4.2 Article

Adverse drug reactions in patients in an Iranian department of internal medicine

期刊

PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY AND DRUG SAFETY
卷 18, 期 2, 页码 104-110

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pds.1663

关键词

adverse drug reaction; internal medicine; adult

资金

  1. Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are a major cause of hospital admission and inpatient morbidity. The department of internal medicine is not an exception to this issue. This study was performed to determine the nature and frequency of ADRs in an internal medicine ward in Iran. Methods This survey was a prospective observational study based on admissions of 400 patients to the internal medicine ward over a 15-week period. Patients were intensively followed in order to assess any ADR as a cause of admission or occurring during hospitalization. Any suspicious ADR was confirmed by a pharmacist/pharmacologist. Results There were 47 patients of 400 patients (11.75%) that experienced at least one ADR. ADR leading to the admission was seen in seven cases (1.75%) and in 40 (10%) it occurred during hospitalization. ADRs were identified as preventable reactions in 50% of cases and as predictable in 94.3%. The severity of 18.6% of the ADRs was identified as mild, 62.9% as moderate, 14.3% as severe and 4.3% as lethal. Gastrointestinal system disorders (44.3%) represented the most frequent ADRs. The therapeutic groups that most commonly associated with suspected ADRs were antineoplastic, immunosuppressive and medicines used in palliative care (54.8%). Conclusions ADRs are common among hospitalized patients in department of internal medicine and can be severe and even lethal. Since most ADRs occurred during hospitalization in studied patients and half of them were preventable, prevention strategies should be considered in hospitals. Also, our findings confirmed the role of hospital pharmacists in the reducing ADRs. Copyright (C) 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据