AIMSFatal adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are important causes of death, but data from resource-limited settings are scarce. We determined the proportion of deaths in South African medical inpatients attributable to ADRs, and their preventability, stratified by human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) status. METHODSWe reviewed the folders of all patients who died over a 30 day period in the medical wards of four hospitals. We identified ADR-related deaths (deaths where an ADR was 'possible', 'probable' or 'certain' using WHO-UMC criteria and where the ADR contributed to death). We determined preventability according to previously published criteria. RESULTSADRs contributed to the death of 2.9% of medical admissions and 56 of 357 deaths (16%) were ADR-related. Tenofovir, rifampicin and co-trimoxazole were the most commonly implicated drugs. 43% of ADRs were considered preventable. The following factors were independently associated with ADR-related death: HIV-infected patients on antiretroviral therapy (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 4.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.6, 12), exposure to more than seven drugs (aOR 2.5, 95% CI 1.3, 4.8) and increasing comorbidity score (aOR 1.3, 95% CI 1.1, 1.7). CONCLUSIONSIn our setting, where HIV and tuberculosis are highly prevalent, fatal in-hospital ADRs were more common than reported in high income settings. Most deaths were attributed to drugs used in managing HIV and tuberculosis. A large proportion of the ADRs were preventable, highlighting the need to strengthen systems for health care worker training and support.
Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text
Only 25.1% of patients in our study achieved good INR control, despite regular INR monitoring. There is an urgent need to improve anticoagulation control of patients receiving warfarin in SA. Validated dosing algorithms are required, and access to lower warfarin dosage formulations may optimise individual dose titration. Advocacy for these formulations is advised.
Warfarin remains the oral anticoagulant of choice in sub-Saharan Africa. However, dosing is challenging due to a highly variable clinical response for a given dose. This study aimed to develop and validate a clinical warfarin doseinitiation model in sub-Saharan Black-African patients. For the development cohort, we used data from 364 patients who were recruited from 8 outpatient clinics and hospital departments in Uganda and South Africa (June 2018-July 2019). Validation was undertaken using the International Warfarin Pharmacogenetics Consortium (IWPC) dataset (690 black patients). Four predictors (age, weight, target International Normalized Ratio range, and HIV status) were included in the final model, which achieved mean absolute errors (MAEs; mean of absolute differences between true dose and dose predicted by the model) of 11.6 (95% confidence interval (CI) 10.4-12.8) and 12.5 (95% CI 11.6-13.4) mg/week in the development and validation cohorts, respectively. Two other clinical models, IWPC and Gage, respectively, obtained MAEs of 12.5 (95% CI 11.3-13.7) and 12.7 (95% CI 11.5-13.8) mg/week in the development cohort, and 12.1 (95% CI 11.2-13.0) and 12.2 (95% CI 11.4-13.1) mg/week in the validation cohort. Compared with fixed dose-initiation, our model decreased the percentage of patients at high risk of suboptimal anticoagulation by 7.5% (1.5-13.7%) and 11.9% (7.1-16.8%) in the development and validation cohorts, respectively. The clinical utility of this model will be tested in a prospective study.
Introduction Warfarin is the most commonly prescribed oral anticoagulant in sub-Saharan Africa and requires ongoing monitoring. The burden of both infectious diseases and non-communicable diseases is high and medicines used to treat comorbidities may interact with warfarin. We describe service provision, patient characteristics, and anticoagulation control at selected anticoagulation clinics in Uganda and South Africa. Methods We evaluated two outpatient anticoagulation services in Kampala, Uganda and three in Cape Town, South Africa between 1 January and 31 July 2018. We collected information from key staff members about the clinics' service provision and extracted demographic and clinical data from a sample of patients' clinic records. We calculated time in therapeutic range (TTR) over the most recent 3-month period using the Rosendaal interpolation method. Results We included three tertiary level, one secondary level and one primary level anticoagulation service, seeing between 30 and 800 patients per month. Care was rendered by nurses, medical officers, and specialists. All healthcare facilities had on-site pharmacies; laboratory INR testing was off-site at two. Three clinics used warfarin dose-adjustment protocols; these were not validated for local use. We reviewed 229 patient clinical records. Most common indications for warfarin were venous thrombo-embolism in 112/229 (49%), atrial
Background: The high HIV prevalence in South Africa may potentially be shaping the local adverse drug reaction (ADR) burden. We aimed to describe the prevalence and characteristics of serious ADRs at admission, and during admission, to two South African children's hospitals. Methods: We reviewed the folders of children admitted over sequential 30-day periods in 2015 to the medical wards and intensive care units of each hospital. We identified potential ADRs using a trigger tool developed for this study. A multidisciplinary team assessed ADR causality, type, seriousness, and preventability through consensus discussion. We used multivariate logistic regression to explore associations with serious ADRs. Results: Among 1050 patients (median age 11 months, 56% male, 2.8% HIV-infected) with 1106 admissions we found 40 serious ADRs (3.8 per 100 drug-exposed admissions), including 9/40 (23%) preventable serious ADRs, and 8/40 (20%) fatal or near-fatal serious ADRs. Antibacterials, corticosteroids, psycholeptics, immunosuppressants, and antivirals were the most commonly implicated drug classes. Preterm neonates and children in middle childhood (6 to 11 years) were at increased risk of serious ADRs compared to infants (under 1 year) and term neonates: adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 5.97 (95% confidence interval 1.30 to 27.3) and aOR 3.63 (1.24 to 10.6) respectively. Other risk factors for serious ADRs were HIV infection (aOR 3.87 (1.14 to 13.2) versus HIV-negative) and increasing drug count (aOR 1.08 (1.04 to 1.12) per additional drug). Conclusions: Serious ADR prevalence in our survey was similar to the prevalence found elsewhere. In our setting, serious ADRs were associated with HIV-infection and the antiviral drug class was one of the most commonly implicated. Similar to other sub-Saharan African studies, a large proportion of serious ADRs were fatal or near-fatal. Many serious ADRs were preventable.
IntroductionA new method to assess causality of suspected adverse drug reactions, the Liverpool Adverse Drug Reaction Causality Assessment Tool (LCAT), showed high interrater agreement when used by its developers. Our aim was to compare the interrater agreement achieved by LCAT to that achieved by another causality assessment method, the World Health Organization-Uppsala Monitoring Centre system for standardised case causality assessment (WHO-UMC system), in our setting.MethodsFour raters independently assessed adverse drug reaction causality of 48 drug-event pairs, identified during a hospital-based survey. A randomised design ensured that no washout period was required between assessments with the two methods. We compared the methods’ interrater agreement by calculating agreement proportions, kappa statistics, and the intraclass correlation coefficient. We identified potentially problematic questions in the LCAT by comparing raters’ responses to individual questions.ResultsOverall unweighted kappa was 0.61 (95% CI 0.43 to 0.80) on the WHO-UMC system and 0.27 (95% CI 0.074 to 0.46) on the LCAT. Pairwise unweighted Cohen kappa ranged from 0.33 to 1.0 on the WHO-UMC system and from 0.094 to 0.71 on the LCAT. The intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.86 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.92) on the WHO-UMC system and 0.61 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.77) on the LCAT. Two LCAT questions were identified as significant points of disagreement.DiscussionWe were unable to replicate the high interrater agreement achieved by the LCAT developers and instead found its interrater agreement to be lower than that achieved when using the WHO-UMC system. We identified potential reasons for this and recommend priority areas for improving the LCAT.
WHO recommends tenofovir, efavirenz, and lamivudine or emtricitabine for first-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) in adults, which replaced more toxic regimens using stavudine, zidovudine or nevirapine. Areas covered: We searched Pubmed to identify observational studies and randomized controlled trials reporting toxicity of these antiretrovirals published between 2011 and 2016, and hand-searched abstracts presented at major HIV conferences in 2015 and 2016, focusing on data from sub-Saharan Africa. Tenofovir's nephrotoxicity manifests as mild renal tubular dysfunction (common and of uncertain clinical significance), acute kidney injury (rare), and chronic declining glomerular filtration rate (common). African studies, which include high proportions of patients with renal dysfunction from opportunistic diseases, report population improvement in renal function after starting tenofovir-based ART. Tenofovir modestly decreases bone mineral density, and there is emerging data that this increases fracture risk. Efavirenz commonly causes early self-limiting neuropsychiatric toxicity and hypersensitivity rashes. Recent studies have highlighted its long-term neuropsychiatric effects, notably suicidality and neurocognitive impairment, and metabolic toxicities (dyslipidemia, dysglycemia, and lipoatrophy). We point out the challenges clinicians face in the recognition and attribution of adverse drug reactions. Expert commentary: Tenofovir and efavirenz are generally well tolerated, but both are associated with potentially serious toxicities. Pharmacovigilance systems in resource-limited settings with high HIV burden should be strengthened.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.