Drug-Event Pairs as Indicators for the Detection of Adverse Drug Reactions during Hospitalization in Routinely Collected Electronic Data Sources.

IF 6.3 2区 医学 Q1 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics Pub Date : 2025-03-18 DOI:10.1002/cpt.3635
Anna Maria Wermund, Annette Haerdtlein, Wolfgang Fehrmann, Clara Weglage, Tobias Dreischulte, Ulrich Jaehde
{"title":"Drug-Event Pairs as Indicators for the Detection of Adverse Drug Reactions during Hospitalization in Routinely Collected Electronic Data Sources.","authors":"Anna Maria Wermund, Annette Haerdtlein, Wolfgang Fehrmann, Clara Weglage, Tobias Dreischulte, Ulrich Jaehde","doi":"10.1002/cpt.3635","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are a common cause of morbidity and mortality in hospitalized patients. Identification of ADRs in clinical practice, surveillance and research is essential to prevent further harm. The aim of this study was to assess the likelihood of drugs contributing to clinically important inpatient adverse events, in order to provide a list of drug-event pairs indicating ADRs in electronic health record (EHR) data, referred to as \"indicators of ADRs\". We conducted a consensus process based on the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method for 14 ADRs. Experts were asked to rate the strength of the causal link between adverse events and potentially causative drugs on a 4-point Likert scale. Based on the median rating, drug-event pairs were categorized according to the likelihood of an ADR being present. Drug-event pairs with a median rating of ≥ 3 without disagreement were defined as indicators of certain and probable ADRs. Of the 255 drug-event pairs evaluated, 2 (1%) and 42 (16%) achieved consensus validation that they certainly and probably indicate an ADR. In addition, 137 drug-event pairs were considered as indicators of possible (54%) and 74 drug-event pairs were considered as indicators of unlikely (29%) ADRs. The provided set of content-validated indicators of clinically important inpatient ADRs can be used in clinical practice (e.g., decision support), surveillance (e.g., quality indicators) and research (e.g., outcome measures). They will be implemented in EHR data from German university hospitals to determine the prevalence of ADRs, support efficient use of pharmacist resources, and develop models predicting ADRs.</p>","PeriodicalId":153,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cpt.3635","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are a common cause of morbidity and mortality in hospitalized patients. Identification of ADRs in clinical practice, surveillance and research is essential to prevent further harm. The aim of this study was to assess the likelihood of drugs contributing to clinically important inpatient adverse events, in order to provide a list of drug-event pairs indicating ADRs in electronic health record (EHR) data, referred to as "indicators of ADRs". We conducted a consensus process based on the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method for 14 ADRs. Experts were asked to rate the strength of the causal link between adverse events and potentially causative drugs on a 4-point Likert scale. Based on the median rating, drug-event pairs were categorized according to the likelihood of an ADR being present. Drug-event pairs with a median rating of ≥ 3 without disagreement were defined as indicators of certain and probable ADRs. Of the 255 drug-event pairs evaluated, 2 (1%) and 42 (16%) achieved consensus validation that they certainly and probably indicate an ADR. In addition, 137 drug-event pairs were considered as indicators of possible (54%) and 74 drug-event pairs were considered as indicators of unlikely (29%) ADRs. The provided set of content-validated indicators of clinically important inpatient ADRs can be used in clinical practice (e.g., decision support), surveillance (e.g., quality indicators) and research (e.g., outcome measures). They will be implemented in EHR data from German university hospitals to determine the prevalence of ADRs, support efficient use of pharmacist resources, and develop models predicting ADRs.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
12.70
自引率
7.50%
发文量
290
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics (CPT) is the authoritative cross-disciplinary journal in experimental and clinical medicine devoted to publishing advances in the nature, action, efficacy, and evaluation of therapeutics. CPT welcomes original Articles in the emerging areas of translational, predictive and personalized medicine; new therapeutic modalities including gene and cell therapies; pharmacogenomics, proteomics and metabolomics; bioinformation and applied systems biology complementing areas of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, human investigation and clinical trials, pharmacovigilence, pharmacoepidemiology, pharmacometrics, and population pharmacology.
期刊最新文献
In this Issue. American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics. Bench to Budget: Integrated Evidence Generation for Medications. Real-World Effectiveness of All-Oral Direct-Acting Antivirals in Patients With Hepatitis C Virus-Related HCC. A Systematic Review of the Costs of Drug-Associated Acute Kidney Injury and Potential Cost Savings With Nephrotoxin Stewardship Prevention Strategies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1