AIM: Evaluate the differences in the degree of AEFI on each type of COVID-19 vaccine platform.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The research used a quantitative analytical observational design with a cross sectional approach. Data collection from participants was carried out by filling out questionnaires. The collected data was tabulated and statistical analysis was carried out.
RESULTS: A total of 217 respondents who received three doses of vaccine participated in the study. Of the 651 vaccine doses studied, the results showed that there were significant differences in the degree of AEFI between the three types of vaccine platforms. The degree of AEFI was significantly different (p < 0.05) between each type of vaccine platform, with the degree of AEFI starting from the lowest, namely inactivated vaccine, then viral vector vaccine and the highest was nucleic acid vaccine.
CONCLUSION: The degree of AEFI differs significantly between each COVID-19 vaccine platform. The degree of AEFI, from the mildest to the most severe, was inactivated vaccine, viral vector vaccine and nucleic acid vaccine. No serious AEFI was reported.
METHODS: A systematic and comprehensive articles search strategy was carried out in different seven electronic databases (PubMed, PubMed Central, Goggle Scholar, Ovid-SP, MEDLINE, Wiley Online Library, DergiPark) from 2010 to 2020. We searched to identify existing literature about cross-sectional observational studies investigating the KAP of HCPs regarding PV and ADRs reporting in different geographical regions of Turkey. Quality assessment and risk of bias were assessed among included studies.
RESULTS: Fifteen studies were chosen for full-text analysis. Finally, according to inclusion criteria, seven research articles were selected for systematic review. Overall, the KAP of HCPs varies across the studies. The lack of a standardized validated measuring tool to evaluate the KAP and differences in questionnaire items were the main limitations in included studies. Around, 69.1% (range: 54.6-100%) of HCPs were not aware of the national pharmacovigilance center in Turkey. About, 37.5% (range: 7.1-75.7%) of HCPs believed that reporting of ADRs is not important and 87.5% (range: 69.3-100%) stated that they never reported ADR previously during their practice. The most frequently highlighted barriers to PV were lack of time, uncertainty and did not know where to report.
CONCLUSION: This systematic review revealed a major KAP gap in Turkey towards PV activities. Low ADR reporting practice of HCPs was a major identified issue. The creation of a mandatory unified PV education intervention for future HCPs to rationally report ADR of drugs are crucial for a better healthcare system.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to externally validate the GerontoNet ADR risk score and to assess its validity in specific subpopulations of older inpatients.
METHODS: Data from the prospective CRIteria to assess appropriate Medication use among Elderly complex patients (CRIME) cohort were used. Dose-dependent and predictable ADRs were classified as type A, probable or definite ADRs were defined according to the Naranjo algorithm, and diagnostic accuracy was tested using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for a cut-off point of 4.
RESULTS: The mean age of the 1075 patients was 81.4 years (standard deviation 7.4) and the median number of drugs was 10 (range 7-13). At least one ADR was observed in 70 patients (6.5%); ADRs were classified as type A in 50 patients (4.7%) and defined as probable or definite in 41 patients (3.8%). Fair diagnostic accuracy to predict both type A and probable or definite ADRs was found in subpopulations aged <70 or ≥80 years with heart failure, diabetes, or a previous ADR. Good accuracy to predict type A ADRs was found in patients with a low body mass index (BMI; >18.5 kg/m2) and a Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score of >24/30 points, as well as in patients with osteoarthritis. The cut-off point of 4 points yielded very good sensitivity but poor specificity results in these subpopulations.
CONCLUSION: This study suggests that the GerontoNet ADR risk score might represent a pragmatic approach to identifying specific subpopulations of older inpatients at increased risk of an ADR with a fair to good diagnostic accuracy.
METHOD: A cross-sectional study was planned to approach potential respondents for the study. A self-administered questionnaire was delivered to community pharmacists/pharmacy technicians (N=292) practising in Dhaka, Bangladesh.
RESULTS: The overall response to the survey was 69.5% (n=203). The majority of the sample was comprised of pharmacy technicians (152, 74.9%) who possessed a diploma in pharmacy, followed by pharmacists (37, 18.2%) and others (12, 5.9%). Overall, 72 (35.5%) of the respondents disclosed that they had experienced an ADR at their pharmacy, yet more than half (105, 51.7%) were not familiar with the existence of an ADR reporting body in Bangladesh. Exploring the barriers to the reporting of ADRs, it was revealed that the top four barriers to ADR reporting were 'I do not know how to report (Relative Importance Index (RII)=0.998)', 'reporting forms are not available (0.996)', 'I am not motivated to report (0.997)' and 'Unavailability of professional environment to discuss about ADR (RII=0.939)'. In addition to these, a majority (141, 69.46%) were not confident about the classification of ADRs (RII=0.889) and were afraid of legal liabilities associated with reporting ADRs (RII=0.806). Moreover, a lack of knowledge about pharmacotherapy and the detection of ADRs was another major factor hindering their reporting (RII=0.731).
CONCLUSIONS: The Directorate of Drug Administration in Bangladesh needs to consider the results of this study to help it improve and simplify ADR reporting in Bangladeshi community pharmacy settings.
METHODS: Data on all ADRs reported to the National Pharmaceutical Control Bureau between 2000 and 2013 for individuals aged from birth to 17 years old were analysed with respect to age and gender, type of reporter, suspected medicines (using the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical classification), category of ADR (according to system organ class) as well as the severity of the ADR.
RESULTS: In total, 11,523 ADR reports corresponding to 22,237 ADRs were analysed, with half of these reporting one ADR per report. Vaccines comprised 55.7% of the 11,523 ADR reports with the remaining being drug related ADRs. Overall, 63.9% of ADRs were reported for paediatric patients between 12 and 17 years of age, with the majority of ADRs reported in females (70.7%). The most common ADRs reported were from the following system organ classes: application site disorders (32.2%), skin and appendages disorders (20.6%), body as a whole general disorders (12.8%) and central and peripheral nervous system disorders (11.2%). Meanwhile, ADRs in respect to anti-infectives for systemic use (2194/5106; 43.0%) were the most frequently reported across all age groups, followed by drugs from the nervous system (1095/5106; 21.4%). Only 0.28% of the ADR cases were reported as fatal. A large proportion of the reports were received from healthcare providers in government health facilities.
DISCUSSION: ADR reports concerning vaccines and anti-infectives were the most commonly reported in children, and are mainly seen in adolescents, with most of the ADRs manifesting in skin reactions. The majority of the ADR reports were received from nurses in the public sector, reporting ADRs associated with vaccine administration. The low fatality rate of ADR cases reported could potentially be caused by reporting bias due to the very low reporting percentage from the private healthcare institutions. This study indicates that ADR rates among Malaysian children are higher than in developed countries. Constant ADR reporting and monitoring, especially in respect to paediatric patients, should be undertaken to ensure their safety.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Given the current lack of evidence on quality and safety improvements and on the cost-benefits associated with the introduction of eHealth applications, there should be a focus on implementing more mature technologies; it is also important that eHealth applications should be evaluated against a comprehensive and rigorous set of measures, ideally at all stages of their application life cycle.
METHODS: This cross-sectional survey collected data from May 2014 to December 2015. Questionnaires seeking to collect information on resources, processes, roles and responsibility, and functions of PV systems were sent to relevant persons in the ASEAN countries. Functions of PV centers were measured using the minimum World Health Organization requirements for a functional national PV system. Performances of PV centers were measured by the following: (1) the indicators related to the average number of individual case safety reports (ICSR); (2) presence of signal detection activities and subsequent action; and (3) contribution to the global vigilance database.
RESULTS: Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam completed the survey. PV systems in four surveyed countries (Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand) achieved all aspects of the World Health Organization minimum requirement for a functional national PV system; the remaining countries were deemed to have unclear communication strategies and/or no official advisory committee. Average numbers of recent ICSR national returns ranged from 7 to 3817 reports/year/million population; three countries (Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand) demonstrated good performance in reporting system and reported signal detection activities and subsequent actions. All participating countries had submitted ICSRs to the Uppsala Monitoring Center during the survey period (2013-2015).
CONCLUSIONS: Four participating countries had functional PV systems. PV capacity, functionality, and legislative framework varied depending on local healthcare ecosystem networks. Implementing effective communication strategies and/or technical assistance from the advisory committee are needed to strengthen PV in ASEAN. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the rate, factors, and medications associated with ADR-related hospitalisations among HF patients.
SETTING: Two government hospitals in Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
METHODS: This was a prospective, observational study. Consecutive adult HF patients who were admitted between December 2011 and November 2012 to the cardiology units were included in this study. The circumstances of their admission were analysed.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: ADRs-related admissions of HF patients to cardiology units were identified and further assessed for their nature, causality, and preventability.
RESULTS: Of 511 admissions, 34 were due to ADR-related hospitalisation (6.65, 95 % confidence interval 4.8-8.5 %). Number of medications taken by HF patients was the only predictors of ADR-related hospitalisations, where higher number of medications was associated with the odd ratio of 1.11 (95 % CI, 1.03-1.20, P = 0.005). More than one-third of ADR-related hospitalisations (35 %) were preventable The most frequent drugs causing ADR-related hospitalisation were diuretics (32 %), followed by non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (15 %), thiazolidinediones (9 %), anticoagulants (9 %), antiplatelets (6 %), and aldosterone blockers (6 %).
CONCLUSION: ADR-related hospitalisations account for 6.7 % of admissions of HF patients to cardiac units, one-third of which are preventable. Number of medications taken by HF patients is the only predictors of ADR-related hospitalisations. Diuretic induced volume depletion, and sodium and water retention caused by thiazolidinediones and NSAIDs medications are the major causes of ADR-related hospitalisations of HF patients.