Time filter

Source Type

McDowell S.E.,West Midlands Center for Adverse Drug Reactions
Quality & safety in health care | Year: 2010

To investigate the overall probability of error in preparing and administering intravenous medicines; to identify at which stage of the process an error is most likely to occur; and to determine the impact of error correction on the error probability. Systematic review and random-effects Bayesian conditional independence modelling. Medline and EMBASE were searched for studies on intravenous medicines. The error rates of each stage were extracted. These, expert estimates, and error rates from generic tasks, were used in a Bayesian conditional independence model to find error 'hot-spots.' The main outcome measure was the probability of at least one error occurring during intravenous therapy. Nine published studies were identified for inclusion in the systematic review and meta-analysis. The overall probability of making at least one error in intravenous therapy was 0.73 (95% credible interval (CrI) 0.54 to 0.90). If error-checking was introduced at each stage of the process, the overall rate fell to 0.22 (95% CrI 0.14 to 0.31). Errors were most likely in the reconstitution step. Removing the reconstitution step by providing preprepared injections would reduce the overall error rate to 0.17 (95% CrI 0.09 to 0.27). Intravenous therapy is complex and error-prone. Error-checking at each stage could reduce the error probability. The use of preprepared injections may help by eliminating errors in the reconstitution of drug and diluent. However, it will be important to ensure that benefits are not outweighed by practical disadvantages such as an increase in selection errors. Source

Ferner R.E.,West Midlands Center for Adverse Drug Reactions
Clinical and Experimental Dermatology | Year: 2015

Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) - that is, unintended and harmful responses to medicines - are important to dermatologists because many present with cutaneous signs and because dermatological treatments can cause serious ADRs. The detection of ADRs to new drugs is often delayed because they have a long latency or are rare or unexpected. This means that ADRs to newer agents emerge only slowly after marketing. ADRs are part of the differential diagnosis of unusual rashes. A good drug history that includes details of drug dose, time-course of the reaction and factors that may make the patient more susceptible, will help. For example, Stevens-Johnson syndrome with abacavir is much commoner in patients with HLA-B∗5701, and has a characteristic time course. Newer agents have brought newer reactions; for example, acneiform rashes associated with epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors such as erlotinib. Older systemic agents used to treat skin disease, including corticosteroids and methotrexate, cause important ADRs. The adverse effects of newer biological agents used in dermatology are becoming clearer; for example, hypersensitivity reactions or loss of efficacy from antibody formation and progressive multifocal leucoencephalopathy due to reactivation of latent JC (John Cunningham) virus infections during efalizumab treatment. Unusual or serious harm from medicines, including ADRs, medication errors and overdose, should be reported. The UK Yellow Card scheme is online, and patients can report their own ADRs. © 2015 British Association of Dermatologists. Source

Bradberry S.M.,West Midlands Poisons Unit | Wilkinson J.M.,University of Sheffield | Ferner R.E.,West Midlands Center for Adverse Drug Reactions
Clinical Toxicology | Year: 2014

Introduction. One in eight of all total hip replacements requires revision within 10 years, 60% because of wear-related complications. The bearing surfaces may be made of cobalt/chromium, stainless steel, ceramic, or polyethylene. Friction between bearing surfaces and corrosion of non-moving parts can result in increased local and systemic metal concentrations. Objectives. To identify and systematically review published reports of systemic toxicity attributed to metal released from hip implants and to propose criteria for the assessment of these patients. Methods. Medline (from 1950) and Embase (from 1980) were searched to 28 February 2014 using the search terms (text/abstract) chrom∗ or cobalt∗ and [toxic∗ or intox∗ or poison∗ or adverse effect or complication] and [prosthes∗ or 'joint replacement' or hip or arthroplast∗] and PubMed (all available years) was searched using the search term (("Chromium/adverse effects"[Mesh] OR "Chromium/poisoning"[Mesh] OR "Chromium/toxicity"[Mesh]) OR ("Cobalt/adverse effects"[Mesh] OR "Cobalt/poisoning"[Mesh] OR "Cobalt/toxicity"[Mesh])) AND ("Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip"[Mesh] OR "Hip Prosthesis"[Mesh]). These searches identified 281 unique references, of which 23 contained original case data. Three further reports were identified from the bibliographies of these papers. As some cases were reported repeatedly the 26 papers described only 18 individual cases. Systemic toxicity. Ten of these eighteen patients had undergone revision from a ceramic-containing bearing to one containing a metal component. The other eight had metal-on-metal prostheses. Systemic toxicity was first manifest months and often several years after placement of the metal-containing joint. The reported systemic features fell into three main categories: neuro-ocular toxicity (14 patients), cardiotoxicity (11 patients) and thyroid toxicity (9 patients). Neurotoxicity was manifest as peripheral neuropathy (8 cases), sensorineural hearing loss (7) and cognitive decline (5); ocular toxicity presented as visual impairment (6). All these neurological features, except cognitive decline, have been associated with cobalt poisoning previously. Type of prosthesis and blood metal concentrations. Where blood or serum metal concentrations were reported (n = 17 for cobalt and n = 14 for chromium), the median cobalt concentration was 398 (range, 13.6-6521) μg/L and the median chromium concentration was 48 μg/L (in whole blood) (range, 4.1-221 μg/L including serum and blood values). Those patients reported to have systemic features who had received a metal-on-metal prosthesis (n = 8) had a median peak blood cobalt concentration of 34.5 (range, 13.6-398.6) μg/L; those with a metal-containing revision of a failed ceramic prosthesis (n = 10) had a median blood cobalt concentration of 506 (range, 353-6521) μg/L. Management. The most common treatment was removal of the metal-containing prosthesis, undertaken in all but 2 patients. This was usually associated with a fall in circulating cobalt concentration and improvement in some or all features. Clinical and toxicological assessment of systemic features. We propose the following criteria for assessing the likelihood that clinical features are related to cobalt toxicity: clinical effects consistent with the known neurological, cardiac, or thyroidal effects of cobalt, and for which any other explanation is less likely; increased blood cobalt concentrations (substantially higher than those in patients with well-functioning prostheses) several months after hip replacement; a fall in the blood cobalt concentration, usually accompanied by signs of improvement in features. When judged by these criteria, the systemic features in 10 of the reported cases are likely to be related to cobalt exposure from a metal-containing hip prosthesis. Conclusions. Rarely, patients exposed to high circulating concentrations of cobalt from failed hip replacements develop neurological damage, hypothyroidism and/or cardiomyopathy, which may not resolve completely even after removal of the prosthesis. The greatest risk of systemic cobalt toxicity seems to result from accelerated wear of a cobalt-containing revision of a failed ceramic prosthesis, rather than from primary failure of a metal-on-metal prosthesis. © 2014 Informa Healthcare USA, Inc. Source

Ferner R.E.,West Midlands Center for Adverse Drug Reactions | Ferner R.E.,University of Birmingham | Aronson J.K.,University of Oxford
Drug Safety | Year: 2010

'Preventability' is a crucial concept in the literature on adverse drug reactions (ADRs). We have carried out a systematic review in order to identify and analyse the approaches used to define 'preventability' in relation to ADRs. We have restricted this investigation to definitions of preventability and have not dealt with other aspects. We searched MEDLINE (1963April 2009) and EMBASE (1980April 2009), without language restriction, for papers in which preventability of ADRs was likely to be defined.We found 234 papers, of which we retrieved 231. Of these, 172 either contained original definitions of preventability or referred to other papers in which preventability was defined. Forty contained no definition, and 19 were not relevant. In the 172 papers selected, we identified eight different general approaches to defining the preventability of ADRs: (1) analysis without explicit criteria; (2) assessment by consensus; (3) preventability linked to error; (4) preventability linked to standards of care; (5) preventability linked to medication-related factors; (6) preventability linked to information technology; (7) categorization of harmful treatments in explicit lists; and (8) a combination of more than one approach.These approaches rely on two general methods: the judgement of one or more investigators or the use of pre-defined explicit criteria; neither is satisfactory. Specific problems include the weakness of consensus as a method (since experts can agree and yet be wrong), inadequacy of definition of standards of care, and circularity in several definitions of preventability. Furthermore, attempts to list all preventable effects are bound to be incomplete and will not always apply to an individual case.We conclude that an approach based on analysis of the mechanisms of adverse reactions and their clinical features could be preferable; such an approach is described in a companion paper (Part II) in this issue of Drug Safety. © 2010 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved. Source

Ferner R.E.,West Midlands Center for Adverse Drug Reactions | Ferner R.E.,University of Birmingham | Aronson J.K.,Green Templeton College
BMJ (Online) | Year: 2013

Objective To review the beneficial and harmful effects of laughter. Design Narrative synthesis. Data sources and review methods We searched Medline (1946 to June 2013) and Embase (1974 to June 2013) for reports of benefits or harms from laughter in humans, and counted the number of papers in each category. Results Benefits of laughter include reduced anger, anxiety, depression, and stress; reduced tension (psychological and cardiovascular); increased pain threshold; reduced risk of myocardial infarction (presumably requiring hearty laughter); improved lung function; increased energy expenditure; and reduced blood glucose concentration. However, laughter is no joke-dangers include syncope, cardiac and oesophageal rupture, and protrusion of abdominal hernias (from side splitting laughter or laughing fit to burst), asthma attacks, interlobular emphysema, cataplexy, headaches, jaw dislocation, and stress incontinence (from laughing like a drain). Infectious laughter can disseminate real infection, which is potentially preventable by laughing up your sleeve. As a side effect of our search for side effects, we also list pathological causes of laughter, among them epilepsy (gelastic seizures), cerebral tumours, Angelman's syndrome, strokes, multiple sclerosis, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis or motor neuron disease. Conclusions Laughter is not purely beneficial. The harms it can cause are immediate and dose related, the risks being highest for Homeric (uncontrollable) laughter. The benefit-harm balance is probably favourable. It remains to be seen whether sick jokes make you ill or jokes in bad taste cause dysgeusia, and whether our views on comedians stand up to further scrutiny. Source

Discover hidden collaborations