Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Are computerised monitoring systems of value to improve pharmacovigilance in paediatric patients?

  • Pharmacoepidemiology and Prescription
  • Published:
European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

The aim of the present study was to evaluate a computerised monitoring system (CMS) based on laboratory test results for the detection of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) on a paediatric ward.

Methods

A prospective, 6-month pharmacoepidemiological survey was performed on a 22-bed paediatric isolation ward. ADRs were identified by intensive chart review. In addition to spontaneous reporting by the treating physician, automatic laboratory signals generated by a CMS were evaluated for their association with ADRs. ADRs were classified by the affected target organs according to the WHO–ART system organ classes.

Results

A total of 73 ADRs were identified in 439 admissions (396 patients) by chart review. The CMS alerted 31 (42.4%) ADRs while 23 (31.5%) ADRs were found solely by treating physicians. Eight ADRs were detected by both approaches resulting in a total detection rate of 74% (compared with intensive pharmacovigilance). Out of a total of 27,434 laboratory tests performed routinely, 1,563 were classified as abnormal by the predefined CMS and used as the basis of alerts. The sensitivity of the system with respect to patients alerted was 90.3% and the specificity only 19.6%.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates that, using CMS, a different kind of mild adverse events were detected compared to the observation by the treating physician. The system presented appears to be sufficiently sensitive, but the specificity is too low to make it acceptable for physicians in daily practice. In children, clinically important ADRs can be detected best by intensified surveillance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Azaz-Livshits T, Levy M, Sadan B, Shalit M, Geisslinger G, Brune K (1998) Computerized survelliance of adverse drug reactions in hospital: pilot study. Br J Clin Pharmacol 45:309–314

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Bates DW, Evans RS, Murff H, Stetson PD, Pizziferri L, Hripcsak G (2003) Detecting adverse events using information technology. J Am Med Inform Assoc 10:115–128

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Classen DC, Pestotnik SL, Evans RS, Burke JP (1991) Computerized surveillance of adverse drug events in hospital patients. JAMA 266:2847–2851

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Dormann H, Criegee-Rieck M, Neubert A, Egger T, Levy M, Hahn EG et al (2004) Implementation of a computer-assisted monitoring system for the detection of adverse drug reactions in gastroenterology. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 19:303–309

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Dormann H, Muth-Selbach U, Krebs S, Criegee-Rieck M, Tegeder I, Schneider HT et al (2000) Incidence and costs of adverse drug reactions during hospitalisation: computerised monitoring versus stimulated spontaneous reporting. Drug Saf 22:161–168

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Forsstrom JJ, Gronroos P, Irjala K, Heiskanen J, Torniainen K (1996) Linking patient medication data with laboratory information system. Int J Biomed Comput 42:111–116

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Haffner S, von Laue N, Wirth S, Thurmann PA (2005) Detecting adverse drug reactions on paediatric wards: intensified surveillance versus computerised screening of laboratory values. Drug Saf 28:453–464

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Honigman B, Light P, Pulling RM, Bates DW (2001) A computerized method for identifying incidents associated with adverse drug events in outpatients. Int J Med Inf 61:21–32

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Naranjo CA, Busto U, Sellers EM, Sandor P, Ruiz I, Roberts EA et al (1981) A method for estimating the probability of adverse drug reactions. Clin Pharmacol Ther 30:239–245

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Ruggeri A, CFMA (1996) Development and evaluation of a knowledge-based system to assess a drug’s safety profile from laboratory data. Drug Inf J 30:413–419

    Google Scholar 

  11. Schiff GD, Klass D, Peterson J, Shah G, Bates DW (2003) Linking laboratory and pharmacy: opportunities for reducing errors and improving care. Arch Intern Med 163:893–900

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Weiss J, Krebs S, Hoffmann C, Werner U, Neubert A, Brune K et al (2002) Survey of adverse drug reactions on a pediatric ward: a strategy for early and detailed detection. Pediatrics 110:254–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by grants of German Israeli Foundation, Bayerisches Staatsministerium and Marohn Stiftung.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wolfgang Rascher.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Neubert, A., Dormann, H., Weiss, J. et al. Are computerised monitoring systems of value to improve pharmacovigilance in paediatric patients?. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 62, 959–965 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-006-0197-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-006-0197-9

Keywords

Navigation