4.3 Article

Personalising drug safety-results from the multi-centre prospective observational study on Adverse Drug Reactions in Emergency Departments (ADRED)

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY
卷 76, 期 3, 页码 439-448

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00228-019-02797-9

关键词

Adverse drug reaction; Drug safety; Emergency department; Drug class; Medication; Older adults

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose Adverse drug reactions (ADR) account for 5 to 7% of emergency department (ED) consultations. We aimed to assess medication risk profiles for ADRs leading to ED visits. Methods We analysed medication intake and patient demographics in a prospective multi-centre observational study collecting ADR cases in four large EDs in Germany. Odds ratios (OR) were calculated to relate drug classes taken to those suspicious for an ADR after a causality assessment. Results A total of 2215 cases of ED visits due to ADRs were collected. The median age of the cohort was 73 years; in median, six co-morbidities and an intake of seven drugs were documented. Antineoplastic/immunomodulating agents had the highest OR for being suspected for an ADR (OR 20.45, 95% CI 14.54-28.77), followed by antithrombotics (OR 2.94, 95% CI 2.49-3.47), antibiotics (OR 2.65, 95% CI 1.78-3.95), systemic glucocorticoids (OR 2.43, 95% CI 1.54-3.82) and drugs affecting the central nervous system (CNS), such as antipsychotics (OR 2.36, 95% CI 1.46-3.81), antidepressants (OR 2.10, 95% CI 1.57-2.83), antiparkinsonian medication (OR 2.11, 95% CI 1.15-3.84), opioids (OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.26-2.54) and non-opioid analgesics (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.01-1.72). Conclusions Patients experiencing ADRs leading to ED visits are commonly old, multi-morbid and multi-medicated. CNS drugs may be more relevant than prior expected. With calculating ORs, we could replicate involvement of antineoplastic agents, antithrombotics, antibiotics, systemic glucocorticoids and non-opioid analgesics as frequently suspected for ADRs in EDs.

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

4.3
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