Cargando…

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

OBJECTIVE: 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 utilize...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Khan, Lateef M., Al-Harthi, Sameer E., Alkreathy, Huda M., Osman, Abdel-Moneim M., Ali, Ahmed S.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4605900/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26594117
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsps.2014.10.003
_version_ 1782395270293618688
author Khan, Lateef M.
Al-Harthi, Sameer E.
Alkreathy, Huda M.
Osman, Abdel-Moneim M.
Ali, Ahmed S.
author_facet Khan, Lateef M.
Al-Harthi, Sameer E.
Alkreathy, Huda M.
Osman, Abdel-Moneim M.
Ali, Ahmed S.
author_sort Khan, Lateef M.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4605900
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-46059002015-11-20 Detection of adverse drug reactions by medication antidote signals and comparison of their sensitivity with common methods of ADR detection Khan, Lateef M. Al-Harthi, Sameer E. Alkreathy, Huda M. Osman, Abdel-Moneim M. Ali, Ahmed S. Saudi Pharm J Original Article OBJECTIVE: 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. Elsevier 2015-10 2014-10-31 /pmc/articles/PMC4605900/ /pubmed/26594117 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsps.2014.10.003 Text en © 2014 The Authors http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).
spellingShingle Original Article
Khan, Lateef M.
Al-Harthi, Sameer E.
Alkreathy, Huda M.
Osman, Abdel-Moneim M.
Ali, Ahmed S.
Detection of adverse drug reactions by medication antidote signals and comparison of their sensitivity with common methods of ADR detection
title Detection of adverse drug reactions by medication antidote signals and comparison of their sensitivity with common methods of ADR detection
title_full Detection of adverse drug reactions by medication antidote signals and comparison of their sensitivity with common methods of ADR detection
title_fullStr Detection of adverse drug reactions by medication antidote signals and comparison of their sensitivity with common methods of ADR detection
title_full_unstemmed Detection of adverse drug reactions by medication antidote signals and comparison of their sensitivity with common methods of ADR detection
title_short Detection of adverse drug reactions by medication antidote signals and comparison of their sensitivity with common methods of ADR detection
title_sort detection of adverse drug reactions by medication antidote signals and comparison of their sensitivity with common methods of adr detection
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4605900/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26594117
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsps.2014.10.003
work_keys_str_mv AT khanlateefm detectionofadversedrugreactionsbymedicationantidotesignalsandcomparisonoftheirsensitivitywithcommonmethodsofadrdetection
AT alharthisameere detectionofadversedrugreactionsbymedicationantidotesignalsandcomparisonoftheirsensitivitywithcommonmethodsofadrdetection
AT alkreathyhudam detectionofadversedrugreactionsbymedicationantidotesignalsandcomparisonoftheirsensitivitywithcommonmethodsofadrdetection
AT osmanabdelmoneimm detectionofadversedrugreactionsbymedicationantidotesignalsandcomparisonoftheirsensitivitywithcommonmethodsofadrdetection
AT aliahmeds detectionofadversedrugreactionsbymedicationantidotesignalsandcomparisonoftheirsensitivitywithcommonmethodsofadrdetection