A drug monitoring system has been established at psychiatric university hospitals in Berlin, Goettingen, and Munich since 1979 in order to investigate adverse reactions to psychotropic drugs. This report describes the system and presents results obtained over 3 years. 504 randomly selected patients were observed by Intensive Drug Monitoring; 75% of them had an adverse drug reaction (ADR) during hospitalization that was assessed as possible, probable, or definite including all grades (I-III) of severity. 5,096 other patients were monitored by Organized Spontaneous Reporting during treatment with psychotropic drugs: ADRs were responsible for drug withdrawal (severity grade III) in about 10% of them. Parkinsonism, psychomotor disturbance, akathisia, delirium, oversedation and increased transaminases were the most frequent ADRs of this kind. The relative frequency of ADRs was calculated, and ADR-profiles established for drugs most frequently withdrawn. The impact of ADRs on ongoing therapy of patients was assessed. Reliable data obtained by drug monitoring systems can be expected to aid in therapeutic decisions in patients with special risks of side effects to psychotropic drugs.

A system for monitoring adverse drug reactions (ADR) in psychiatric inpatients was introduced in psychiatric hospitals in the FRG in May 1979. It consists of intensive drug monitoring (IDM) and a so-called "organized spontaneous reporting system" (OSR). ADR are rated separately according to impact on therapy and probability of causal relationship. With IDM all ADR (Grades I-III) are assessed in a randomly selected sample of inpatients. With OSR only ADR leading to discontinuation of the drugs in question (= ADR Grade III) are assessed. In 406 drug-treated inpatients monitored by IDM in the psychiatric hospitals of Berlin and Munich from May 1979 to Dec. 1981, ADR were observed in 60,4%. In 15% of IDM-patients ADR led to discontinuation of the drugs in question; with OSR the relative frequency of these Grade III ADR was 9,0% in 5096 patients monitored throughout the entire period. Life-threatening events were observed in 1,2% of patients undergoing IDM as well as 1.2% of those undergoing OSR. The most frequently observed ADR by IDM were sedation, extrapyramidal signs, disturbances of the autonomic nervous system and increase in transaminases, and by OSR Parkinsonism, akathisia, sedation, toxic delirium and increased transaminases. The relative frequency of Grade III ADR was similar for neuroleptics and antidepressants (5,4% and 5,3% in OSR); a very low relative frequency of ADR Grade III was found for tranquilizers and hypnotics (0,7% and 0,2%). Methodological aspects of this drug monitoring system are discussed in the light of current literature.

No abstract

Within an ongoing drug surveillance project (AMUP) in psychiatric hospitals, a comparative study was carried out to evaluate two methods commonly used in the field of adverse drug reaction assessment. Two raters, who have cooperated with the project since its inception, evaluated 80 randomly selected ADRs twice; first, by an empirical (implicit) approach, and second, 4 weeks later, by using an algorithm as proposed by Kramer et al. 1979. Agreement on medication and related probability ratings was obtained in 81% of all 80 cases for the empirical method (weighted Kappa = 0.41), and in 69% for the algorithmic method (weighted Kappa = 0.62), indicating that agreement exceeded chance for both methods. By comparison with assessments made in previous case conferences of the project, empirical ratings were found to be reliable over time due to homogeneous use of criteria by project raters. In contrast to the reports on the subject, agreement between raters appeared to be superior in the empirical method as compared to the algorithmic assessment. Analysis of disagreements suggested that probability ratings based on the empirical method were nonspecific, due to conventional criteria applied in the project. Inter-rater agreement was reduced by polypharmacy, especially in the case of algorithmic assessments. The consistency of assessment was also lowered by the fact that the 2 methods assigned different weights to particular assessment criteria.

No abstract