 |
|
Drug-Related Deaths in a Department of Internal Medicine
Just Ebbesen, MD;
Ingebjørg Buajordet, MSc;
Jan Erikssen, MD, PhD;
Odd Brørs, MD, PhD;
Thor Hilberg, MD, PhD;
Helge Svaar, MD;
Leiv Sandvik, MSc, PhD
Arch Intern Med. 2001;161:2317-2323.
ABSTRACT
| |
Background Drug therapy is associated with adverse effects, and fatal adverse drug
events (ADEs) have become major hospital problems. Our study assesses the
incidence of fatal ADEs in a major medical department and identifies possible
patient characteristics signifying fatal ADE risk.
Methods During a 2-year period, a multidisciplinary study group examined all
732 patients who died—5.2% of the 13 992 patients admitted to the
Department of Internal Medicine, Central Hospital of Akershus, Nordbyhagen,
Norway. Decisions about the presence or absence of fatal ADEs were based on
aggregated clinical records, autopsy results, and findings from premortem
and postmortem drug analyses.
Results In 18.2% of the patients (133/732) (95% confidence interval, 15.4%-21.0%),
deaths were classified as being directly (64 [48.1%] of 133) or indirectly
(69 [51.9%] of 133) associated with 1 or more drugs (this equals 9.5 deaths
per 1000 hospitalized patients). Those with fatal ADEs (cases) were older,
had more diseases, and used more drugs than those without fatal ADEs (noncases).
In 75 of the 133 patients with fatal ADEs, autopsy findings and/or drug analysis
data were decisive for recognizing the ADEs; in 62 of the remaining 595 patients,
similar data proved necessary to exclude the suspicion of a fatal ADE. Major
culprit drugs were cardiovascular, antithrombotic, and sympathomimetic agents.
Conclusions Fatal ADEs represent a major hospital problem, especially in elderly
patients with multiple diseases. A higher number of drugs administered was
associated with a higher frequency of fatal ADEs, but whether a high number
of drugs is an independent risk factor for fatal ADEs is unsettled. Autopsy
results and the findings of premortem and postmortem drug analyses were important
for recognizing and excluding suspected fatal ADEs.
INTRODUCTION
THE PROVERB of ancient medicine, "Do not harm your patient," is a reminder
about the importance of weighing potential benefits against the harm of any
therapeutic approach. Drug therapy has 2 sides, one reflecting cure and relief
and the other reflecting adverse drug events (ADEs), which are potentially
fatal.
In view of an increasing number of drugs in use, an increase in the
population age, and an increase in the severity of diseases handled, an increase
in the incidence of drug-related deaths might be expected. Reported frequencies
of fatal adverse drug reactions (ADRs) or fatal ADEs vary between 0.9 and
6.5 per l000 hospitalized patients.1-6
The perceived magnitude of this problem has caused major concern,7-13
not the least following a recent meta-analysis14
suggesting that fatal ADRs rate among the 6 leading causes of in-hospital
deaths in the United States.
In conjunction with the release of the Annual Report on Adverse Drug
Reactions in Norway in 1992, members of the National Committee on Safety of
Drugs expressed concerns about the probable major bias and underreporting
of fatal ADEs. A prospective study of this aspect was suggested, and a 6-month
feasibility study was conducted.3, 15
Based on experiences from this study, a more decisive study was launched,
encouraged by the Norwegian health authorities and financed by the Norwegian
Medical Association. The primary aims were as follows: (1) to assess the 2-year
incidence of drug-related deaths in a major medical department and (2) to
search for possible patient characteristics associated with an increased risk
of sustaining fatal ADEs.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The Central Hospital of Akershus, Nordbyhagen, Norway, serves a population
of 300 000, most of whom live in the residential area of Oslo, Norway.
The Department of Internal Medicine covers all major subspecialties in internal
medicine, covering mainly secondary care for its population. The present study
is a joint project between the departments of internal medicine, pathology,
and clinical chemistry, Central Hospital of Akershus; the Division of Clinical
Pharmacology and Toxicology, Clinical Chemistry Department, Ullevaal University
Hospital, Oslo; and the National Institute of Forensic Toxicology, Oslo.
The study, which started on October 3, 1993, and ended on November 21,
1995, covers 2 years (after accounting for 7 weeks of discontinuation because
of construction work in the Department of Pathology, Central Hospital of Akershus).
During the study, 13 992 patients were admitted to the Department of
Internal Medicine, 96% as emergency cases.
All in-hospital deaths (n = 732) are included in the present study regardless
of length of hospitalization.
PROTOCOL
For all patients who died, copies of relevant medical records, available
biochemical and other test data, autopsy findings, and detailed information
on drug use on hospital admission and during hospital stay were obtained.
Incomplete medication data obtained at hospital admission were thoroughly
checked with relatives and the patients' general practitioners.
In selected cases, drug analysis data were also provided. Plasma specimens
were sampled and frozen on admission in the 13 992 patients entering
the hospital during the study period. However, the frozen samples were only
stored for later analysis in the 732 patients who died. An autopsy was performed
in 572 (78.1%) of these 732 patients. In these 572 subjects, postmortem blood
specimens were also drawn with a standardized technique from the femoral vein
at autopsy for possible later analysis. Among the remaining 160 subjects (21.9%),
the next of kin declined autopsy in 59 (36.9%), autopsies were not performed
because of administrative failures in 34 (21.2%), and autopsies were not done
because of inadequate capacity in the Department of Pathology in 67 (41.9%).
However, in 128 of these 160 patients not autopsied (including all 67 in the
"inadequate capacity group"), a definite diagnosis and cause of death were
established, such as a metastasizing carcinoma, a large myocardial infarction
(MI), and a computed tomographic–verified cerebral hemorrhage.
The classification of death with relation to suspected fatal ADEs (classification
criteria described in Figure
1) followed 2 steps:
|
|
|
|
Figure 1. Criteria for subgrouping the causality
of drug-related deaths (cases).
|
|
|
- First, all members (J.E., I.B., J.E., O.B., T.H.,
and H.S.) separately reached a decision on whether drugs directly or indirectly
might be connected to the fatal outcome after scrutinizing the following:
(1) drug therapy and changes in therapy close to the time of death; (2) the
clinical course, with emphasis on symptoms and signs preceding death; (3)
cause of and mode of death; (4) laboratory and other test findings (including
drug analysis data); and (5) autopsy findings.
- At intervals, the group met for discussions. If
all 6 group members had concluded that no suspicion of a fatal ADE existed
in a particular patient, this conclusion was accepted as final. However, if
one or more of the members had suggested a possible or probable fatal ADE,
extensive discussions followed regarding all pros and cons for this suggestion.
Four cases were finally defined as not classifiable, whereas a consensus was
reached in the remaining 728.
IDENTIFICATION OF FATAL ADEs
Classification of ADEs included the World Health Organization's definition
of ADRs (a response to a drug that is noxious and unintended, and that occurs
at doses normally used in humans for the prophylaxis, diagnosis, or therapy
of disease or for the modification of physiological function),16
and adverse events related to intoxications and inappropriately prescribed
or administered drugs.1, 17-19
The identification of ADRs or ADEs was based on known drug actions and interactions,
as described in the literature and drug monographs. An observed toxic drug
value was not classified as causing death if the mode of death appeared to
represent the natural course of their main disease or was not compatible with
known drug actions.
Drugs used for necessary palliation were not classified as causing fatal
ADEs even if a drug (eg, large doses of analgesics given for pain relief in
patients with terminal cancer) may have shortened life slightly.
The classification criteria (Figure
1) were based on causality, as described by Wulff,20
and were subdivided into causal (subgroups a-d) and contributing (subgroups
e-h) fatal ADEs, the subgrouping indicating degrees of certainty in descending
order.
REPRODUCIBILITY
Despite the fact that all members had participated in the pilot study
and in finalizing the protocol, it was believed that a 2-year study might
cause drift in the study technique. To test decision consistency, 1 in 8 cases
was reclassified at random 3 months after the study was completed. The measure
of agreement ( ) was 0.76, indicating good reproducibility.21 Divergent classifications almost exclusively occurred
in patients among whom the weakest ADR classification had been registered.
STATISTICAL METHODS
Computations are based on the 728 consensus cases (unless otherwise
noted). The disease classification followed the International
Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification.
With a 5% significance level, to have a test power of 80% to detect
a mean difference of 1 in number of drugs administered—between cases
(those with fatal ADEs) and noncases (those without fatal ADEs)—at least
700 patients must be included in the study.22
Thus, with 732 patients included, the power of the study is 80%.
Group differences between cases and noncases were tested with a 2-sided t test. When comparing frequencies, the  2
Fisher exact test was used. The test for trend was done with the Spearman
rank correlation test. Each significance test was performed with a 5% significance
level.
RESULTS
In 18.2% of the patients (133/732) (95% confidence interval, 15.4%-21.0%),
deaths were classified as being directly (64 [48.1%] of 133) or indirectly
(69 [51.9%] of 133) associated with 1 or more drugs (this equals 9.5 deaths
per 1000 hospitalized patients) (Table 1). No sex difference was noted. Patients who died in the hospital
were in general markedly older than those discharged from the hospital alive
(70.5 vs 60.1 years; P<.001).
|
|
|
|
Table 1. Characteristics of the 728 Patients Who Died in the Hospital
During the 2-Year Study Period*
|
|
|
Men with fatal ADEs were significantly older than those without fatal
ADEs, whereas no corresponding age difference was found among women (Table 1).
The number of drugs used on hospital admission was significantly higher
in cases than in noncases, as was the number of concomitant diseases.
The proportion of fatal ADEs was highest among patients who died of
gastrointestinal diseases (42.4%) (gastrointestinal ulcerations and hemorrhage
caused by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or anticoagulants or antibiotic-associated
pseudomembraneous enterocolitis), approximately median among those with a
cardiovascular cause of death, and significantly lower among those who died
of cancer and respiratory diseases (Table
2). The median in-hospital time before death was similar in cases
and noncases (3 days after hospitalization in both groups).
|
|
|
|
Table 2. Main Cause of Death Among the 728 Patients Who Died in the
Hospital During the 2-Year Study Period
|
|
|
A significant association between the number of drugs used and the risk
of drug-related death was seen (Table 3). As many as 202 patients used 12 or more drugs at the time of
death, and 48 (23.8%) of these 202 deaths were classified as drug related
compared with 85 (16.2%) among the remaining 526 patients using fewer than
12 drugs at the time of death (P<.01). A total
of 495 different generic drugs were in use the last 2 days before death, and
792 different International Classification of Diseases,
Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification, diagnoses were established in
the total group.
|
|
|
|
Table 3. Number of Drugs Administered in 728 Patients Who Died in the
Hospital During the 2-Year Study Period
|
|
|
A survey of the most commonly involved "culprit" drugs is given in Table 4, indicating that the most common
drugs linked to fatal ADEs were antithrombotic agents, sympathomimetic drugs
given for lung diseases, and cardiovascular drugs (angiotensin-converting
enzyme inhibitors, calcium channel blockers, and diuretics).
|
|
|
|
Table 4. Groups of Administered Drugs Found to Be Associated With Fatal
ADEs*
|
|
|
Serum drug analyses were performed in 306 (41.8%) of the 732 patients,
mostly taking digitalis, xanthines, and psychotropic drugs; when performed,
they usually included more than 1 drug. Sixty-nine patients (22.5% of all
drug analysis cases) of 728 deaths (9.5% of all study deaths) had 1 or more
toxic drug concentrations on this analysis. Of these 69 patients, 29 (42.0%)
were classified as having a fatal ADE related to the toxic drug value and
40 (58.0%) were not.
The group also discussed whether suspected drugs had been applied appropriately.
In slightly less than half of the fatal ADE cases, it was concluded that various
degrees of inappropriateness were seen in drug choice, route of administration,
and/or drug dose. These conclusions were, however, only reached after considering
all data made available after the patient had died—including data from
the drug analyses and autopsy findings.
Few fatal ADEs were registered in the patient records, and only 8 were
reported to the health authorities according to official regulations. In general,
bleeding complications related to the use of antithrombotic or anticoagulant
agents and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were readily recognized, whereas
most others were not.
Autopsy findings and/or the results of drug analyses were judged decisive
for identifying fatal ADEs in 75 of the 133 patients who were found to have
fatal ADEs, and for excluding suspicions of fatal ADEs in 62 of the remaining
595 patients (Figure 2).
|
|
|
|
Figure 2. Venn diagram showing the number
of patients in whom autopsy findings and/or drug analyses results were decisive
for recognizing (A) (n = 75) or excluding (B) (n = 62) the presence of fatal
adverse drug events.
|
|
|
Three case histories may illustrate pertinent classifications.
CASE 1
This patient was a 78-year-old woman with symptomatic aortic stenosis
suggesting the necessity of valve replacement. Before being accepted for surgery,
the referral hospital demanded close scrutiny for occult, severe, complicating
diseases because she had a erythrocyte sedimentation rate of 80 mm/h. A computed
tomographic scan of the abdomen was demanded. Immediately following intravenous
injection of x-ray film contrast (iohexol), the patient developed anaphylactic
shock, from which she did not recover. Resuscitation was unsuccessful, probably
related to her known tight aortic stenosis, also found at autopsy. The adverse
effect was classified as fatal ADE category a, ie, death caused directly by
the infusion of a drug (x-ray film contrast).
CASE 2
This patient was a 74-year-old man, a long-term alcohol user with chronic
obstructive lung disease, hypertension, and angina pectoris who developed
increasing dyspnea and had signs suggesting left ventricular failure on hospital
arrival. An electrocardiogram demonstrated marked ST depressions interpreted
as caused by a non–Q-wave MI, due to an elevated creatine kinase level
on arrival (1000 U/L, and increasing to a maximum of 1414 U/L). The C-reactive
protein level on arrival was 33 mg/L, increasing to 159 mg/L the next day,
when the patient had become increasingly dyspneic, obstructive, hypoxic, and
hypercapnic. In addition to the patient's coronary regimen, the physician
in charge found it necessary to intensify the treatment of his pulmonary disease,
and initiated a terbutaline sulfate infusion, 42 µg/min. Two hours later,
he developed increasing angina, followed by ventricular tachycardia; shortly
thereafter, he developed irreversible ventricular fibrillation. Autopsy findings
revealed an old and an extensive recent subendocardial MI, extensive coronary
atherosclerosis, massive left ventricular hypertrophy, severe emphysema, marked
purulent tracheobronchitis (caused by Streptococcus pneumoniae), lung congestion, and marked brain atrophy.
In conclusion, this patient was admitted with a non–Q-wave MI
complicating severe chronic obstructive lung disease, with marked exacerbation
necessitating relevant treatment. He died during infusion of a  2-agonist, probably precipitating further coronary ischemia, extension
of his MI, and arrhythmia. Autopsy data and the association between the infusion
of terbutaline and clinical deterioration/death indicated that terbutaline
might have contributed to his death. This case was classified as fatal ADE
category g (contributing).
CASE 3
This patient was a 72-year-old woman with long-standing bronchial asthma,
epilepsy, and rheumatoid arthritis. She was treated with low-dose furosemide
for mild symptoms of heart failure. A secondary low serum potassium level
was treated with potassium tablets. She was admitted with pneumonia, which
was treated with intravenous cephalothin sodium (Cefalotin). During hospitalization,
she developed pseudomembraneous enterocolitis, for which metronidazole was
administered. All other medication was continued, including potassium tablets
and furosemide. After partial recovery, she was discharged from the hospital
for 2 days; however, she was then readmitted with possible septic shock and,
therefore, was admitted to the intensive care unit. Despite conventional treatment,
including vasopressors and antibiotics, she died 19 hours after readmittance
to the hospital. Autopsy results revealed a large bleeding esophageal ulcer,
which had perforated to the mediastinum. A remnant of potassium tablets was
also found in the ulcer, as was massive aspiration of blood to both lungs.
The pseudomembraneous enterocolitis was in remission. Serum analysis of phenobarbital
showed therapeutic concentrations. The patient had not reported chest pain.
In conclusion, cephalothin sodium given for pneumonia caused pseudomembraneous
enterocolitis, causing dehydration due to massive diarrhea, which was worsened
by not discontinuing treatment with furosemide. This patient died of a large
bleeding esophageal ulcer, which was linked to the use of potassium tablets
given while she was dehydrated and had difficulties in swallowing. Without
an autopsy, this case would have been missed.
This case was classified as fatal ADE categories a (direct—potassium
tablets) and f (contributing—cephalothin sodium causing pseudomembraneous
enterocolitis and furosemide increasing dehydration).
The use of potassium tablets and furosemide should have been avoided,
and the fatal ADE might have been prevented.
COMMENT
The high incidence of fatal ADEs observed underscores the validity of
the concern expressed recently about a possible increasing incidence of drug-related
fatalities. Considering the extremely complex array of possible drug-drug
and drug-disease interactions in subjects taking the high number of drugs
observed in this study, serious ADEs may even have been overlooked.
The fatal ADE incidence of 9.5 per 1000 hospitalized patients in the
present study is higher than that given in earlier reports,3, 5-6,14-15,23-24
whereas the in-hospital death rate of 5.2% (732/13 992) is similar to
that reported in comparable departments of internal medicine.25
The differences in the reported incidence of fatal ADEs are difficult to compare
because of differences in materials, methods, and criteria for classification
of deaths as drug related. Whereas some use the World Health Organization's
definition16 of ADR/fatal ADR, we have included
all deaths in which a drug might have caused or contributed to death. By definition,
this implies that inappropriately chosen or administered drugs were included.1, 17-18 To the patient and
the clinician, this should probably be the desired approach because the total
hazard of drug therapy is what matters to the patient. However, apparently
our criteria for "drug-related death" are at least as strict as those applied
in the literature.1, 4, 6, 19, 24
To our knowledge, autopsy findings have not been applied routinely in previously
published studies, nor have we found studies in which premortem and postmortem
blood specimens have been drawn for later drug analyses. As previously noted,
these data appeared decisive for recognizing fatal ADEs in 75 of the 133 patients
who were found to have fatal ADEs and for excluding suspected fatal ADEs in
62 of the remaining 595 patients, and, therefore, appear to be of major importance
for identifying fatal ADEs.19
The multidisciplinary approach may also have contributed to the high
recognition rate compared with previous studies26;
the 2-step approach may have done so as well. Thus, a case was often suggested
by only 1 or a few group members, even when readily recognized and accepted
by all the other members after having been brought forward. Whereas unanimous
agreement on the presence or absence of fatal ADEs was reached in all, the
subclassification was somewhat more ambiguous, and occasionally had to be
decided by a majority vote. The hospital clinicians, as judged by the patient
records, only recognized a few cases, and only 8 had been reported to the
health authorities despite regulatory demands.
Drift in the technique during the 2-year period was probably small,
as demonstrated by a of 0.76 in the random sample of 85 reclassified
patients.21 Moreover, the differences in classification
were mostly seen in cases initially classified as indirectly drug related.
There were problems using commonly used algorithms for establishing
causality concerning ADRs in the present study, partly because these algorithms
require drug withdrawal and rechallenge to achieve a high probability score
on the ADR, which of course is impossible in patients who die.27-28
Moreover, these algorithms do not add scores for postmortem drug analyses'
or autopsy findings, variables often of decisive importance in our study.
Men with assumed fatal ADEs—but not women—were significantly
older than those without assumed fatal ADEs. The differences between cases
and noncases were, however, hardly of diagnostic importance because the age
differences were small.
Most patients who died had multiple diseases, and patients with fatal
ADEs had significantly more diseases than those without fatal ADEs.
The median number of drugs used on hospital arrival was 4, but this
increased dramatically during hospitalization (Table 1). In a US study,29 it was
found that the risk of an ADR increased from 13% among patients taking 2 drugs
to 82% for patients taking 7 or more drugs.
Considering differences in the pharmacokinetics of most drugs seen in
a senescent diseased population compared with a healthy adult population,
considerable caution should be exercised when dosing and adding new drugs
to complex medical regimes in elderly patients.29-34
Computer software programs have been introduced and recommended as a
drug treatment quality assurance tool, aiming at reminding prescribers of
potential important drug-drug and drug-disease interactions.35-38
However, this approach is only applicable in hospitals with direct computer
entry of medication orders.
Our study has some limitations, such as being a one-site study and using
only one investigator group. Moreover, autopsy data were lacking in 22% of
the cases, and the investigators were by definition not blinded to the outcome.
However, the prospective approach following a half-year pilot study to refine
the study techniques, the multidisciplinary approach, and the retesting of
a randomized group of cases may to some extent meet the criticisms following
these limitations.
In the present study, 96% of all patients admitted to the department
were emergency cases, were often critically ill, and had complex drug regimens
and clinical presentations that make rapid correct assessment difficult.13, 29 It is, therefore, hardly surprising
that inappropriate drug regimens may be introduced as a result of misinterpretation
of the clinical picture, as also demonstrated by autopsy findings.
Although the consensus group made an effort to decide if the drugs given
were given for a correct indication, preventability as such is hard to judge
retrospectively. However, misinterpretation of symptoms and signs, especially
in the emergency department; lack of monitoring drug concentrations; and inadequate
adjustment of drug doses according to age, body dimensions, metabolism, and
pharmacokinetics have resulted in several fatal ADEs that ought to have been
preventable.39-43
Fatal ADEs were mainly early hospital events (median time to death,
3 days), suggesting the importance of exercising considerable caution in therapy
choice when encountering elderly patients with complex diseases in an emergency
situation.
By definition, this study has only dealt with ADEs, and cannot suggest
the possible magnitude of years lost or gained by drug therapy. It does, however,
actualize the old proverb: Do not harm your patient.
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Accepted for publication March 13, 2001.
This study was supported by The Fund for Quality Improvement in Hospitals
from the Norwegian Medical Association, Oslo; by the Norwegian Medicinal Depot
ASA, Oslo; and the Fund for Research and Development from the Central Hospital
of Akershus.
We thank all staff at participating departments (inside and outside
of Central Hospital of Akershus) for their positive attitude and cooperation
and our employers for giving us time to analyze and finish the project.
Corresponding author and reprints: Just Ebbesen, MD, Foundation for
Health Services Research, Central Hospital of Akershus, N-1474 Nordbyhagen,
Norway (e-mail: justebbe{at}online.no).
From the Foundation for Health Services Research (Drs Ebbesen and Sandvik)
and the Departments of Internal Medicine (Dr Erikssen) and Pathology (Dr Svaar),
Central Hospital of Akershus, Nordbyhagen, Norway; and the Norwegian Medicines
Control Authority (Ms Buajordet), the Division of Clinical Pharmacology and
Toxicology, Clinical Chemistry Department, Ullevaal University Hospital (Dr
Brørs), and the National Institute of Forensic Toxicology (Dr Hilberg),
Oslo, Norway.
REFERENCES
| |
1. Bates DW, Cullen DJ, Laird N, et al for the ADE Prevention Study Group. Incidence of adverse drug events and potential adverse drug events:
implications for prevention. JAMA. 1995;274:29-34.
FREE FULL TEXT
2. Beguin C, France FR, Ninane J. Systematic analysis of in-patients' circumstances and causes of death:
a tool to improve quality of care. Int J Qual Health Care. 1997;9:427-433.
FREE FULL TEXT
3. Buajordet I, Ebbesen J, Erikssen J, Svaar H, Brørs O, Hilberg T. Frequency, reporting and classification of drug-related deaths [in
Norwegian]. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 1995;115:2373-2375.
PUBMED
4. Caranasos GJ, May FE, Stewart RB, Cluff LE. Drug-associated deaths of medical inpatients. Arch Intern Med. 1976;136:872-875.
FREE FULL TEXT
5. Hess J, Andersen T, Nielsen IK, et al. Drug consumption and adverse reactions in a department of internal
medicine [in Danish]. Ugeskr Laeger. 1979;141:174-177.
PUBMED
6. Porter J, Jick H. Drug-related deaths among medical inpatients. JAMA. 1977;237:879-881.
FREE FULL TEXT
7. Kohn L, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS. To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1999.
8. Avorn J. Putting adverse drug events into perspective [editorial; comment]. JAMA. 1997;277:341-342.
FREE FULL TEXT
9. Bates DW, Spell N, Cullen DJ, et al for the Adverse Drug Events Prevention Study Group. The costs of adverse drug events in hospitalized patients. JAMA. 1997;277:307-311.
FREE FULL TEXT
10. Bates DW. Drugs and adverse drug reactions: how worried should we be [editorial;
comment]? JAMA. 1998;279:1216-1217.
FREE FULL TEXT
11. Pedroni G. Drugs and adverse reactions: an economic view of a medical problem. Soc Sci Med. 1984;18:173-182.
12. White TJ, Arakelian A, Rho JP. Counting the costs of drug-related adverse events. Pharmacoeconomics. 1999;15:445-458.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
13. Leape LL, Brennan TA, Laird N, et al. The nature of adverse events in hospitalized patients: results of the
Harvard Medical Practice Study II. N Engl J Med. 1991;324:377-384.
ABSTRACT
14. Lazarou J, Pomeranz BH, Corey PN. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a meta-analysis
of prospective studies. JAMA. 1998;279:1200-1205.
FREE FULL TEXT
15. Ebbesen J, Buajordet I, Erikssen J, Svaar H, Brørs O, Hilberg T. Drugs as a cause of death: a prospective quality assurance project
in a department of medicine [in Norwegian]. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 1995;115:2369-2372.
PUBMED
16. World Health Organization. International Drug Monitoring: the Role of National
Centres. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 1972. WHO Technical
Report Series, No. 498.
17. Bates DW, Boyle DL, Vander Vliet MB, Schneider J, Leape L. Relationship between medication errors and adverse drug events. J Gen Intern Med. 1995;10:199-205.
ISI
| PUBMED
18. Otero MJ, Dominguez-Gil A, Bajo AA, Maderuelo JA. Characteristics associated with ability to prevent adverse drug reactions
in hospitalized patients: a comment. Pharmacotherapy. 1999;19:1185-1186.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
19. Irey NS. Adverse drug reactions and death: a review of 827 cases. JAMA. 1976;236:575-578.
FREE FULL TEXT
20. Wulff HR. Rational Diagnosis and Treatment. Oxford, England: Blackwell; 1981.
21. Altman DG. Interrater agreement. In: Practical Statistics for Medical Research. New York, NY: Chapman & Hall; 1997:403-405.
22. Altman DG. Clinical trials. In: Practical Statistics for Medical Research. New York, NY: Chapman & Hall; 1997:455-460.
23. Andersen T, Nielsen IK, Christiansen LV, et al. Adverse drug reactions in a surgical department [in Danish]. Ugeskr Laeger. 1978;140:799-802.
PUBMED
24. Shapiro S, Slone D, Lewis GP, Jick H. Fatal drug reactions among medical inpatients. JAMA. 1971;216:467-472.
FREE FULL TEXT
25. Aronsen MB. Special Report on In-Hospital Mortality 1994-95. Trondheim, Norway: Norwegian Patient Register, SINTEF UNIMED; 2001.
26. Koch-Weser J, Sellers EM, Zacest R. The ambiguity of adverse drug reactions. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1977;11:75-78.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
27. Kramer MS, Leventhal JM, Hutchinson TA, Feinstein AR. An algorithm for the operational assessment of adverse drug reactions,
I: background, description, and instructions for use. JAMA. 1979;242:623-632.
FREE FULL TEXT
28. Naranjo CA, Busto U, Sellers EM, et al. A method for estimating the probability of adverse drug reactions. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1981;30:239-245.
ISI
| PUBMED
29. Goldberg RM, Mabee J, Chan L, Wong S. Drug-drug and drug-disease interactions in the ED: analysis of a high-risk
population. Am J Emerg Med. 1996;14:447-450.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
30. Atkin PA, Veitch PC, Veitch EM, Ogle SJ. The epidemiology of serious adverse drug reactions among the elderly. Drugs Aging. 1999;14:141-152.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
31. Brawn LA, Castleden CM. Adverse drug reactions: an overview of special considerations in the
management of the elderly patient. Drug Saf. 1990;5:421-435.
ISI
| PUBMED
32. Fincham JE. An overview of adverse drug reactions. Am Pharm. 1991;NS31:47-52.
33. Incalzi RA, Gemma A, Capparella O, et al. Predicting mortality and length of stay of geriatric patients in an
acute care general hospital. J Gerontol. 1992;47:M35-M39.
34. Thomas EJ, Brennan TA. Incidence and types of preventable adverse events in elderly patients:
population based review of medical records. BMJ. 2000;320:741-744.
FREE FULL TEXT
35. Goldberg RM, Mabee J, Mammone M, et al. A comparison of drug interaction software programs: applicability to
the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med. 1994;24:619-625.
ISI
| PUBMED
36. Levy M, Azaz-Livshits T, Sadan B, Shalit M, Geisslinger G, Brune K. Computerized surveillance of adverse drug reactions in hospital: implementation. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1999;54:887-892.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
37. Raschke RA, Gollihare B, Wunderlich TA, et al. A computer alert system to prevent injury from adverse drug events:
development and evaluation in a community teaching hospital. JAMA. 1998;280:1317-1320 [published correction appears in JAMA. 1999;281:420].
FREE FULL TEXT
38. Tegeder I, Levy M, Muth-Selbach U, et al. Retrospective analysis of the frequency and recognition of adverse
drug reactions by means of automatically recorded laboratory signals. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1999;47:557-564.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
39. Bates DW, Miller EB, Cullen DJ, et al for the ADE Prevention Study Group. Patient risk factors for adverse drug events in hospitalized patients. Arch Intern Med. 1999;159:2553-2560.
FREE FULL TEXT
40. Cohen JS. Ways to minimize adverse drug reactions: individualized doses and common
sense are key. Postgrad Med. 1999;106:163-168, 171-172.
41. Cullen DJ, Sweitzer BJ, Bates DW, Burdick E, Edmondson A, Leape LL. Preventable adverse drug events in hospitalized patients: a comparative
study of intensive care and general care units. Crit Care Med. 1997;25:1289-1297.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
42. Leape LL, Bates DW, Cullen DJ, et al for the ADE Prevention Study Group. Systems analysis of adverse drug events. JAMA. 1995;274:35-43.
FREE FULL TEXT
43. Seeger JD, Kong SX, Schumock GT. Characteristics associated with ability to prevent adverse drug reactions
in hospitalized patients. Pharmacotherapy. 1998;18:1284-1289.
ISI
| PUBMED
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati
What's this?
RELATED ARTICLE
Archives of Internal Medicine Reader's Choice: Continuing Medical Education
Arch Intern Med. 2001;161(19):2388-2389.
FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
An ounce of prevention: A pound of cure for an ailing health care system
Genuis
cfp 2007;53:597-599.
FULL TEXT
Une once de prevention: Prescription pour un systeme de sante en dif_culte
Genuis
cfp 2007;53:605-607.
FULL TEXT
Concealed Renal Insufficiency and Adverse Drug Reactions in Elderly Hospitalized Patients
Corsonello et al.
Arch Intern Med 2005;165:790-795.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Aging Biology and Geriatric Clinical Pharmacology
McLean and Le Couteur
Pharmacol. Rev. 2004;56:163-184.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Noncardiac comorbidity increases preventable hospitalizations and mortality among medicare beneficiaries with chronic heart failure
Braunstein et al.
J Am Coll Cardiol 2003;42:1226-1233.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Quality Assessment of a Collaborative Approach for Decreasing Drug-Related Morbidity and Achieving Therapeutic Goals
Isetts et al.
Arch Intern Med 2003;163:1813-1820.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Multidisciplinary medication review in nursing home residents: what are the most significant drug-related problems? The Bergen District Nursing Home (BEDNURS) study
Ruths et al.
Qual Saf Health Care 2003;12:176-180.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Adverse drug event trigger tool: a practical methodology for measuring medication related harm
Rozich et al.
Qual Saf Health Care 2003;12:194-200.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Depression and Adverse Drug Reactions Among Hospitalized Older Adults
Onder et al.
Arch Intern Med 2003;163:301-305.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Medication Errors in Acute Cardiac Care: An American Heart Association Scientific Statement From the Council on Clinical Cardiology Subcommittee on Acute Cardiac Care, Council on Cardiopulmonary and Critical Care, Council on Cardiovascular Nursing, and Council on Stroke
Freedman et al.
Circulation 2002;106:2623-2629.
FULL TEXT
Polypharmacy in Elderly Patients With Diabetes
Good
Diabetes Spectr. 2002;15:240-248.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Distinguishing Complementary Medicine From Alternative Medicine
Kim et al.
Arch Intern Med 2002;162:943-943.
FULL TEXT
|
