Comparing patient reported and medical record data of adverse drug reactions to anti-seizure drugs.

BACKGROUND: Anti-seizure drugs (ASDs) can potentially cause serious adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Patient self-reporting can increase the rate of ADR detection, but studies examining patient self-reporting of ADRs caused by ASDs are lacking. AIM: To determine the characteristics of ADRs reported by patients receiving ASDs, assess laboratory data and medical record confirmation of patient-reported ADRs, and explore factors associated with laboratory data and medical record confirmation. METHOD: A self-reporting questionnaire was distributed to patients prescribed ASDs at outpatient clinics. Patients assessed the causality of suspected ADRs using Causality Assessment Tool. Naranjo's algorithm was used by researchers for causality assessment. Medical records were used to gather information on ADR symptoms, ASD medication, and abnormal laboratory data. RESULTS: From 478 distributed questionnaires, 93.1% completed the questionnaire and 67.4% of respondents reported at least one ADR. The most common ADRs were drowsiness (50.7%), dizziness (9.7%), and ataxia (4.3%). For causality, suspected ADRs were classified as possible in 52.3% of cases and probable in 46.3% of cases by patients, and possible in 64.7% of cases and probable in 25.7% of cases by researchers. Only 12.7% of patients had laboratory data and/or medical record confirmation of suspected ADRs. The psychiatry clinic was less likely to confirm suspected ADRs compared to the epilepsy clinic (OR = 0.412, p = 0.022). CONCLUSION: Confirmation of patient-reported ADRs with either laboratory data or medical records was uncommon. Recording patient-reported ADRs in patients' medical history and monitoring laboratory tests related to patient-reported symptoms should be promoted to increase the safety of ASD treatment.

Accuracy in patient-reported adverse drug reactions and their recognition: a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: The causality assessment tool can be utilized to assist patients in identifying adverse drug reactions (ADRs). AIM: To evaluate the accuracy of the causality assessment tool for patients identifying ADRs compared to assessments made by pharmacists, and to explore how patients recall and recognize symptoms as ADRs. METHOD: Mixed methods study consisting of self-administered questionnaires (phase 1) and semi-structured, face-to-face interviews (phase 2) with patients who had experienced ADRs in the past year at a tertiary care hospital in Thailand. RESULTS: Out of 769 questionnaires, 716 were returned and 622 of these were both valid and had at least one ADR (86.8%). Classification of patient-reported symptoms using the causality assessment tool found 12 (1.9%) highly-probable ADRs, 399 (64.1%) probable ADRs, 207 (33.3%) possible ADRs, and 4 (0.6%) that were not classified as ADRs. There was fair agreement between patient-assessed and pharmacist-assessed causality classifications using the Naranjo algorithm (K = 0.268) and the World Health Organization Uppsala Monitoring Centre (WHO-UMC) criteria (K = 0.373). The timing relationship between the occurrence of symptoms and administration of a suspected drug was the most frequently mentioned reason that patients gave for recalling and recognizing suspected ADRs. CONCLUSION: Promoting the causality assessment tool for use by patients in collaboration with healthcare professionals is likely to enhance patients' ability to correctly identify ADRs and ultimately contribute to increased medication safety.

Severity and Management of Adverse Drug Reactions Reported by Patients and Healthcare Professionals: A Cross-Sectional Survey.

Adverse drug reaction (ADR) severity levels are mainly rated by healthcare professionals (HCPs), but patient ratings are limited. This study aimed to compare patient-rated and pharmacist-rated ADR severity levels and determined methods employed for ADR management and prevention by patients and HCPs. A cross-sectional survey was conducted in outpatients visiting two hospitals. Patients were asked about ADR experiences using a self-administered questionnaire, and additional information was retrieved from the medical records. In total, 617 out of 5594 patients had experienced ADRs (11.0%), but 419 patients were valid (68.0%). Patients commonly reported that their ADR severity level was moderate (39.4%), whereas pharmacists rated the ADRs as mild (52.5%). There was little agreement between patient-rated and pharmacist-rated ADR severity levels (κ = 0.144; p < 0.001). The major method of ADR management by physicians was drug withdrawal (84.7%), while for patients, it was physician consultation (67.5%). The main methods for ADR prevention by patients and HCPs were carrying an allergy card (37.2%) and recording drug allergy history (51.1%), respectively. A higher level of ADR bothersomeness was associated with higher ADR severity levels (p < 0.001). Patients and HCPs rated ADR severity and used ADR management and prevention methods differently. However, patient rating of ADR severity is a potential signal for severe ADR detection of HCPs.

Confidence and accuracy in identification of adverse drug reactions reported by outpatients.

Background Patient reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) could supplement the existing reporting system and contribute to early detection of ADRs. The confidence in ADR identification and their attribution of ADRs were limited to outpatients. Objective To determine the type and frequency of ADRs reported by outpatients, to evaluate confidence and accuracy in ADR identification as well as contributing factors. Setting University hospital in northeastern Thailand Method Cross-sectional study using questionnaires distributed to 500 outpatients who claimed to have experienced an ADR. Confidence in identifying ADRs was measured by visual analogue score (VAS), while accuracy of reported ADRs was determined using Naranjo algorithm and WHO criteria. Main outcome measure Number and type of ADRs, confidence rating and accuracy category. Results In total, 390 outpatients completed the questionnaire (response rate = 78.0%). Rash (19.0%), nausea/vomiting (7.4%), and dizziness (5.8%) were the top three reported ADRs. Sixty-one percent of respondents rated their level of confidence in identifying ADRs as high (VAS 9.2 ± 0.95), which was associated with having underlying diseases (OR 1.93), low number of reported symptoms (OR 0.38) and severe ADRs (OR 1.33). Causality assessment was classified as true ADRs in 90.0% and 88.9% of cases, using Naranjo algorithm and WHO criteria, respectively. Respondents with low number of reported symptoms (OR 0.27) and high level of confidence had greater accuracy in ADR identification (OR 1.11). Conclusion The outpatients reported a high proportion of potential ADRs with high confidence and accuracy. Patient reporting of ADRs has potential to support the pharmacovigilance system.