A Pharmacovigilance Study Using Tracer Techniques

A. Yerramilli, S. Veerla, E. Chintala, M. Guduguntla, P. Velivelli, S. Sharma, R. Paul
{"title":"A Pharmacovigilance Study Using Tracer Techniques","authors":"A. Yerramilli, S. Veerla, E. Chintala, M. Guduguntla, P. Velivelli, S. Sharma, R. Paul","doi":"10.4172/2167-1052.1000165","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: To identify adverse drug reactions by using a comprehensive trigger tool method. To categorize the identified adverse drug reactions based upon their Probability, Severity, Harm and Preventability by using different scales. \nMethods: A single-center, Cross-sectional, observational study based on medication and laboratory trigger tool methodology was conducted over a period of six months. The World Health Organization definition of adverse drug reactions was adopted. A list of 17 triggers were used to trace the adverse drug reactions which were then analyzed to assess the causality by using Naranjo’s scale, severity by Hartwig and Siegel scale, and harm by the National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Preventing Index and preventability by Modified Schumock and Thornton scale. \nResults: A total of 100 suspected ADRs were collected and analyzed. The drug classes most commonly implicated with ADRs were cephalosporins (25%) followed by anti-diabetic agents (19%). According to Naranjo’s scale, the reactions were categorized as probable (80%), possible (10%) and definite (5%). According to the modified Schumock and Thornton preventability scale, 20 cases (20%) were possibly preventable while 80 cases (80%) were not preventable. In 85 cases (85%) the suspected drug was withdrawn while in 10 cases (10%) no change in dose was made and in 5 cases (5%) the dose was altered. \nConclusion: Pharmacovigilance using tracer techniques significantly increases the identification and reporting of ADRs. The tracer technique is relatively simple, sensitive, less expensive and largely effective compared to traditional methods. The Trigger tool provides an additional instrument in improving patient safety. This technique leads to an increase in awareness and reporting of ADRs and provide opportunities for the health care system to review drug selection and prescribing practices affecting patient outcomes.","PeriodicalId":7385,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety","volume":"4 1","pages":"1-5"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"12","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4172/2167-1052.1000165","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

Abstract

Objective: To identify adverse drug reactions by using a comprehensive trigger tool method. To categorize the identified adverse drug reactions based upon their Probability, Severity, Harm and Preventability by using different scales. Methods: A single-center, Cross-sectional, observational study based on medication and laboratory trigger tool methodology was conducted over a period of six months. The World Health Organization definition of adverse drug reactions was adopted. A list of 17 triggers were used to trace the adverse drug reactions which were then analyzed to assess the causality by using Naranjo’s scale, severity by Hartwig and Siegel scale, and harm by the National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Preventing Index and preventability by Modified Schumock and Thornton scale. Results: A total of 100 suspected ADRs were collected and analyzed. The drug classes most commonly implicated with ADRs were cephalosporins (25%) followed by anti-diabetic agents (19%). According to Naranjo’s scale, the reactions were categorized as probable (80%), possible (10%) and definite (5%). According to the modified Schumock and Thornton preventability scale, 20 cases (20%) were possibly preventable while 80 cases (80%) were not preventable. In 85 cases (85%) the suspected drug was withdrawn while in 10 cases (10%) no change in dose was made and in 5 cases (5%) the dose was altered. Conclusion: Pharmacovigilance using tracer techniques significantly increases the identification and reporting of ADRs. The tracer technique is relatively simple, sensitive, less expensive and largely effective compared to traditional methods. The Trigger tool provides an additional instrument in improving patient safety. This technique leads to an increase in awareness and reporting of ADRs and provide opportunities for the health care system to review drug selection and prescribing practices affecting patient outcomes.
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
使用示踪技术的药物警戒研究
目的:应用综合触发工具法鉴别药物不良反应。将已发现的药物不良反应按其发生概率、严重程度、危害性和可预防性采用不同的量表进行分类。方法:单中心,横断面,观察性研究基于药物和实验室触发工具方法学进行了为期6个月。采用了世界卫生组织对药物不良反应的定义。采用17种药物不良反应触发因素对不良反应进行追踪,并采用Naranjo量表对不良反应的因果关系进行分析,采用Hartwig and Siegel量表对不良反应的严重程度进行分析,采用国家药物错误报告与预防指数协调委员会对不良反应的危害程度进行评估,采用改进Schumock and Thornton量表对不良反应的可预防性进行评估。结果:共收集并分析了100例疑似不良反应。与不良反应最相关的药物类别是头孢菌素(25%),其次是抗糖尿病药物(19%)。根据纳兰霍量表,将反应分为可能(80%)、可能(10%)和确定(5%)。根据改良的Schumock和Thornton可预防性量表,20例(20%)可能可预防,80例(80%)不可预防。85例(85%)停药,10例(10%)不改变剂量,5例(5%)改变剂量。结论:采用示踪技术进行药物警戒可显著增加对不良反应的识别和报告。与传统方法相比,示踪技术相对简单、灵敏、便宜、有效。Trigger工具为改善患者安全提供了额外的工具。这项技术提高了对不良反应的认识和报告,并为卫生保健系统审查影响患者预后的药物选择和处方做法提供了机会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Antidepressant: An Overview Quantification of 3?-Acetyl-11-Keto-?-Boswellic Acid and 11-Keto-?Boswellic Acid in the Resin of Boswellia species by HPTLC The Use of 3D Models to Test Potential Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Drugs and Infection Mechanisms Local Drug Delivery in Periodontal Therapy: A Contemporary Review Challenges of Hepatotoxicity Associated with Isoniazid Preventive Therapy among People Living with HIV in Eritrea
×
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