Heart Disease Fibromyalgia High Cholesterol Danger? Toxic Metals Free Radicals -- Primer IV Chelation Therapy Wrong Diet Causes Diabetes	Vibrant Life Home Web Family Of Three Oral Chelation Formulas The Wednesday Letter The Hubbard Human Detoxification Program Hopeless Diseases -- Invented to Sell Drugs Wrong Relationship Cause of Disease Brain Chemical Imbalance Dr. Garry F. Gordon	Ultimate Resource On Chelation Therapy Home Page Shopping Cart	Separate Search Page or search below
Prevent Cancer	Oral Chelation Therapy Other	Karl Loren's Policy On Psychiatric Drugs Destruction Of American Education	Write To Karl Loren	Table Of Contents

Drugs And Adverse Drug Reactions -- Leading  Cause of Death

Source

Drugs and Adverse Drug Reactions  
 
How Worried Should We Be? 
 
  David W. Bates, MD, MSc

 

Physicians can hardly pick up a medical journal or a newspaper today without reading about some new medication, and how it promises to completely change the course of a disease or relieve some troublesome symptom. Indeed, the wonders of pharmacology are numerous. It is clear, for example, that after a myocardial infarction patients will live longer if they take -blockers ¹ and that patients with congestive heart failure live longer and feel better when they take angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors.² However, medications are a double-edged sword.

Much of the recent work on problems with medications has focused primarily on errors in medication use, which are important.³ But, adverse drug reactions (ADRs) that are not preventable given our current state of knowledge are a more common problem, with a greater human burden. In this issue of JAMA, Lazarou and colleagues⁴ attempt to assess the extent of this problem. They performed a meta-analysis of the prospective studies evaluating the incidence of ADRs in hospitalized patients. Even after excluding errors in drug administration, the authors found that ADRs may be the fourth to sixth leading cause of death, and that drug-related injuries occur in 6.7% of hospitalized patients. These data suggest that health care practicioners may miss or pass over many ADRs that occur, even among fatal events.

Can these data be correct? There are a number of concerns about the way the study was done, although the authors adhered to the generally accepted criteria for meta-analyses. ⁵ First, an inherent limitation of meta-analysis is that combining the results of small, heterogeneous studies does not necessarily bring one closer to truth, particularly if the processes used to identify and to validate the presence of the events were heterogeneous. ⁶ Second, the hospitals studied are probably not representative of hospitals at large. Such studies are more likely to be conducted in academic, tertiary care hospitals; these hospitals have sicker patients, and these patients have more ADRs. Another issue is whether the sites of care sampled within the institutions were representative of the institutions. All these factors could inflate the incidence estimate. It is also surprising that the ADR rate remained constant over time, despite increasing patient acuity and use of larger numbers of medications. Some other data⁷ suggest that the frequency of problems with medications actually may be increasing.

Nonetheless, these data are important, and even if the true incidence of ADRs is somewhat lower than that reported by Lazarou et al,⁴ it is still high, and much higher than generally recognized. Why is this the case? One reason is that hospitals have had strong incentives not to identify too many of these events. Reporting large numbers of adverse events and any serious preventable event brings intense scrutiny from regulators and the public. Thus, most hospitals have relied on spontaneous reporting, which only identifies about 1 in 20 adverse reactions and leads to the perception that injuries from ADRs are less common than they really are.⁸ Also, less research has been done in this area compared with other major causes of death, such as heart disease or cancer. No single specialty or organ system is involved, the Food and Drug Administration is not a funding agency, and research funding for this important area has been scarce.

Another issue is whether tracking nonpreventable drug-related injuries is important, especially after it is known that a specific drug can cause a specific reaction. It is, for several reasons: First, avoiding administration of the same medication to the patient in the future requires knowing and documenting that the patient had a previous allergy or sensitivity. When a patient develops an allergy or sensitivity, it is often not recorded, and patients receive drugs to which they have known allergies or sensitivities with disturbing frequency.³ Second, many events not preventable today will likely be preventable in the future, by one of a variety of mechanisms. For instance, design of new and safer drugs is spurred by such data. A good example is development of fexofenidine to replace terfenidine. Terfendine was associated with cardiac arrhythmias including torsades de pointes, particularly when used in combination with several other commonly used medications, including erythromycin.⁹ Substitution of the new agenta terfenidine metabolite that has the therapeutic properties but not the adverse consequences of terfenidineseems likely to dramatically reduce this risk. Moreover, it is likely that clinicians will improve their ability to predict which patients will experience adverse consequences from specific drugs.

If hospitals are to monitor for ADRs, what approach should they use? Chart review is too expensive to be practical on a routine basis.³ Fortunately, computer surveillance can be used to assist in finding adverse drug events, and this approach is much more efficient than chart review. ^{10, 11} Today, most hospitals could not immediately implement such a system given the present state of their information systems, but they should be able to do so soon.

But why should hospitals invest in comprehensive monitoring for ADRs, given today's multiple competing priorities? One reason is new regulations, which are being developed by the Health Care Financing Administration.¹² These regulations, released with a request for comment in the Federal Register¹² in November, would require hospitals to routinely monitor for adverse drug events and would impose sanctions if they fail to do so. However, as currently written, the regulations seem untenable for a number of reasons, including the requirement for hospitals to perform expensive routine chart review. If rewritten, these regulations could provide a major impetus for quality. For example, hospitals could be required to demonstrate that they routinely measure adverse drug events and medication error rates.

For all medications, a key issue is whether the benefits outweigh the risks. The answer, as demonstrated by large numbers of randomized controlled trials, is yes, but that there must be more attention given to the risk side of the equation. Only after drugs leave the trial setting and are used in sicker patients do their true risks become apparent. Although some risks are inevitable, they can be significantly reduced, and learning more about these risks will make this possible.

 
 
Author/Article Information

 
From the Deparment of Clinical and Quality Analysis, Partners Healthcare Systems, Boston, Mass.
 
Reprints: David W. Bates, MD, MSc, Division of General Medicine & Primary Care, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA 02115 (e-mail: dwbates@bics.harvard.edu).

Editorials represent the opinions of the authors and The Journal and not those of the American Medical Association.

 
 

REFERENCES

 

1.
Furberg CD, May GS.
Effect of long-term prophylactic treatment on survival after myocardial infarction.
Am J Med.
1984;76:76-83.
MEDLINE
 

2.
Ambrosioni E, Borghi C, Magnani B.
The effect of the angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor zofenopril on mortality and morbidity after anterior myocardial infarction: the Survival of Myocardial Infarction Long-Term Evaluation (SMILE) Study Investigators.
N Engl J Med.
1995;332:80-85.
MEDLINE
 

3.
Bates DW, Cullen D, Laird N, et al.
Incidence of adverse drug events and potential adverse drug events: implications for prevention.
JAMA.
1995;274:29-34.
MEDLINE
 

4.
Lazarou J, Pomeranz BH, Corey PN.
Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a meta-analysis of prospective studies.
JAMA.
1998;279:1200-1205.
MEDLINE
 

5.
Oxman AD, Cook DJ, Guyatt GH, for the Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group.
Users' guides to the medical literature, VI: how to use an overview.
JAMA.
1994;272:1367-1371.
MEDLINE
 

6.
Feinstein AR.
Meta-analysis: statistical alchemy for the 21st century.
J Clin Epidemiol.
1995;48:71-79.
MEDLINE
 

7.
Phillips DP, Christenfeld N, Glynn LM.
Increase in US medication-error deaths between 1983 and 1993.
Lancet.
1998;351:643-644.
MEDLINE
 

8.
Cullen DJ, Bates DW, Small SD, Cooper JB, Nemeskal AR, Leape LL.
The incident reporting system does not detect adverse drug events: a problem for quality improvement.
Jt Comm J Qual Improv.
1995;21:541-548.
MEDLINE
 

9.
Rankin AC.
Non-sedating antihistamines and cardiac arrhythmia.
Lancet.
1997;350:1115-1116.
MEDLINE
 

10.
Classen DC, Pestotnik SL, Evans RS, Burke JP.
Computerized surveillance of adverse drug events in hospital patients.
JAMA.
1991;266:2847-2851.
MEDLINE
 

11.
Jha AK, Kuperman GJ, Teich JM, et al.
Identifying adverse drug events: development of a computer-based monitor and comparison to chart review and stimulated voluntary report.
J Am Med Inform Assoc.
1998;5:305-314.
MEDLINE
 

12.
Health Care Financing Administration.
Medicare and Medicaid programs; hospital conditions of participation; provider agreements and supplier approval,
62 Federal Register.
66726-66757 (1997).

 

---

I promise to answer your message -- click here to send me a personal message Dear Karl,

---

SUBSCRIBE:  The Wednesday Letter is a free electronic monthly newsletter written and published by Karl Loren.  You can view more than 50 back issues of this publication by clicking here.  The Wednesday Letter subscription list is maintained on a secure server, no name is ever given or sold to anyone, and it is never used except for this Newsletter.  It is automatically published on the Tuesday night just before the first Wednesday of every month.  You can subscribe to this free monthly electronic letter by entering your eMail address and name below.  You will then automatically receive a request for confirmation, sent to whatever address you have entered.  If you do NOT receive this confirmation request, then you will not be subscribed.  There may have been an error with your address and you should resubmit.  The letter is never sent twice to the same address -- so you do not have to worry about a duplicate subscription.  When you receive this confirmation request you must reply to it, or your subscription will not become active.  No one can subscribe your name, and address, without you being notified, and if you get an unwanted notice of subscription you only need to DO NOTHING and the subscription will NOT be active.

REMOVAL:  You can remove yourself from the subscription list in several different ways.  Click here to read about this entire newsletter system.  Every edition of The Wednesday Letter is delivered to your address with YOUR name and address in view on the letter, with a link that allows you to remove THAT name from the subscription list.  If you try to send this removal message from an address different from the one you used to send in your original confirmation, then you will get a warning notice first, sent to the subscription address, asking you to confirm that you want to be removed from the list -- by replying to THAT request for confirmation, you will then be automatically removed.  Thus, no one else can unsubscribe you, from some other computer, without your knowledge.  But, if you send in the unsubscribe notice from the same machine used to receive the Letter, then the removal from the subscription list is automatic.

Personal Message:  When you send a personal message to Karl Loren, you will receive a personal reply as per his instructions.  Karl pledges that every personal message will get a personal answer. When you provide your mail address, we will send you free information including our free catalog and a cassette tape lecture by Karl Loren about heart disease, no charge, by mail, even if outside the US.  You can select particular information you would like to receive, along with the free cassette tape and catalog.

You can reach Vibrant Life in many ways, including by mail to Vibrant Life, 2808 N. Naomi St., Burbank, CA 91504.  Within the US and Canada, use the toll free number:  (800) 523-4521, the local number:  (818) 558-1799, the FAX:  (818) 558-7299, eMail to kimberly@oralchelation.com or any one of the hundreds of message forms throughout the 50 web sites.  Vibrant Life normally ships the same day we get an order.  There are message forms on each of the 100,000+ pages on this and other sites where you can communicate with Vibrant Life.  Check out our companion site, at:  http://www.oralchelation.net where Karl's 2000 page book is published.  Karl Loren is the author and webmaster for this BOOK, as well as for another web site about ORAL CHELATION.  His personal philosophical articles are at PHILOSOPHY. 

Copyright © May 20, 2008 6:24 AM by Karl Loren on behalf of Vibrant Life, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.  Permission is granted for non-commercial downloading, copying, distribution or redistribution on two conditions:  One, that some form of copyright notice is included in every copy distributed or copied, showing the copyright belonging to Vibrant Life, Burbank, CA, at www.oralchelation.com . The second condition is that the material is not to be used for any purpose contrary to the purposes and objectives of this site.  This permission does not extend to materials on this site which are copyrighted by others.

---