Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The ten most common adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in oncology patients: do they matter to you?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Supportive Care in Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Aims

To assess incidence, predictability, preventability and severity of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in hospitalised oncology patients.

Patients and methods

Patients hospitalised at Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre from 28 February to 2 June 2000 were selected for interviews about symptoms related to their drug therapy. Medical records were also reviewed. Causality, predictability, preventability and severity were assessed for each ADR.

Results

One hundred and sixty-seven patients associated with 171 admissions were interviewed. Four hundred and fifty-four ADRs were identified in 127 (74.3%) separate admissions (mean ADRs per admission 2.7; range 0–18). Eighty-eight percent of ADRs were predictable. Of these, 1.6% was classified as definitely preventable and 46.1% probably preventable. The ten most common ADRs were constipation, nausea ± vomiting, fatigue, alopecia, drowsiness, myelosuppression, skin reactions, anorexia, mucositis and diarrhoea. These ADRs have high-documented incidence rates and were also the ten most predictable ADRs in this study. Common reasons for ADRs to be assessed as definitely or probably preventable were omission or inadequate/inappropriate use of preventative measures. The results also showed a discrepancy between clinical severity and patients’ perception of the impact of ADRs on well being.

Conclusions

ADRs are common in hospitalised oncology patients and are predictable and at least probably preventable in many instances. Improved use of preventative measures has the potential to contribute to reducing the incidence and severity of ADRs. Recognition and understanding of the discrepancy that exists between clinical severity and patient-perceived severity of ADRs will enable specific areas to be identified and targeted for vigourous intervention.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. American Hospital Formulary Service drug information (1984) Board of Directors of the American Society of Hospital Pharmacists, Bethesda

  2. Audit Commission (2001) A spoonful of sugar—medicines management in NHS hospitals. Audit Commission, London

  3. Australian adverse drug reactions bulletin (1998) Australian Adverse Drug Reaction Advisory Committee (ADRAC)

  4. Australian prescription products guide (2000) 29th edn. Australian Pharmaceutical Publishing

  5. Bates D, Leape L, Petrycki S (1993) Incidence and preventability of adverse drug events in hospitalized adults. J Gen Intern Med 8:289–294

    Google Scholar 

  6. Council for International Organisation for Medical Science (CIOMS) (1994) WGI, Guidelines for preparing core clinical-safety information on drugs. Council for International Organisation for Medical Sciences, Geneva

  7. Clinical Oncological Society of Australia (2002) Optimising cancer care in Australia. The Cancer Council Australia and the National Cancer Council Initiative, Melbourne, pp 1–122

  8. Coates AS, Abraham SB, Kaye T et al (1983) On the receiving end—patient perception of the side-effects of cancer chemotherapy. Eur J Cancer Clin Oncol 19:203–208

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Dewland P, Dewland J (1999) At the coalface, but on the receiving end. J Med Ethics 25:541–546

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Dormann H, Muth-Selbach U, Krebs S et al (2000) Incidence and costs of adverse drug reactions during hospitalisation: computerised monitoring versus stimulated spontaneous reporting. Drug safety 22:161–168

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Dukes J, Chalker M, Leuwer PKM et al (2000) Meyler’s side effects of drugs, 14th edn. Elsevier, New York

  12. Fisher S, Kent TA, Bryant SG (1995) Postmarketing surveillance by patient self-monitoring: preliminary data for sertraline versus fluoxetine. J Clini Psych 56:288–296

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Foddy W (1994) Constructing questions for interviews and questionnaires. Theory and practice in social research. Cambridge University Press

  14. Green CF, Mottram DR, Rowe PH, Pirmohamed M (2000) Adverse drug reactions as a cause of admission to an acute medical assessment unit: a pilot study. J Clin Pharm Ther 25:355–361

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Griffin AM, Butow PN Coates AS et al (1996) On the receiving end. V: Patient perceptions of the side effects of cancer chemotherapy in 1993. An Oncol 7:189–195

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Jarernsiripornkul N, Krska J, Capps PA et al (2002) Patient reporting of potential adverse drug reactions: a methodological study. Br J Clin Pharmacol 53:318–325

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Mjorndal T, Boman MD, Hagg S et al (2002) Adverse drug reactions as a cause for admissions to a department of internal medicine. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 11:65–72

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Naranjo C, Busto U, Sellars E et al(1981) A method for estimating the probability of adverse drug reactions. Clin Pharmacol Ther 30:239–245

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. National hospital morbidity data collection—Australia (excluding NT) (1992–1993)

  20. Pon D (1996) Service plans and clinical interventions targeted by the oncology pharmacist. Pharm Pract Manag 16:18–30

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. PREMEDLINE and MEDLINE version: rel 6.1.0, source ID 1.7672.1.63

  22. Roughead EE, Gilbert AL, Primrose JG, Sansom LN (1998) Drug-related hospital admissions: a review of Australian studies published 1988–1996. Medi J Aust 168:405–408

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Schumock G, Thornton J (1992) Focusing on the preventability of adverse drug reactions. Hosp Pharm 27:538

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Tegeder I, Levy M, Muth-Selbach U et al (1999) Retrospective analysis of the frequency and recognition of adverse drug reactions by means of automatically recorded laboratory signals. Br J Clin Pharmacol 47:557–564

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Thomson MICROMEDEX. MICROMEDEX(R) Health-care Series Vol. 117. http://micromedex.hcn.net.au/mdx-full/. Cited 19 Oct 2003

  26. White TJ, Arakelian A, Rho JP (1999) Counting the costs of drug-related adverse events. Pharmacoeconomics 15:445–458

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Wilson R, Runciman W, Gibberd R et al (1995) Quality in Australian health care study. Med J Aust 163:458–471

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. World Health Organization (1999) Common toxicity criteria (CTC). 1 August 1999

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pharmacy Practice, Monash Univeristy, 381 Royal Parade, Parkville, VIC, 3052, Australia

    Phyllis M. Lau, Kay Stewart & Michael Dooley

  2. Pharmacy Department, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, St. Andrews Place, East Melbourne, VIC, 3002, Australia

    Michael Dooley

Authors
  1. Phyllis M. Lau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kay Stewart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael Dooley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Phyllis M. Lau.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lau, P.M., Stewart, K. & Dooley, M. The ten most common adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in oncology patients: do they matter to you?. Support Care Cancer 12, 626–633 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-004-0622-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-004-0622-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation