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.
METHOD: A randomized controlled open-label study was performed at the cardiothoracic intensive care unit of Penang Hospital, Malaysia. A total of 28 patients who underwent cardiac surgeries were randomly assigned to receive either dexmedetomidine or morphine. Both groups were similar in terms of preoperative baseline characteristics. Efficacy measures included sedation scores and pain intensity and requirements for additional sedative/analgesic. Mean heart rate and arterial blood pressure were used as safety measures. Other measures were additional inotropes, extubation time and other concurrent medications.
RESULTS: The mean dose of dexmedetomidine infused was 0.12 [SD 0.03] μg kg⁻¹ h⁻¹, while that of morphine was 13.2 [SD 5.84] μg kg⁻¹ h⁻¹. Dexmedetomidine group showed more benefits in sedation and pain levels, additional sedative/analgesic requirements, and extubation time. No significant differences between the two groups for the outcome measures, except heart rate, which was significantly lower in the dexmedetomidine group.
CONCLUSION: This preliminary study suggests that dexmedetomidine was at least comparable to morphine in terms of efficacy and safety among cardiac surgery patients. Further studies with larger samples are recommended in order to determine the significant effects of the outcome measures.