Adverse drug reactions as cause of admission to hospital: prospective analysis of 18 820 patients.
Journal: 2004/July - British Medical Journal
ISSN: 1756-1833
Abstract:
OBJECTIVE
To ascertain the current burden of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) through a prospective analysis of all admissions to hospital.
METHODS
Prospective observational study.
METHODS
Two large general hospitals in Merseyside, England.
METHODS
18 820 patients aged>> 16 years admitted over six months and assessed for cause of admission.
METHODS
Prevalence of admissions due to an ADR, length of stay, avoidability, and outcome.
RESULTS
There were 1225 admissions related to an ADR, giving a prevalence of 6.5%, with the ADR directly leading to the admission in 80% of cases. The median bed stay was eight days, accounting for 4% of the hospital bed capacity. The projected annual cost of such admissions to the NHS is 466m pounds sterling (706m Euros, 847m dollars). The overall fatality was 0.15%. Most reactions were either definitely or possibly avoidable. Drugs most commonly implicated in causing these admissions included low dose aspirin, diuretics, warfarin, and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs other than aspirin, the most common reaction being gastrointestinal bleeding.
CONCLUSIONS
The burden of ADRs on the NHS is high, accounting for considerable morbidity, mortality, and extra costs. Although many of the implicated drugs have proved benefit, measures need to be put into place to reduce the burden of ADRs and thereby further improve the benefit:harm ratio of the drugs.
Relations:
Content
Citations
(644)
References
(26)
Clinical trials
(2)
Diseases
(1)
Drugs
(4)
Organisms
(1)
Affiliates
(1)
Similar articles
Articles by the same authors
Discussion board
BMJ 329(7456): 15-19

Adverse drug reactions as cause of admission to hospital: prospective analysis of 18 820 patients

Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3GE
Royal Liverpool University Hospital, Liverpool L7 8XP
Wirral Hospitals NHS Trust, Wirral CH49 5PE
Correspondence to: M Pirmohamed ku.ca.vil@prinum
Correspondence to: M Pirmohamed ku.ca.vil@prinum
Accepted 2004 Jun 11.

Abstract

Objective To ascertain the current burden of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) through a prospective analysis of all admissions to hospital.

Design Prospective observational study.

Setting Two large general hospitals in Merseyside, England.

Participants 18 820 patients aged > 16 years admitted over six months and assessed for cause of admission.

Main outcome measures Prevalence of admissions due to an ADR, length of stay, avoidability, and outcome.

Results There were 1225 admissions related to an ADR, giving a prevalence of 6.5%, with the ADR directly leading to the admission in 80% of cases. The median bed stay was eight days, accounting for 4% of the hospital bed capacity. The projected annual cost of such admissions to the NHS is £466m (€706m, $847m). The overall fatality was 0.15%. Most reactions were either definitely or possibly avoidable. Drugs most commonly implicated in causing these admissions included low dose aspirin, diuretics, warfarin, and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs other than aspirin, the most common reaction being gastrointestinal bleeding.

Conclusion The burden of ADRs on the NHS is high, accounting for considerable morbidity, mortality, and extra costs. Although many of the implicated drugs have proved benefit, measures need to be put into place to reduce the burden of ADRs and thereby further improve the benefit:harm ratio of the drugs.

Abstract

GI=gastrointestinal, INR=international normalised ratio.

Notes

We thank June Raine (MHRA) for her encouragement and assistance with this study, all staff in both hospitals who assisted with the study, and, in particular, S Roberts, S Morrison-Griffiths, and R Brady for their help in identifying case notes and in data extraction.

Contributors: MP, TJW, BKP, and AMB devised the idea of the study, while MP and AMB raised funding. MP oversaw the whole study. SJ and SM collected the data and input the data into databases. AKS, CG, and KF were responsible for study implementation, and review and supervision of the data collection in hospital B; MP and AMB undertook the same roles in hospital A. The analyses were carried out independently by MP and SJ, and verified by TJW. MP produced the first draft, and all authors contributed to the final draft of the manuscript. MP is guarantor for the study.

Funding: The study was funded by the MHRA (Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency; formerly the Medicines Control Agency). The MHRA had no role in data interpretation or in the production of this manuscript.

Competing interests: At the time of the study, AMB was chairman of the Committee on Safety of Medicines and now is chairman of the MHRA. MP is a member of the Committee on Safety of Medicines and of the subcommittee on pharmacovigilance. BKP is a member of the Committee on Safety of Medicines.

Ethical approval: Liverpool Local Research Ethics Committee and Wirral Health Authority Research Ethics Committee.

Notes
We thank June Raine (MHRA) for her encouragement and assistance with this study, all staff in both hospitals who assisted with the study, and, in particular, S Roberts, S Morrison-Griffiths, and R Brady for their help in identifying case notes and in data extraction.
Contributors: MP, TJW, BKP, and AMB devised the idea of the study, while MP and AMB raised funding. MP oversaw the whole study. SJ and SM collected the data and input the data into databases. AKS, CG, and KF were responsible for study implementation, and review and supervision of the data collection in hospital B; MP and AMB undertook the same roles in hospital A. The analyses were carried out independently by MP and SJ, and verified by TJW. MP produced the first draft, and all authors contributed to the final draft of the manuscript. MP is guarantor for the study.
Funding: The study was funded by the MHRA (Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency; formerly the Medicines Control Agency). The MHRA had no role in data interpretation or in the production of this manuscript.
Competing interests: At the time of the study, AMB was chairman of the Committee on Safety of Medicines and now is chairman of the MHRA. MP is a member of the Committee on Safety of Medicines and of the subcommittee on pharmacovigilance. BKP is a member of the Committee on Safety of Medicines.
Ethical approval: Liverpool Local Research Ethics Committee and Wirral Health Authority Research Ethics Committee.

References

  • 1. Lazarou J, Pomeranz BH, Corey PNIncidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients—a meta-analysis of prospective studies. JAMA 1998;279: 1200-5. [[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 2. Kvasz M, Allen IE, Gordon MJ, Ro EY, Estok R, Olkin I, et alAdverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a critique of a meta-analysis. MedGenMed 2000;2: E3. [[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 3. Wiffen P, Gill M, Edwards J, Moore A. Adverse drug reactions in hospital patients. A systematic review of the prospective and retrospective studies. Bandolier Extra 2002;June: 1-16.
  • 4. Ghose KHospital bed occupancy due to drug-related problems. J R Soc Med 1980;73: 853-6. [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Gosney M, Tallis RPrescription of contraindicated and interacting drugs in elderly patients admitted to hospital. Lancet 1984;ii: 564-7. [[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 6. Hurwitz NAdmissions to hospital due to drugs. BMJ 1969;i: 539-40. [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Hurwitz NPredisposing factors in adverse reactions to drugs. BMJ 1969;i: 536-9. [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Hurwitz N, Wade OLIntensive hospital monitoring of adverse reactions to drugs. BMJ 1969;i: 531-6. [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Leach S, Roy SSAdverse drug reactions: an investigation on an acute geriatric ward. Age Ageing 1986;15: 241-6. [[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 10. Williamson J, Chopin JMAdverse reactions to prescribed drugs in the elderly: a multicentre investigation. Age Ageing 1980;9: 73-80. [[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 11. Lindley CM, Tully MP, Paramsothy V, Tallis RCInappropriate medication is a major cause of adverse drug reactions in elderly patients. Age Ageing 1992;21: 294-300. [[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 12. Smith CC, Bennett PM, Pearce HM, Harrison PI, Reynolds DJ, Aronson JK, et alAdverse drug reactions in a hospital general medical unit meriting notification to the Committee on Safety of Medicines. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1996;42: 423-9. [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Howard RL, Avery AJ, Howard PD, Partridge MInvestigation into the reasons for preventable drug related admissions to a medical admissions unit: observational study. Qual Saf Health Care 2003;12: 280-5. [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Bhalla N, Duggan C, Dhillon SThe incidence and nature of drug-related admissions to hospital. Pharmaceutical J 2003;270: 583-6. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 15. Edwards IR, Aronson JKAdverse drug reactions: definitions, diagnosis, and management. Lancet 2000;356: 1255-9. [[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 16. British Medical Association, Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. British national formulary. London: BMA, RPS, 2002. (No 44).
  • 17. Naranjo CA, Busto U, Sellers EM, Sandor P, Ruiz I, Roberst EA, et alA method for estimating the probability of adverse drug reactions. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1981;30: 239-45. [[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 18. Jones JKAdverse drug reactions in the community health setting: approaches to recognizing, counseling, and reporting. Fam Community Health 1982;5: 58-67. [[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 19. Rawlins MD, Thompson JW. Mechanisms of adverse drug reactions. In: Davies DM, ed. Textbook of adverse drug reactions. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991: 18-45.
  • 20. Hallas J, Harvald B, Gram LF, Grodum E, Prosen K, Haghfelt T, et alDrug related hospital admissions: the role of definitions and intensity of data collection, and the possibility of prevention. J Intern Med 1990;228: 83-90. [[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 21. Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA). The health service financial database and comparative tool. Croydon: Institute of Public Finance, 2002.
  • 22. Einarson TRDrug-related hospital admissions. Ann Pharmacother 1993;27: 832-40. [[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 23. Winterstein AG, Sauer BC, Hepler CD, Poole CPreventable drug-related hospital admissions. Ann Pharmacother 2002;36: 1238-48. [[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 24. Beijer HJ, de Blaey CJHospitalisations caused by adverse drug reactions (ADR): a meta-analysis of observational studies. Pharm World Sci 2002;24: 46-54. [[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 25. Weil J, Colin-Jones D, Langman M, Lawson D, Logan R, Murphy M, et alProphylactic aspirin and risk of peptic ulcer bleeding. BMJ 1995;310: 827-30. [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Rodriguez-Monguio R, Otero M, Rovira JAssessing the economic impact of adverse drug effects. Pharmacoeconomics 2003;21: 623-50. [[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 27. Bates DW, Spell N, Cullen DJ, Burdick E, Laird N, Petersen LA, et alThe costs of adverse drug events in hospitalized patients. JAMA 1997;277: 307-11. [[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 28. Classen DC, Pestotnik SL, Evans RS, Lloyd JF, Burke JP. Adverse drug events in hospitalized patients. Excess length of stay, extra costs, and attributable mortality. JAMA 1997;277: 301-6. [[PubMed]
  • 29. Department of HealthHospital episode statistics 2001-2. (accessed 13 Nov 2003).[PubMed]
  • 30. Gaspoz JM, Coxson PG, Goldman PA, Williams LW, Kuntz KM, Hunink MG, et alCost effectiveness of aspirin, clopidogrel, or both for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease. N Engl J Med 2002;346: 1800-6. [[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 31. Lagnaoui R, Moore N, Fach J, Longy-Boursier M, Begaud BAdverse drug reactions in a department of systemic diseases-oriented internal medicine: prevalence, incidence, direct costs and avoidability. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2000;56: 181-6. [[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 32. Langman MJ. Ulcer complications associated with anti-inflammatory drug use. What is the extent of the disease burden? Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2001;10: 13-9. [[PubMed]
  • 33. Department of Health. Medicines for older people: implementing medicines-related aspects of the NSF for older people. London: Department of Health, 2001.
Collaboration tool especially designed for Life Science professionals.Drag-and-drop any entity to your messages.