Skip to content
2000
Volume 20, Issue 3
  • ISSN: 1574-8863
  • E-ISSN: 2212-3911

Abstract

Background

Adverse Drug Reactions (ADR) are one of the common causes of hospital admissions and pose a significant clinical and economic burden on the healthcare system. The Adverse Drug Reaction Monitoring Centre (AMC) in JIPMER functioning under the Pharmacovigilance Programme of India (PvPI) plays a vital role in ensuring medication safety by routinely detecting and monitoring ADRs. Hence, this study aimed to assess the characteristics of ADR reported from 2010 to 2020 in AMC JIPMER and to detect signals, if any.

Objective

To study the characteristics of Adverse Drug Reactions (ADR) reported to a regional ADR monitoring center from 2010 to 2020 and to detect signals of disproportionate reporting (SDRs) if any from the reported ADRs.

Materials and Methods

A total of 6007 ADR reports with a single suspect drug were included for analysis from 2010 to 2020. The characteristics of these reports, including patient’s age and gender, Number and percentage of ADRs, the causality of ADR using WHO UMC (World Health Organization-Uppsala Monitoring Centre) scale, the seriousness of the ADR, and outcome were collected from the ADR reports. MedDRA (Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities) Preferred Terms (PT) were used to classify adverse drug reactions. Causality analysis using the Naranjo Algorithm and Preventability using Modified Schumock and Thornton criteria were performed for the ADRs. The number and percentage of severe ADRs were analyzed. The System Organ class of all the ADRs was enumerated. ADRs not mentioned in the US FDA (United States Food and Drug Administration) product label (unlabelled reactions) were documented. Unlabeled reactions with ≥3 ADR reports were included for signal detection by disproportionality analysis.

Results

Antineoplastic drugs, followed by antimicrobials, anticonvulsants, Anti snake venom, and NSAID were the most common drugs implicated in ADRs. Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders were the most common System Organ Class (SOC) involved in the ADRs. Among the 6007 reports, 19.2% were serious ADRs. Most of the ADR reports were of possible causality followed by probable and certain as per WHO UMC and Naranjo causality scales. Only ten ADRs were preventable and one reaction (Tamoxifen-induced neuropathy) was eligible for signal detection. Disproportionality analysis using a 2x2 contingency table showed insignificant signal detection using the Reporting Odds Ratio (ROR) and Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR).

Conclusion

Analysis of ADRs from an ADR Monitoring center functioning in a tertiary care hospital shows antineoplastic drugs to be the most common drugs associated with adverse drug reactions, with rash being the most common adverse effect. The majority of the ADRs were not preventable. No Signals of Disproportionate Reporting (SDR) were detected in our study.

© 2025 Bentham Science Publishers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/cds/10.2174/0115748863317987241015034413
2024-10-21
2025-10-15

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/cds/10.2174/0115748863317987241015034413
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. SultanaJ. CutroneoP. TrifiròG. Clinical and economic burden of adverse drug reactions.J. Pharmacol. Pharmacother.201341_supplSuppl. 1S73S7710.4103/0976‑500X.12095724347988
     [Google Scholar]
  2. LavanA.H. GallagherP. Predicting risk of adverse drug reactions in older adults.Ther. Adv. Drug Saf.201671112210.1177/204209861561547226834959
     [Google Scholar]
  3. AlshammariT.M. Drug safety: The concept, inception and its importance in patients’ health.Saudi Pharm. J.201624440541210.1016/j.jsps.2014.04.00827330371
     [Google Scholar]
  4. PirmohamedM. JamesS. MeakinS. GreenC. ScottA.K. WalleyT.J. FarrarK. ParkB.K. BreckenridgeA.M. Adverse drug reactions as cause of admission to hospital: Prospective analysis of 18 820 patients.BMJ20043297456151910.1136/bmj.329.7456.1515231615
     [Google Scholar]
  5. ChanS.L. AngX. SaniL.L. NgH.Y. WintherM.D. LiuJ.J. BrunhamL.R. ChanA. Prevalence and characteristics of adverse drug reactions at admission to hospital: A prospective observational study.Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol.20168261636164610.1111/bcp.1308127640819
     [Google Scholar]
  6. PatelT.K. PatelP.B. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in Indian hospitals: A systematic review of prospective studies.Curr. Drug Saf.201611212813610.2174/157488631066615092110452326391424
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Pharmacovigilance Programme of India. National Coordination Centre, Indian Pharmacopoeia Commission.2016Available from: https://www.ipc.gov.in/PvPI/about.html
  8. KalaiselvanV. ThotaP. SinghG. Pharmacovigilance Programme of India: Recent developments and future perspectives.Indian J. Pharmacol.201648662462810.4103/0253‑7613.19485528066097
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Safety of medicines: A guide to detecting and reporting adverse drug reactions: Why health professionals need to take action.2002Available at https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/67378/W?sequence=1 [Cited 2022 Apr 7]
  10. HaubenM. MadiganD. GerritsC.M. WalshL. Van PuijenbroekE.P. The role of data mining in pharmacovigilance.Expert Opin. Drug Saf.20054592994810.1517/14740338.4.5.92916111454
     [Google Scholar]
  11. HaubenM. ReichL. Communication of findings in pharmacovigilance: use of the term “signal” and the need for precision in its use.Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol.2005615-647948010.1007/s00228‑005‑0951‑415991039
     [Google Scholar]
  12. The use of the WHO-UMC system for standardized case causality assessment.2013Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/WHO-causalityassessment [Cited 2022 July 12].
  13. ShahS. AminS. DesaiM. ShahA. MaheriyaK.M. An analysis of adverse drug reactions in extremes of age group at tertiary care teaching hospital.Perspect. Clin. Res.201892707510.4103/picr.PICR_64_1729862199
     [Google Scholar]
  14. OrimoH. ItoH. SuzukiT. ArakiA. HosoiT. SawabeM. Reviewing the definition of elderly.Nihon Ronen Igakkai Zasshi2006431273410.3143/geriatrics.43.2716521795
     [Google Scholar]
  15. MorleyG. Adverse event reporting: A brief overview of MedDRA.Med. Writ.201423211311610.1179/2047480614Z.000000000208
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Introductory Guide MedDRA Version 23.0.2020Available at: https://www.meddra.org/news-andevents/ news/meddra-version-230-update-all-supported-languages-available [cited 2022 Jul 5]
  17. NaranjoC.A. BustoU. SellersE.M. SandorP. RuizI. RobertsE.A. JanecekE. DomecqC. GreenblattD.J. A method for estimating the probability of adverse drug reactions.Clin. Pharmacol. Ther.198130223924510.1038/clpt.1981.1547249508
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Adverse Drug Reaction Probability Scale (Naranjo) in drug induced liver injury.2012Available from: https://www.ncbi. nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK548069/ [Cited 2022 July 12]
  19. SchumockG.T. ThorntonJ.P. Focusing on the preventability of adverse drug reactions.Hosp. Pharm.199227653810118597
     [Google Scholar]
  20. FDA Online Label Repository2024Available from https://labels.fda.gov/ Accessed 2024 Apr 22.
  21. Contingency table calculator2018Available from: https://openvigil.pharmacology.uni-kiel.de/contingency-tablecalculator. php Cited 2022 Jul 24.
  22. PoluzziE. RaschiE. PiccinniC. De PontiF. Data Mining Techniques in Pharmacovigilance: Analysis of the Publicly Accessible FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (AERS). In: Data Mining Applications in Engineering and MedicineIntechOpenCY, Rijeka2012
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Guideline on the use of statistical signal detection methods in the Eudravigilance data analysis system.2006Available from: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/regulatory-proceduralguideline/ draft-guideline-use-statistical-signal-detection-methods-eudravigilancedata- analysis-system_en.pdf [Cited 2022 May 25]
  24. van PuijenbroekE.P. BateA. LeufkensH.G.M. LindquistM. OrreR. EgbertsA.C.G. A comparison of measures of disproportionality for signal detection in spontaneous reporting systems for adverse drug reactions.Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf.200211131010.1002/pds.66811998548
     [Google Scholar]
  25. ParkK. SoukavongM. KimJ. KwonK. JinX. LeeJ. YangB.R. ParkB.J. Signal detection of imipenem compared to other drugs from Korea adverse event reporting system database.Yonsei Med. J.201758356456910.3349/ymj.2017.58.3.56428332362
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) IBM CorpIBM SPSS Statistics for Windows2010Armonk, NY: IBM CorpVersion 19.0.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Phenytoin Prescribing information.2021available from: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2021/084349s087lbl.pdf Accessed 2024 Apr 22.
  28. Capecitabine prescribing information.2022available from: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2022/020896s044s045s046s047s048s049s050s051lbl.pdf Accessed 2024 Apr 22.
  29. Methotrexate Prescribing information2020available from: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2020/040054s015,s016,s017.pdf Accessed 2024 Apr 22.
  30. Sorafenib Prescribing Information2020Available from: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2020/021923s023lbl.pdf Accessed 2024 Apr 22
  31. Tamoxifen Prescribing Information2018Available from: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2018/021807s005lbl.pdf Accessed 2024 Apr 22
  32. Cyclosporine Prescribing Information2019Available from: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2019/050715s035,050716s038lbl.pdf Accessed 2024 Apr 22
  33. Rabeprazole Prescribing Information2014Available from: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2014/020973s035204736s005lbl.pdf Accessed 2024 Apr 22.
  34. Atropine prescribing Information2018Available from: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2018/209260s000lbl.pdf Accessed 2024 Apr 22.
  35. SinghA. JainA. SoniM. ShuklaP. LahonJ. VermaA.K. Pattern of adverse drug reactions reported at a tertiary care teaching hospital in northern India.Int. J. Basic Clin. Pharmacol.20209462563210.18203/2319‑2003.ijbcp20201189
     [Google Scholar]
  36. LeJ. NguyenT. LawA.V. HoddingJ. Adverse drug reactions among children over a 10-year period.Pediatrics2006118255556210.1542/peds.2005‑242916882807
     [Google Scholar]
  37. SharmaM. BaghelR. ThakurS. AdwalS. Surveillance of adverse drug reactions at an adverse drug reaction monitoring centre in Central India: A 7-year surveillance study.BMJ Open20211110e05273710.1136/bmjopen‑2021‑05273734607871
     [Google Scholar]
  38. DaulatM.P. AbhishakeA.V.J. SinghP. RajB. A prospective study of adverse drug reactions in a tertiary care teaching hospital.Int. J. Basic Clin. Pharmacol.201871965196910.18203/2319‑2003.ijbcp20183931
     [Google Scholar]
  39. D’CruzS. SachdevA. TiwariP. Mandavi Adverse drug reactions & their risk factors among Indian ambulatory elderly patients.Indian J. Med. Res.2012136340441023041733
     [Google Scholar]
  40. KecheY. GaikwadN. DhaneriaS. Preventability, predictability, severity and causality assessment of adverse drug reactions reported from a teaching hospital in chhattisgarh.J. Family Med. Prim. Care20211072541254510.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_2374_2034568133
     [Google Scholar]
  41. MarquesJ. Ribeiro-VazI. PereiraA.C. PolóniaJ. A survey of spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions in 10 years of activity in a pharmacovigilance centre in Portugal.Int. J. Pharm. Pract.201422427528210.1111/ijpp.1207824188533
     [Google Scholar]
  42. JoseJ. RaoP. Pattern of adverse drug reactions notified by spontaneous reporting in an Indian tertiary care teaching hospital.Pharmacol. Res.200654322623310.1016/j.phrs.2006.05.00316781163
     [Google Scholar]
  43. YanH. WangP. YangF. ChengW. ChenC. ZhaiB. ZhouY. Anticancer therapy-induced adverse drug reactions in children and preventive and control measures.Front. Pharmacol.202415132922010.3389/fphar.2024.132922038425652
     [Google Scholar]
  44. BlumenthalK.G. PeterJ.G. TrubianoJ.A. PhillipsE.J. Antibiotic allergy.Lancet20193931016718319810.1016/S0140‑6736(18)32218‑930558872
     [Google Scholar]
  45. KiechleE.S. McKennaC.M. CarterH. ZeymoA. GelfandB.W. DeGeorgeL.M. SauterD.A. Mazer-AmirshahiM. Medication allergy and adverse drug reaction documentation discrepancies in an urban, academic emergency department.J. Med. Toxicol.201814427227710.1007/s13181‑018‑0671‑729968185
     [Google Scholar]
  46. HaramburuF. BégaudB. MorideY. Temporal trends in spontaneous reporting of unlabelled adverse drug reactions.Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol.199744329930110.1046/j.1365‑2125.1997.t01‑1‑00573.x9296328
     [Google Scholar]
  47. AbrahamA. PurushothamanC. DamienD. JamesJ. RodriguesP.A. SinghG. Efficacy of sorafenib therapy in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in Indian population.Hepatoma Res.20162822422810.20517/2394‑5079.2016.03
     [Google Scholar]
  48. FindlerG. LavyS. Transient hemiparesis: A rare manifestation of diphenylhydantoin toxicity.J. Neurosurg.197950568568710.3171/jns.1979.50.5.0685430165
     [Google Scholar]
  49. SandykR. Transient hemiparesis—a rare complication of phenytoin toxicity.Postgrad. Med. J.19835969560160210.1136/pgmj.59.695.6016415639
     [Google Scholar]
  50. DewanP. YadavM. JaiswalP. GomberS. Transient hemiparesis: A rare complication of phenytoin intoxication.J. Pediatr. Neurosci.2019141585910.4103/JPN.JPN_84_1831316648
     [Google Scholar]
  51. SavolainenH.A. Leirisalo-RepoM. Eosinophilia as a side-effect of methotrexate in patients with chronic arthritis.Clin. Rheumatol.200120643243410.1007/PL0001121311771529
     [Google Scholar]
  52. SofiF. ParreyA. AhmadM. Eosinophilia in rheumatoid arthritis patients and its relation to disease activity: A single center experience from Kashmir, India.Egypt. Rheumatol.2017392656710.1016/j.ejr.2016.10.002
     [Google Scholar]
  53. StewartA.F. Battaglini-SabettaJ. MillstoneL. Hypocalcemia-induced pustular psoriasis of von Zumbusch. New experience with an old syndrome.Ann. Intern. Med.1984100567768010.7326/0003‑4819‑100‑5‑6776546844
     [Google Scholar]
  54. ChaudhariS. RathiS. Correlation of serum calcium levels with severity of psoriasis.Int J Res Dermatol.20184459159410.18203/issn.2455‑4529.IntJResDermatol20184467
     [Google Scholar]
  55. MeyboomR.H.B. EgbertsA.C.G. EdwardsI.R. HeksterY.A. de KoningF.H.P. GribnauF.W.J. Principles of signal detection in pharmacovigilance.Drug Saf.199716635536510.2165/00002018‑199716060‑000029241490
     [Google Scholar]
  56. HaubenM. AronsonJ.K. Defining ‘signal’ and its subtypes in pharmacovigilance based on a systematic review of previous definitions.Drug Saf.20093229911010.2165/00002018‑200932020‑0000319236117
     [Google Scholar]
  57. PalaniappanM. SelvarajanS. SrinivasamurthyS. ChandrasekaranA. Oyster shell calcium induced parotid swelling.J. Pharmacol. Pharmacother.20145425625710.4103/0976‑500X.14244625422569
     [Google Scholar]
  58. DasS. BeheraS.K. RamakrishnanK. GanesapandianM. MunuswamyH. SelvarajanS. A complex interaction between antitubercular treatment and acenocoumarol.Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol.202076113313510.1007/s00228‑019‑02776‑031664473
     [Google Scholar]
  59. BeheraS.K. XavierA.S. SelvarajanS. MunuswamyH. HaridasanS. SrinivasB.H. Acenocoumarol as an alternative anticoagulant in a patient with warfarin‐related nephropathy.Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol.20188451068107110.1111/bcp.1354129424022
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/cds/10.2174/0115748863317987241015034413
Loading
A Retrospective Observational Study of Adverse Drug Reactions (ADR) Reported to ADR Monitoring Centre from 2010 to 2020
Curr Drug Saf 20, 349 (2025); https://doi.org/10.2174/0115748863317987241015034413
/content/journals/cds/10.2174/0115748863317987241015034413
/content/journals/cds/10.2174/0115748863317987241015034413
Loading

Data & Media loading...


  • Article Type:     Research Article
Keyword(s): Adverse drug reactions; medical dictionary for regulatory activities; modified schumock and thornton; naranjo algorithm; signal; spontaneous reporting; system organ classification; WHO causality scale

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error
Please enter a valid_number test