Using Routinely Collected Prescribing Data to Determine Drug Persistence for the Purpose of Pharmacovigilance
2010; Wiley; Volume: 51; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1177/0091270010366444
ISSN1552-4604
AutoresIsa Naina Mohamed, Peter Joseph Benedict Helms, Colin R Simpson, James S. McLay,
Tópico(s)Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
ResumoThe Journal of Clinical PharmacologyVolume 51, Issue 2 p. 279-284 Using Routinely Collected Prescribing Data to Determine Drug Persistence for the Purpose of Pharmacovigilance Isa Naina Mohamed MD, MSc, Isa Naina Mohamed MD, MSc Division of Applied Health Sciences, Academic Child Health, University of Aberdeen, Scotland, United KingdomSearch for more papers by this authorPeter J. Helms MBBS, PhD, Peter J. Helms MBBS, PhD Division of Applied Health Sciences, Academic Child Health, University of Aberdeen, Scotland, United KingdomSearch for more papers by this authorColin R. Simpson PhD, MSc, Colin R. Simpson PhD, MSc Division of Applied Health Sciences, Academic Child Health, University of Aberdeen, Scotland, United KingdomSearch for more papers by this authorJames S. McLay MBChB, PhD, Corresponding Author James S. McLay MBChB, PhD Division of Applied Health Sciences, Academic Child Health, University of Aberdeen, Scotland, United Kingdom Address for correspondence: Dr James McLay, Division of Applied Health Sciences, Academic Child Health, University of Aberdeen, Royal Aberdeen Children's Hospital, Westburn Road, Aberdeen AB25 2ZG, UK; e-mail: [email protected].Search for more papers by this author Isa Naina Mohamed MD, MSc, Isa Naina Mohamed MD, MSc Division of Applied Health Sciences, Academic Child Health, University of Aberdeen, Scotland, United KingdomSearch for more papers by this authorPeter J. Helms MBBS, PhD, Peter J. Helms MBBS, PhD Division of Applied Health Sciences, Academic Child Health, University of Aberdeen, Scotland, United KingdomSearch for more papers by this authorColin R. Simpson PhD, MSc, Colin R. Simpson PhD, MSc Division of Applied Health Sciences, Academic Child Health, University of Aberdeen, Scotland, United KingdomSearch for more papers by this authorJames S. McLay MBChB, PhD, Corresponding Author James S. McLay MBChB, PhD Division of Applied Health Sciences, Academic Child Health, University of Aberdeen, Scotland, United Kingdom Address for correspondence: Dr James McLay, Division of Applied Health Sciences, Academic Child Health, University of Aberdeen, Royal Aberdeen Children's Hospital, Westburn Road, Aberdeen AB25 2ZG, UK; e-mail: [email protected].Search for more papers by this author First published: 07 March 2013 https://doi.org/10.1177/0091270010366444Citations: 6Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL REFERENCES 1 World Health Organization. Pharmacovigilance. http:www.who.intmedicinesareasqualitysafetysafetyefficacypharm-vigienindex.html. Accessed May 13, 2009. 2 Strom BL. Pharmacoepidemiology. 4th ed. Oxford, UK: Churchill Livingstone; 1994. 3 World Health Organization. Safety of Medicines: A Guide to Detecting and Reporting Adverse Drug Reactions. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2002. 4 Goettler M, Schneeweiss S, Hasford J. Adverse drug reaction monitoring: cost and benefit considerations: Part II. Cost and preventability of adverse drug reactions leading to hospital admission. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 1997; 6(suppl 3): S79– S90. 5 Einarson TR. Drug-related hospital admissions. Ann Pharmacother. 1993; 27: 832– 840. 6 Bates DW, Cullen DJ, Laird N, et al. Incidence of adverse drug events and potential adverse drug events implications for prevention. JAMA. 1995; 274: 29– 34. 7 Bates DW, Spell N, Cullen DJ, et al. The costs of adverse drug events in hospitalized patients. JAMA. 1997; 277: 307– 311. 8 Pirmohamed M, James S, Meakin S, et al. Adverse drug reactions as cause of admission to hospital: prospective analysis of 18 820 patients. Br Med J. 2004; 329: 15– 19. 9 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. 10 Clarkson A, Conroy S, Burroughs K, Choonara I. Surveillance for adverse drug reactions in children: a paediatric regional monitoring centre. Paediatr Perinat Drug Ther. 2004; 6: 20– 23. 11 Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). www.mhra.gov.uk. Accessed January 11, 2010. 12 Rawlins MD. Spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions: I. The data. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1988; 26: 1– 5. 13 Lumley CE, Walker SR, Hall GC, Staunton N, Grob PR. The underreporting of adverse drug reactions seen in general practice. Pharm Med. 1986; 1: 205– 212. 14 Smith CC, Bennett PM, Pearce HM, Harrison PI, Reynolds DJ, Aronson JK. Adverse drug reactions in a hospital general medical unit meriting notification to the Committee on Safety of Medicines. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1996; 42: 423– 429. 15 Hitchen L. Adverse drug reactions result in 250 000 UK admissions a year. Br Med J. 2009; 332: 1109. 16 Information Services Division (ISD) Scotland. General practice: practice team information. http:www.isdscotland.orgisd3727.html. Accessed January 11, 2010. 17 Primary Care Clinical Informatics Unit (PCCIU). http:www.abdn.ac.ukcapcresearchspecialpcciu.shtml. Accessed May 13, 2009. 18 Hurwitz N. Predisposing factors in adverse reactions to drugs. Br Med J. 1969; 1: 536– 539. 19 Seidl LG, Thornton GF, Smith JW, Cluff LE. Studies on the epidemiology of adverse drug reactions: III. Reactions in patients on a general medical service. Bull Johns Hopkins Hosp. 1966; 119: 299– 315. 20 Kaplan NM. The CARE study: a postmarketing evaluation of ramipril in 11,100 patients. Clin Ther. 1996; 18: 658– 670. 21 Morimoto T, Gandhi TK, Fiskio JM, et al. An evaluation of risk factors for adverse drug events associated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. J Eval Clin Pract. 2004; 10: 499– 509. 22 Zabludowski J, Rosenfeld J, Akbary MA, Ragoonwala B, Schinzel S. A multi-centre comparative study between ramipril and enalapril in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension. Curr Med Res Opin. 1988; 11: 93– 105. 23 Ose L, Shah A, Davies M, et al. Consistency of lipid-altering effects of ezetimibe/simvastatin across gender, race, age, baseline low density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, and coronary heart disease status: results of a pooled retrospective analysis. Curr Med Res Opin. 2006; 22: 823– 835. 24 Kim YS, Sunwoo S, Lee HR, et al. Determinants of non-compliance with lipid-lowering therapy in hyperlipidemic patients. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2002; 11: 593– 600. 25 Zanchetti A, Omboni S. Comparison of candesartan versus enalapril in essential hypertension. Am J Hypertens. 2001; 14: 129– 134. 26 Amerena J, Pappas S, Ouellet J-P, Williams L, O'Shaughhnessy D. ABPM comparison of the anti-hypertensive profiles of telmisartan and enalapril in patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension. J Int Med Res. 2002; 30: 543– 552. 27 Pederson TR, Wilhelmsen L, Faergeman O, et al. Follow-up study of patients randomized in the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S) of cholesterol lowering. Am J Cardiol. 2000; 86: 257– 262. 28 Strandberg TE, Pyorala K, Cook TJ, et al. Mortality and incidence of cancer during 10-year-follow-up of the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S). Lancet. 2004; 364: 771– 777. 29 Park S, Kang HJ, Rim SJ. A randomized, open-label study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pitavastatin compared with simvastatin in Korean patients with hypercholestrolemia. Clin Ther. 2005; 27: 1074– 1082. 30 Fujikawa K, Hasebe N, Kikuchi K. Cost-effectiveness analysis of hypertension treatment: controlled release nifedipine and candesartan low-dose combination therapy in patients with essential hypertension. The Nifedipine and Candesartan Combination (NICE-Combi) Study. Hypertens Res. 2005; 28: 585– 591. 31 Ruilope L, Jager B, Prichard B. Eprosartan versus enalapril in elderly patients with hypertension: a double-blind, randomized trial. Blood Press. 2001; 10: 223– 229. 32 Tanser PH, Campbell LM, Carranza J, Karrash J, Toutouzas P, Watts R. Candesartan cilexetil is not associated with cough in hypertensive patients with enalapril-induced cough. Am J Hypertens. 2000; 13: 214– 218. 33 Gavras HP. Issues in hypertension: drug tolerability and special populations. Am J Hypertens. 2001; 147: 231S– 236S. 34 Philipp T, Smith TR, Glazer R, et al. Two multicenter, 8-week, randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group studies evaluating the efficacy and tolerability of amlodipine and valsartan in combination and as monotherapy in adult patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension. Clin Ther. 2007; 29: 563– 580. 35 Baguet JP, Nisse-Durgeat S, Mouret S, Asmar R, Mallion JM. A placebo-controlled comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of candesartan cilexetil, 8 mg, and losartan, 50 mg, as monotherapy in patients with essential hypertension, using 36-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Int J Clin Pract. 2006; 60: 391– 398. 36 Information Services Division (ISD). Practice Team Information (PTI) statistics and analysis. http:www.isdscotland.orgisd1044.html. Accessed May 13, 2009. 37 Simpson CR, Helms PJ, Taylor MW, Baxter-Jones ADG. Respiratory morbidity in primary care: a population based study, using practices from the Scottish Continuous Morbidity Recording Research Database. Health Bull (Edinburgh). 2000; 60: 489– 496. Citing Literature Volume51, Issue2February 2011Pages 279-284 ReferencesRelatedInformation
Referência(s)