Detection of adverse drug reactions by medication antidote signals and comparison of their sensitivity with common methods of ADR detection

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Lateef M. Khan^a ; ^{lmkhan00@hotmail.com" class="auth_mail" title="E-mail the corresponding author} ; Sameer E. Al-Harthi^a ; Huda M. Alkreathy^a ; Abdel-Moneim M. Osman^a ; ^b ; Ahmed S. Ali^a
• 关键词：Adverse drug reactions ; Medication antidote signals ; Positive predictive value ; Electronic medical record
• 刊名：Journal of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society
• 出版年：2015
• 出版时间：October 2015
• 年：2015
• 卷：23
• 期：5
• 页码：515-522
• 全文大小：756 K

文摘

To determine the PPVs of selected ten medication antidote signals in recognizing potential ADRs and comparison of their sensitivity with manual chart analysis, and voluntary reporting recognizing the same ADRs.

Method

The inpatient EMR database of internal medicine department was utilized for a period of one year, adult patients prescribed at least one of the ten signals, were included in the study, recipient patients of antidote signals were assessed for the occurrence of an ADR by Naranjo’s tool of ADR evaluation. PPVs of each antidote signal were verified.

Result

PPV of Methylprednisolone and Phytonadione was 0.28, Metoclopramide and Potassium Chloride – 0.29, Dextrose 50%, Promethazine, Sodium Polystyrene and Loperamide – 0.30, Protamine and Acetylcysteine – 0.33. In comparison of confirmed ADRs of antidote signals with other methods, Dextrose 50%, Metoclopramide, Sodium Polystyrene, Potassium Chloride, Methylprednisolone and Promethazine seem to be extremely significant (P value > 0.0001), while ADRs of Phytonadione, Protamine, Acetylcysteine and Loperamide were insignificant.

Conclusion

Antidote medication signals have definitive discerning evaluation value of ADRs over routine methods of ADR detection with a high detection rate with a minimum cost; Their integration with hospital EMR database and routine patient safety surveillance enhances transparency, time-saving and facilitates ADR detection.