Dyspnoea,asthma, and bronchospasm in relation to treatment with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors.

OBJECTIVE--To evaluate the occurrence of asthma and dyspnoea precipitated or worsened by angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors. DESIGN--Summary of reports of adverse respiratory reaction in relation to treatment with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors that were submitted to Swedish Adverse Drug Reactions Advisory Committee and to World Health Organisation''s international drug information system until 1992. Sales of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors in Sweden were also summarised. SUBJECTS--Patients receiving angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors who reported adverse respiratory reactions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Clinical characteristics of adverse reactions of asthma, bronchospasm, and dyspnoea. RESULTS--In Sweden 424 adverse respiratory reactions were reported, of which most (374) were coughing. However, 36 patients had adverse drug reactions diagnosed as asthma, bronchospasm, or dyspnoea. In 33 of these cases the indication for treatment with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors was hypertension, in only three heart failure. The respiratory symptoms occurred in about half of the patients within the first two weeks of treatment, and about one third needed hospitalisation or drug treatment. Dyspnoea symptoms occurred in conjunction with other symptoms from the airways or skin in 23 out of the 36 cases. In the WHO database there were 318 reports of asthma or bronchospasm, 516 reports of dyspnoea, and 7260 reports of cough in relation to 11 different angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors. CONCLUSION--Symptoms of airway obstruction in relation to treatment with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors seem to be a rare but potentially serious reaction generally occurring within the first few weeks of treatment.     

Validity of anecdotal reports of suspected adverse drug reactions: the problem of false alarms

Suspected adverse drug reactions first reported in 1963 in the “British Medical Journal,” the “Lancet,” the “Journal of the American Medical Association,” and the “New England Journal of Medicine” were reviewed 18 years later to assess their initial validity and subsequent verification. Of 52 first reports, five were deliberate investigations into potential or predictable reactions, and in each case causality was reasonably established; the other 47 reports were essentially anecdotal. Of these 47 reports, 14 related to categories of adverse reaction where false-positive reports were unlikely: immediate reactions, local reactions, and known reactions caused by a different mode of administration or a brand previously thought or claimed to be safe. The problem of false alarms rose in the remaining types of reactions: general reactions that did not occur immediately after administration and arose for the first time with a new chemical entity. Of 33 reports of such suspected adverse reactions, validity was satisfactorily established in 14 cases on the basis of rechallenge, predictability from known pharmacology, or the unique nature of the reaction. Of the remaining 19 reports, further verification still has not been satisfactorily established in 12. Seven of these possible false alarms were haematological reactions.Although 35 of the 47 anecdotal reports were clearly correct, of the 19 reports that were not reasonably validated at the time of the report, only seven were subsequently verified. This suggests that agencies monitoring adverse drug reactions should adopt criteria for assessing the validity of first reports of suspected adverse reactions. Such criteria should include: reactions on rechallenge, a pharmacological basis for the adverse reaction, immediate acute reactions, local reactions at the site of administration, reactions with a new route of administration of a drug known to provoke such reactions by another route, and the repeated occurrence of very rare events.     

Patients as a direct source of information on adverse drug reactions.

To determine whether patients should participate directly in detecting adverse reactions to drugs their ability to provide written reports of symptoms experienced during treatment with amoxycillin or trimethoprim-sulphamethoxazole was investigated. When compared with telephone interviews forms on which patients reported events were reliable (the observed agreement with the same statements posed during telephone calls was 85%, kappa = 0.56) and valid (sensitivity = 54%, specificity = 94%). Patients were also supplied with forms that invited them to report adverse reactions, and their perceptions were compared with those of a panel of experts, who were informed of all clinical events that had been reported during the detailed telephone interviews. Patients were more conservative than the experts in attributing clinical events to drug treatment. The extent of agreement varied and was notably poor for skin and bowel complaints (kappa = 0.13 in each case). The performance of event report forms and reaction report forms as instruments of detection was compared in a hypothetical situation in which the experts'' views represented the "truth" about adverse reactions to a new drug. Event reporting had a higher sensitivity than reaction reporting (42% v 24%) but a lower specificity (58% v 98%). National centres monitoring adverse drug reactions should probably resist pressure to accept reports of reactions directly from the public, but a system based on large scale reporting of events might be valuable in aiding the early detection of symptomatic reactions to new drugs.     

Postmarketing surveillance of adverse drug reactions: problems and solutions.

The surveillance of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) is an unqualified must. However, the optimal means of surveillance is still unclear. Although anecdotal reports are the backbone of an ADR surveillance system, they are not enough. The pharmaceutical industry, academics and regulatory agencies need to expand their efforts in monitoring ADRs. The author discusses the various techniques for counting and evaluating adverse reactions and suggests ways in which the system could be improved.     

Evaluation of Spontaneous Reports of Adverse Reactions to Drugs

An adverse drug-reaction monitoring system based on spontaneous reporting to a central register of adverse reactions has been in operation for eight years. As a test of the validity of the reports and of the probability of causal relationship between drug and reaction a random sample of 82 cases were followed up in detail. The sample included 17 deaths, 26 serious reactions, and 39 reactions of moderate or only minor severity. Altogether 78% of the reactions were considered to be “probably” drug related and 13% “possibly” drug related. It is concluded that the reports are of value in the detection and evaluation of drug safety.     

The Role of Systematic Reviews in Pharmacovigilance Planning and Clinical Trials Authorisation Application: Example from the SLEEPS Trial

Background

Adequate sedation is crucial to the management of children requiring assisted ventilation on Paediatric Intensive Care Units (PICU). The evidence-base of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in this area is small and a trial was planned to compare midazolam and clonidine, two sedatives widely used within PICUs neither of which being licensed for that use. The application to obtain a Clinical Trials Authorisation from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) required a dossier summarising the safety profiles of each drug and the pharmacovigilance plan for the trial needed to be determined by this information. A systematic review was undertaken to identify reports relating to the safety of each drug.

Methodology/Principal Findings

The Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) were obtained for each sedative. The MHRA were requested to provide reports relating to the use of each drug as a sedative in children under the age of 16. Medline was searched to identify RCTs, controlled clinical trials, observational studies, case reports and series. 288 abstracts were identified for midazolam and 16 for clonidine with full texts obtained for 80 and 6 articles respectively. Thirty-three studies provided data for midazolam and two for clonidine. The majority of data has come from observational studies and case reports. The MHRA provided details of 10 and 3 reports of suspected adverse drug reactions.

Conclusions/Significance

No adverse reactions were identified in addition to those specified within the SmPC for the licensed use of the drugs. Based on this information and the wide spread use of both sedatives in routine practice the pharmacovigilance plan was restricted to adverse reactions. The Clinical Trials Authorisation was granted based on the data presented in the SmPC and the pharmacovigilance plan within the clinical trial protocol restricting collection and reporting to adverse reactions.     

Adverse Reactions to Daily and Intermittent Rifampicin Regimens for Pulmonary Tuberculosis in Hong Kong

This paper reports the nature, incidence, and severity of adverse reactions to regimens of rifampicin and ethambutol given once weekly, twice weekly, or daily and to a standard reserve regimen in a total of 330 Chinese failure patients who completed at least six months'' chemotherapy in a therapeutic comparison in Hong Kong.The adverse reactions which occurred on the regimens of intermittent rifampicin were termed cutaneous, abdominal, “flu”, and respiratory; in addition, purpura and abnormal liver function tests were encountered. There was an association of adverse reactions with the interval between doses and with the dose size of rifampicin, the highest incidence occurring with once-weekly rifampicin in high dosage. A procedure was developed for managing adverse reactions to intermittent rifampicin. Of 202 patients treated with intermittent rifampicin 60 developed adverse reactions, but in only 7 (3%) was it necessary to terminate the drug, though a further 10 (5%) were changed to daily rifampicin. On daily rifampicin, generalized hypersensitivity, cutaneous reactions, (one with purpura), and impaired liver function were encountered. Adverse reactions on the standard ethionamide, pyrazinamide, and cycloserine regimen were frequent and some were serious.     

Differences between Drug-Induced and Contrast Media-Induced Adverse Reactions Based on Spontaneously Reported Adverse Drug Reactions

Objective

We analyzed differences between spontaneously reported drug-induced (not including contrast media) and contrast media-induced adverse reactions.

Methods

Adverse drug reactions reported by an in-hospital pharmacovigilance center (St. Mary’s teaching hospital, Daejeon, Korea) from 2010–2012 were classified as drug-induced or contrast media-induced. Clinical patterns, frequency, causality, severity, Schumock and Thornton’s preventability, and type A/B reactions were recorded. The trends among causality tools measuring drug and contrast-induced adverse reactions were analyzed.

Results

Of 1,335 reports, 636 drug-induced and contrast media-induced adverse reactions were identified. The prevalence of spontaneously reported adverse drug reaction-related admissions revealed a suspected adverse drug reaction-reporting rate of 20.9/100,000 (inpatient, 0.021%) and 3.9/100,000 (outpatients, 0.004%). The most common adverse drug reaction-associated drug classes included nervous system agents and anti-infectives. Dermatological and gastrointestinal adverse drug reactions were most frequently and similarly reported between drug and contrast media-induced adverse reactions. Compared to contrast media-induced adverse reactions, drug-induced adverse reactions were milder, more likely to be preventable (9.8% vs. 1.1%, p < 0.001), and more likely to be type A reactions (73.5% vs. 18.8%, p < 0.001). Females were over-represented among drug-induced adverse reactions (68.1%, p < 0.001) but not among contrast media-induced adverse reactions (56.6%, p = 0.066). Causality patterns differed between the two adverse reaction classes. The World Health Organization–Uppsala Monitoring Centre causality evaluation and Naranjo algorithm results significantly differed from those of the Korean algorithm version II (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

We found differences in sex, preventability, severity, and type A/B reactions between spontaneously reported drug and contrast media-induced adverse reactions. The World Health Organization–Uppsala Monitoring Centre and Naranjo algorithm causality evaluation afforded similar results.     

PAD方案治疗75例初诊多发性骨髓瘤疗效观察

目的:PAD方案已成为目前多发性骨髓瘤(MM)治疗的一线方案,国内外就其疗效和不良反应发生均有报道,本实验旨在观察并探讨PAD方案治疗我中心初诊多发性骨髓瘤患者的疗效和不良反应,为临床工作提供参考。方法:我科75例初诊多发性骨髓瘤患者给予PAD方案4-6疗程,评估疗效及不良反应。结果:75例患者接受PAD方案化疗,四疗程后总有效率(CR+VGPR+PR)为73.3%,其中CR 5例,占6.7%,VGPR 12例,占16%,PR 38例,占50.7%;无效例数为20例,占26.7%,其中SD 17例,占22.7%,PD 3例,占4%;1年总生存率为75%,2年总生存率为62.7%。血液学不良反应有白细胞降低34例(45.3%),血小板降低10例(13.3%);非血液学不良反应有周围神经系统症状25例(33.3%),疱疹病毒感染7例(9.3%),消化系统症状15例(20%),乏力14例(18.7%),呼吸系统症状29例(38.7%),激素相关症状3例(4%)。绝大部分患者可以耐受且完成相应化疗疗程。结论:我中心PAD方案疗效令人满意,不良反应可耐受,同国内外报道的疗效反应率相近,不良反应发生率更低,是治疗多发性骨髓瘤的首选方案。     

Drug surveillance data in a Canadian hospital.

Comparison of results of a Canadian hospital-based drug surveillance program with data from centres in the United States and Israel showed no important difference in the rate of drug exposures or adverse reactions. Drugs for symptomatic relief were frequently used in the Canadian centre. Women received more drugs and had more adverse reactions than men. Life-threatening and potentially fatal reactions were caused by commonly used drugs; autopsy findings may detect previously unsuspected relations between drug events and mechanisms of death. Voluntary reporting and intensive monitoring are both important in the field of adverse drug reactions.     

Adverse reactions to D-penicillamine after gold toxicity.

The incidence of adverse reactions to D-penicillamine in 155 patients with rheumatoid arthritis was analysed and compared with their history of adverse reactions to gold. Out of 125 patients who took only D-penicillamine, 45 developed side effects from the drug, whereas of 27 patients with a history of gold toxicity, 18 also reacted adversely to D-penicillamine. All patients who took D-penicillamine within six months after an adverse reaction to gold developed side effects from D-penicillamine. Fourteen patients developed similar adverse reactions to D-penicillamine and gold, and the interval between treatments in this group was significantly shorter (p less than 0.01) than in those who developed either differing adverse reactions to both drugs or no reaction to D-penicillamine after treatment with gold. An interval exceeding six months between treatment with gold and treatment with D-penicillamine in patients who have developed adverse reactions to gold apparently reduces the risk of adverse reactions to D-penicillamine.     

Adverse reactions to drugs in general practice.

Of 817 patients in a general-practice survey of adverse reactions to drugs, 41% were thought to have "certainly" or "probably" had a reaction to the drug prescribed. Adverse effects on the gastrointestinal and central nervous systems were the most frequently reported, and 90% of reactions had occurred by the fourth day of treatment. More patients given drugs acting on the central nervous system and antihistamines reported reactions than those in other categories. A higher incidence of adverse drug effects is shown in this general-practice survey than in other, mainly hospital-based, surveys. Further intensive surveillance for adverse effects of drugs is recommended to provide additional information on the burden of drug-induced disease in the community.     

Identification of adverse reactions to new drugs. I: What have been the important adverse reactions since thalidomide?

A consensus process was used to establish an agreed list of important adverse reactions to drugs identified since thalidomide. Ten physicians working in medicine in Britain and 10 physicians responsible for drug regulatory agencies in different countries were asked to list 10 important adverse reactions to drugs since thalidomide. From these 20 lists a measure of agreement was apparent. Eighteen important adverse reactions were identified for further study of the discovery processes now operating and of the delays occurring from marketing to alerting, from alerting to verification, and from verification to regulatory action. The results suggest that an empirical review of this type is necessary as a starting point for discussion of better systems to reduce delays in the discovery of adverse reactions to new drugs.     

Recognizing and reporting adverse drug reactions.

Although physicians in practice are most likely to see patients with adverse drug reactions, they may fail to recognize an adverse effect or to attribute it to a drug effect and, when recognized, they may fail to report serious reactions to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). To recognize and attribute an adverse event to a drug effect, physicians should review the patient''s clinical course, looking at patient risk factors, the known adverse reactions to the suspected drug, and the likelihood of a causal relationship between the drug and the adverse event-based on the temporal relationship, response to stopping or restarting the drug, and whether other factors could explain the reaction. Once an adverse drug reaction has been identified, the patient should be informed and appropriate documentation made in the patient''s medical record. Serious known reactions and all reactions to newly released drugs or those not previously known to occur (even if the certainty is low) should be reported to the FDA.     

Reporting of adverse drug reactions in randomised controlled trials – a systematic survey

Background  

Decisions on treatment are guided, not only by the potential for benefit, but also by the nature and severity of adverse drug reactions. However, some researchers have found numerous deficiencies in trial reports of adverse effects. We sought to confirm these findings by evaluating trials of drug therapy published in seven eminent medical journals in 1997.     

东莞市预防接种不良反应监测和处理控制系统的建立及评价

为了解东莞市各种疫苗预防接种不良反应的发生情况,建立预防接种不良反应(AEFI)监测和处理控制系统,评价其运行状况,提高预防接种工作质量。根据WHO对AEFI的定义和分类方法,确定了东莞市AEFI报告范围,报告人、报告程序、报告制度以及调查内容和方法,并对该系统2005年收集的AEFI病例进行描述性分析。全市共登记预防接种不良反应560例,其中疫苗反应占了95.36%。男性多于女性。在所使用的26种疫苗中有18种出现不良反应,以Hib和百白破(DPT)的发生率最高,且百白破的报告数最多,占57.5%。在报告的预防接种不良反应中,发热、局部红肿疼痛以及皮疹等过敏性反应占了94.1%。结果认为该系统在评价疫苗的安全性,发现不良反应发生的危险因素,改善预防接种服务质量起着重要作用。