Prevalence, seriousness and effect of previous adverse drug reactions on prescribing during acute medical admission.

BACKGROUND: Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are associated with significant morbidity, mortality and cost. Knowledge of the prevalence of previous ADRs at admission highlights the potential burden of ADR risks to hospital in-patients. However, the proportion of acute medical admissions with previous ADRs and how this affects inpatient prescribing is uncertain. OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence and seriousness of previous ADRs in newly admitted medical patients, and ascertain the effect of previous ADRs on choice of prescribed medications during acute hospitalisation. Also, we compared the seriousness of ADRs as classified by patients and standard definition. SETTING: Acute admissions within the medical directorate of a district general hospital serving a population of about 280,000 people in the north east of England. METHOD: Newly admitted medical patients over a period of 8 weeks were prospectively screened to identify those with a previous history of ADR using patient interviews. Reviews of hospital notes and general practice summaries were undertaken for patients we were unable to interview. A structured form was used to collect relevant data from patients identified to have previous ADRs from the aforementioned sources. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalence and seriousness of previous ADRs, and the proportion of acute medical prescriptions affected by previous ADRs. RESULTS: A total of 509 acute admissions were screened. Of these, 19.8 % had ADRs to previously prescribed medications. Whereas 62.7 % of patients deemed their ADRs to be serious, only 20.9 % of previous ADRs were so by standard definition. 18.8 % of previous ADRs affected choice of prescribed medications during the present admission but this was not influenced by the seriousness of previous ADRs. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of previous ADRs at admission is high and significantly affects choice of drugs used during acute hospitalisation. There are clear inconsistencies between patient perspective and standard definition of the seriousness of ADRs which is likely to be due to patients' heightened subjective perception of harm.

Abnormalities of sympathetic and parasympathetic autonomic function in subjects with defaecation syncope.

UNLABELLED: Defaecation syncope is defined as blacking out at, or around, the time of defaecation. It is associated with increased mortality; however, patients rarely voluntarily report symptoms. We have examined autonomic function in a cohort of patients with defaecation syncope. METHODS: We prospectively identified all subjects referred to our unit with symptoms of defaecation syncope or presyncope on direct questioning. All subjects had autonomic function tests using beat to beat blood pressure measurement synchronized with R-R interval allowing real time assessment of autonomic function. RESULTS: Seven patients were identified who presented with defaecation syncope. Compared with age and sex matched controls, subjects had abnormalities of both sympathetic and parasympathetic autonomic function consistent with mild-moderate autonomic failure. On specific intervention syncope stopped in all subjects: 3 had culprit medication withdrawn, 3 received medication to increase blood pressure and 1 in whom cardioinhibition was demonstrated improved with permanent pacemaker insertion. Two subjects who had colonoscopy had profound haemodynamic changes during the procedure associated with syncope. CONCLUSIONS: Symptoms of syncope on defaecation are associated with autonomic failure. With appropriate therapeutic intervention our subjects all improved.