scholarly journals Severe cutaneous adverse drug reactions: diagnostic approach and genetic study in a Brazilian case series

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. I. Perello ◽  
A. de Maria Castro ◽  
A. C. Nogueira Arraes ◽  
S. Caracciolo Costa ◽  
D. Lacerda Pedrazzi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Drug Reactions ◽  
Genetic Study ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Diagnostic Approach ◽  
Drug Reactions ◽  
Brazilian Case

scholarly journals Parkinsonism caused by adverse drug reactions: a case series

2011 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Solomon O Ugoya ◽  
Emmanuel I Agaba ◽  
Comfort A Daniyam
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Drug Reactions ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Drug Reactions

scholarly journals Bibliometric analysis of adverse drug reactions and pharmacovigilance research activities in Nepal

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 204209862092248
Author(s):  
Sunil Shrestha ◽  
Krisha Danekhu ◽  
Bhuvan KC ◽  
Subish Palaian ◽  
Mohamed Izham Mohamed Ibrahim
Keyword(s):  
Bibliometric Analysis ◽  
Adverse Drug Reactions ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Research Performance ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Drug Reactions ◽  
Drug Induced ◽  
Scientific Publications ◽  
Research Activities

Background: Bibliometric analyses have been used previously to study the measures of quality and impact of research performed in several health-related areas such as adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and pharmacovigilance (PV), etc. This method can assess the research performance of publications quantitatively and statistically. There is no evidence of bibilometric studies analyzing ADRs and PV from Nepal. Therefore, the present study aimed to assess scientific output on ADRs and PV-related research activities in Nepal using a bibliometric analysis of publications from 2004 January to December 2018, that is, 15 years. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar, Scopus and Nepal Journal Online (NepJOL) databases. ‘Adverse Drug Reactions‘ or ‘ADRs‘ or ‘ADR‘ or ‘Adverse drug reaction‘ or ‘AE‘ or ‘Adverse Event‘ or ‘Drug-Induced Reaction‘ or ‘Pharmacovigilance‘ or ‘PV‘ and ‘Nepal‘. The search covered 15 years (January 2004 to December 2018) of study on ADRs and PV in Nepal. Only articles retrieved from databases were included, whereas published/unpublished drug bulletins, pharmacy newsletters and thesis were excluded. The articles thus retrieved were recorded, and thereafter analyzed. Word count code was used for the analysis of keywords used in the retrieved articles. Results: A total of 124 articles were retrieved, with the highest rate of publications in 2006 and 2007, with 16 papers each. Among the articles, 10 (8.1%) were published in Kathmandu University Medical Journal (KUMJ). Single papers were published in 38 different journals. Brief reports (1.6%), case reports (31.2%), case series (0.8%), education forums (0.8%), letters to the editor (5.6%), original research articles (41.9%), review articles (9.7%), short communications and short reports (8.1%) on ADRs and PV were recorded. Out of 124 papers, 52 (41.9%) were original research publications. The majority (74.1%) of research was done in the category of ADR incidence, types, prevention, and management, followed by policy and suggestions for strengthening national and regional pharmacovigilance centers of Nepal (14.5%). Conclusions: During the study years, there was an increase in scientific publications on drug safety. A total of 124 published articles were found during bibliometric analysis of ADRs and PV research activities in Nepal.

scholarly journals 5PSQ-030 Adverse drug reactions due to interaction with cobicistat or ritonavir in HIV positive patients: a case series

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
B Montero Llorente ◽  
M Vélez-Díaz-Pallarés ◽  
B Esteban Cartelle ◽  
T Gramage Caro ◽  
MÁ Rodríguez Sagrado ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Drug Reactions ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Hiv Positive ◽  
Drug Reactions

Caveat medicus: Harrowing experiences of clinicians who identify and publish near-fatal oncology associated adverse drug reactions.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6584-6584
Author(s):  
Ashley Caitlin Godwin ◽  
Charles L. Bennett
Keyword(s):  
New England ◽  
Adverse Drug Reactions ◽  
Adverse Drug Events ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Index Patient ◽  
Drug Reactions ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Academic Leaders ◽  
Pharmaceutical Manufacturers ◽  
Personal Experiences

6584 Background: Less than 1-10% of adverse drug reactions are reported. It is even more rare to find clinicians who choose to publish these reports in the literature. We identified clinicians who had treated a patient for an oncology-associated serious adverse drug reaction and published these findings. This is the first study that has investigated personal experiences of clinicians choosing to publish information about serious oncology-associated drug reactions they see in their patients. Methods: Clinicians treating individual patients who developed oncology-associated serious adverse drug events were asked to participate. Inclusion criteria included having index patient information, reporting case series, and being collaborative with investigators from two National Institutes of Health funded pharmacovigilance networks. Thirty-minute interviews addressed feedback from pharmaceutical manufacturers, FDA personnel, and academic leadership, and recommendations for improving pharmacovigilance. Responses were analyzed using constant comparative methods of qualitative analysis. Results: 18 clinicians met inclusion criteria and 14 interviewees are included. Toxicities included central nervous system infections, arterial/venous thromboembolism, gastrointestinal toxicity, cardiac arrhythmias, and cancer development/progression. These investigations were frequently followed by label warnings and/or convening of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Advisory Committee reviews of safety findings. Five studies were disseminated in four high-impact factor medical journals (JAMA, Lancet, Annals of Internal Medicine, and New England Journal of Medicine). Six clinicians received feedback characterized as supportive from academic leaders, while four clinicians received feedback characterized as negative. Responses from pharmaceutical manufacturers were characterized as negative by 12 clinicians. Responses from FDA employees were characterized as negative by six clinicians. Three clinicians recommended that pharmacovigilance should include simplified clinician reporting systems. Conclusions: Our study finds that clinicians who published reports of serious oncology-associated drug reactions experienced negative feedback from pharmaceutical manufacturers. Feedback from FDA employees and academic clinicians were viewed as supportive by some and negative by others. Most clinicians recommended that future pharmacovigilance involve big data analyses.

scholarly journals Safety and tolerability of liquid amikacin in antibiotic-loaded bone cement – a case series

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (5) ◽  
pp. 147-150
Author(s):  
Don Bambino Geno Tai ◽  
Nathan J. Brinkman ◽  
Omar Abu Saleh ◽  
Douglas R. Osmon ◽  
Matthew P. Abdel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bone Cement ◽  
Adverse Drug Reactions ◽  
Case Series ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Drug Reactions ◽  
Joint Infections

Abstract. High-dose liquid antibiotics are uncommon in bone cement. We present a case series of patients in which up to 16 mL of liquid amikacin (250 mg mL−1) was successfully incorporated into bone cement to treat periprosthetic joint infections. We did not observe adverse drug reactions definitively attributed to its use.

scholarly journals Lamotrigine-induced cutaneous adverse drug reactions: A case series

2021 ◽  
Vol 0 ◽  
pp. 1-5
Author(s):  
Ruba Farsha ◽  
Ramseena Abdurahiman ◽  
Divya Padassery ◽  
Sarita Sasidharanpillai
Keyword(s):  
Bipolar Disorder ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Adverse Drug Reactions ◽  
Therapeutic Dose ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Drug Reactions ◽  
Recommended Guidelines ◽  
Existing Data

Lamotrigine is used in the management of seizures and bipolar disorder. Cutaneous adverse drug reactions (CADRs) including severe forms are not uncommon following lamotrigine. Existing data suggest that the risk for adverse events could be reduced by initiating the drug at a lower dose and going for a slow titration to therapeutic dose. Here, we report four cases of lamotrigine-induced CADR. Three of the four suffered from severe drug reactions and in none of them lamotrigine was administered according to recommended guidelines.

scholarly journals Adverse drug reactions in SARS-CoV-2 hospitalised patients: a case-series with a focus on drug–drug interactions

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giada Crescioli ◽  
Valentina Brilli ◽  
Cecilia Lanzi ◽  
Andrea Burgalassi ◽  
Alessandra Ieri ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Drug Reactions ◽  
Case Series ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
Drug Reactions ◽  
Case Evaluation ◽  
Hospitalised Patients ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Case Series Study ◽  
Caucasian Patients ◽  
Series Study

AbstractDue to the need of early and emergency effective treatments for COVID-19, less attention may have been paid to their safety during the global emergency. In addition, characteristics of drug–drug interaction (DDI)-related adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in COVID-19 patients have not yet been studied in depth. The aim of the present case-series study is to describe clinical and pharmacological characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 hospitalised patients, focusing on ADRs, particularly those related to DDIs. We evaluated all reports of COVID-19 medication-related ADRs collected within the COVID-19 Units of Careggi University Hospital, Florence (Italy), between January 1st and 31st May 2020. Information regarding COVID-19 medications, patients’ demographic and clinical characteristics, concomitant drugs, ADRs description and outcome, were collected. Each case was evaluated for the causality assessment and to identify the presence of DDIs. During the study period, 23 Caucasian patients (56.5% males, mean age 76.1 years) experienced one or more ADRs. The majority of them were exposed to polypharmacy and 17.4% presented comorbidities. ADRs were referred to cardiovascular, psychiatric and gastrointestinal disorders. The most frequently reported preferred term was QT prolongation (mean QT interval 496.1 ms). ADRs improved or resolved completely in 60.8% of cases. For all patients, a case-by-case evaluation revealed the presence of one or more DDIs, especially those related to pharmacokinetic interactions. Despite the small number of patients, our evidence underline the clinical burden of DDIs in SARS-CoV-2 hospitalised patients and the risk of unexpected and uncommon psychiatric ADRs.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document