link?
Christian Leporini,Giovambattista De Sarro,Emilio Russo
Expert Opinion on Drug Safety. 2014; 13(S1): 41
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
62 The emerging era of pharmacogenomics: current successes, future potential, and challenges
J.W. Lee,F. Aminkeng,A.P. Bhavsar,K. Shaw,B.C. Carleton,M.R. Hayden,C.J.D. Ross
Clinical Genetics. 2014; : n/a
[Pubmed] | [DOI]



 

Top
  
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
    Abstract
   Introduction
    References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed4401    
    Printed81    
    Emailed1    
    PDF Downloaded1128    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 62    

Recommend this journal