Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Methods and Systems to Detect Adverse Drug Reactions in Hospitals

  • Leading Article
  • Published:
Drug Safety Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Detection of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in hospitals offers the chance to detect serious ADRs resulting in hospitalisation and ADRs occurring in hospitalised patients, i.e. patients with high comorbidity and receiving drugs that are administered only in hospitals. The most commonly applied methods involve stimulated spontaneous reporting of doctors and nurses, comprehensive collection by trained specialists and, more recently, computer-assisted approaches using routine data from hospital information systems. The different methods of ADR detection used result in different rates and types of ADRs and, consequently, in different drug classes being responsible for these ADRs. Another factor influencing the results of surveys is the interpretation of the term ADR, where some authors adhere to the strict definition of the World Health Organization and many others include intended and unintended poisoning as well as errors in prescribing and dispensing, thus referring to adverse drug events. Depending on the method used for screening of patients, a high number of possible ADRs and only few definite ADRs are found, or vice versa. These variations have to be taken into account when comparing the results of further analyses performed with these data. ADR rates and incidences in relation to the number of drugs prescribed or patients exposed have been calculated in only a few surveys and projects, and this interesting pharmacoepidemiological approach deserves further study. In addition, the pharmacoeconomic impact ofADRs, either resulting in hospitalisation or prolonging hospital stay, has been estimated using different approaches. However, a common standardised procedure for such calculations has not yet been defined. Although detection of ADRs in hospitals offers the opportunity to detect severe ADRs of newly approved drugs, these ADRs are still discovered by spontaneous reporting systems. The prospects offered by electronic hospital information systems as well as implementation of pharmacoepidemiological approaches increases the possibilities and the value of ADR detection in hospitals.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hurwitz N. Admissions to hospital due to drugs. BMJ 1969; 1: 539–40

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Hurwitz N, Wade OL. Intensive hospital monitoring of adverse reactions to drugs. BMJ 1969; 1: 536–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Lazarou J, Pomeranz BH, Corey PN. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients. JAMA 1998; 279: 1200–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Kvasz M, Allen E, Gordon MJ, et al. Adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a critique of a meta-analysis [online]. Available from: URL: http://www.medscape.com/Medscape/GeneralMedicine/journal/2000/v02.n02/mgm0427.Kvasz [Accessed 2001 Oct 5]

  5. Classen DC, Burke JP, Pestotnik SL, et al. Surveillance for quality assessment: IV. surveillance using a hospital information system. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1991; 12: 239–44

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Muehlberger N, Schneeweiss S, Hasford J. Adverse drug reaction monitoring — cost and benefit considerations part I: frequency of adverse drug reactions causing hospital admission. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 1997; 6(3 Suppl.): S71–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Goettler M, Schneeweiss S, Hasford J. Adverse drug reaction monitoring — cost and benefit considerations part II: cost and preventability of adverse drug reactions leading to hospital admission. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 1997; 6(3 Suppl.): S79–90

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hallas J, Gram LF, Grodum E, et al. Drug related admissions to medical wards: a population based survey. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1992; 33: 61–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Schneeweiss S, Göttler M, Hasford J, et al. First results from an intensified monitoring system to estimate drug-related hospital admissions. Br J Clin Pharmacol. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2001; 52: 196–200

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Evans JMM, MacDonald TM. Record-linkage for pharmacovigilance in Scotland. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1999; 47: 105–10

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Currie CJ, MacDonald TM. Use of routine healthcare data in safe and cost-effective drug use. Drug Saf 2000; 22: 97–102

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Teweleit S, Kuschel U, Hippius M, et al. Manifestation und Präventionsmöglichkeiten unerwünschter Arzneimittelwirkungen (UAW) in der Pharmakotherapie von Herz-Kreislauferkrankungen. Med Klin 2001; 96: 442–50

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Hayes JL, Evans JMM, Lipworth BP, et al. Potentially hazardous co-prescribing of β-adrenoceptor antagonists and agonists in the community. Br J Gen Pract 1996; 46: 423–5

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bates DW, Spell N, Cullen DC, et al. The costs of adverse drug events in hospitalized patients. JAMA 1997; 277: 307–11

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Classen DC, Pestotnik SL, Evans RS, et al. Adverse drug events in hospitalized patients. JAMA 1997; 277: 301–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. van den Bemt PMLA, Egberts ACG, Lenderink AW, et al. Adverse drug events in hospitalised patients: a comparison of doctors, nurses and patients as sources of reports. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1999; 55: 155–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Mannesse CK, Derkx FHM, de Ridder MAJ, et al. Adverse drug reactions in elderly patients as contributing factor for hospital admission: cross sectional study. BMJ 1997; 315: 1057–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Moore N, Lecointre D, Noblet C, et al. Frequency and cost of serious adverse drug reactions in a department of general medicine.Br J Clin Pharmacol 1998; 45: 301–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Martinez-Mir I, Garcia-Lopez M, Palop V, et al. A prospective study of adverse drug reactions as a cause of admission to a pediatric hospital. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1996; 42: 319–24

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Francis GS. Cardiac complications in the intensive care unit. Clin Chest Med 1999; 20: 269–85

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Classen DC, Pestotnik SL, Evans RS, et al. Computerized surveillance of adverse drug events in hospital patients. JAMA 1991; 266: 2847–51

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Leape LL, Bates DW, Cullen DC, et al. System analysis of adverse drug events. JAMA 1995; 274: 35–43

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Dormann H, Muth-Selbach U, Krebs S, et al. Incidence and costs of adverse drug reactions during hospitalisation. Drug Saf 2000; 2: 161–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Azaz-Livshits T, Levy M, Sadan B, et al. Computerized surveillance of adverse drug reactions in hospital: pilot study. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1998; 45: 309–14

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Leape L, Brennan T, Laird N, et al. The nature of adverse events in hospitalized patients. Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study II. N Engl J Med 1991; 324: 377–84

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Tegeder I, Levy M, Muth-Selbach U, et al. Retrospective analysis of the frequency and recognition of adverse drug reactions by means of automatically recorded laboratory signals. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1999; 47: 557–64

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Lau HS, Florax C, Porsius AJ, et al. The completeness of medication histories in hospital medical records of patients admitted to general internal medicine wards. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2000; 49: 597–603

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Bowman L, Carlstedt BC, Black CD. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in adult medical inpatients. Can J Hosp Pharm 1994; 47: 209–16

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Leape LL, Cullen DJ, Clapp MD, et al. Pharmacist participation on physician rounds and adverse drug events in the intensive care unit. JAMA 1999; 282: 267–70

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Roughead EE, Gilbert AL, Primrose JG, et al. Drug-related hospital admissions: a review of Australian studies published 1988 — 1996. Med J Aust 1998; 168: 405–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Beard K. Adverse drug reactions as a cause of hospital admission in the aged. Drugs Aging 1992; 2: 356–67

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Fattinger K, Roos M, Vergères P, et al. Epidemiology of drug exposure and adverse drug reactions in two Swiss departments of internal medicine. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2000; 49: 158–67

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Thürmann PA, Hompesch BC. Influence of gender on pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of drugs. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 1998; 36: 586–90

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Imbs JL, Pouyanne P, Haramburu F, et al. Iatrogénie médicamenteuse: estimation de sa prévalence dans les hôpitaux publics français. Thérapie 1999; 54: 21–7

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Pouyanne P, Haramburu F, Imbs JL, et al., for the French Pharmacovigilance Centres. Admissions to hospital caused by adverse drug reactions: cross sectional incidence study. BMJ 2000; 320: 1036

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Pryor TA, Gardner RM, Clayton PD, et al. The HELP system. J Med Syst 1983; 7: 87–102

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Schmitt K, Windecker R, Steffen J, et al. Detection of adverse drug reactions by a computer-based generation of laboratory signals [abstract]. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2000 [Abstracts of CPT 2000]; 87: A331

    Google Scholar 

  38. World Health Organization. International drug monitoring: the role of the hospital. WHO Tech Rep Ser 1969; No. 425

  39. Edwards IR, Aronson JK. Adverse drug reactions: definitions, diagnosis, and management. Lancet 2000; 356: 1255–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Bates DW, Cullen DJ, Laird N, et al. Incidence of adverse drug events and potential adverse drug events. JAMA 1995; 274: 29–34

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Bergman U, Wiholm BE. Drug-related problems causing admission to a medical clinic. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1981; 20: 193–200

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Rawlins MR. Clinical pharmacology: adverse reactions to drugs. BMJ 1981; 282: 974–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Pirmohamed M, Breckenridge AM, Kitteringham NR, et al. Adverse drug reactions. BMJ 1998; 316: 1295-8

    Google Scholar 

  44. Naranjo S, Busto U, Sellers EM, et al. A method for estimating the probability of adverse drug reactions. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1981; 30: 239–45

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Netting an important database [editorial]. Lancet 2001; 357: 649

  46. Hallas J, Harvald B, Worm J, et al. Drug related hospital admissions. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1993; 45: 199–203

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Evans RS, Pestotnik SL, Classen DC, et al. Preventing adverse drug events in hospitalized patients. Ann Pharmacother 1994; 28: 523–7

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Landis NT. ADE rate uncertain, reporting systems inadequate, GAO tells legislators. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2000; 57:515–23

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Wood AJ. Thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura and clopidogrel — a need for new approaches to drug safety. N Engl J Med 2000; 342: 1824–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Bennett CL, Connors JM, Carwile JM, et al. Thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura associated with clopidogrel. N Engl J Med 2000; 342: 1773–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Moore N. The role of the clinical pharmacologist in the management of adverse drug reactions. Drug Saf 2001; 24: 1–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Philipp Klee-Institute of Clinical Pharmacology, Hospital, Wuppertal GmbH Heusnerstr. 40, 42283, Wuppertal, Germany

    Petra A. Thürmann

Authors
  1. Petra A. Thürmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Petra A. Thürmann.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Thürmann, P.A. Methods and Systems to Detect Adverse Drug Reactions in Hospitals. Drug-Safety 24, 961–968 (2001). https://doi.org/10.2165/00002018-200124130-00003

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00002018-200124130-00003

Keywords

Search

Navigation