Adverse drug reactions to antiretroviral therapy (ART): an experience of spontaneous reporting and intensive monitoring from ART centre in India

Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety (Impact Factor: 2.94). 03/2010; 19(3):247 - 255. DOI: 10.1002/pds.1907

ABSTRACT PurposeTo assess the nature, severity, predictability and preventability of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and to identify risk factors for antiretroviral ADRs.Methods
Enrolled ambulatory patients were intensively monitored for ADRs. Spontaneously reported ADRs by clinicians were also included. Predictability was assessed based on history of previous exposure to the drug or literature incidence of ADRs. Preventability was assessed using Schumock and Thornton criteria and severity was assessed using modified Hartwig and Siegel scale. Bivariate analysis and subsequently multivariate logistic regression were used to identify the risk factors for ADRs. Data from spontaneous reporting was assessed using Bayesian neural network method for possible ADR signals.ResultsMonitoring by active surveillance indentified 159 (52.82%) ADRs from 400 patients. One hundred and forty-two (47.17%) reactions were spontaneously reported. Anaemia and vomiting were the most commonly observed ADRs. The ADRs were severe in 10.9% of cases. A total of 88% ADRs were definitely/probably preventable. Use of Zidovudine+Lamivudine with Nevirapine or Efavirenz, CD4 <200 cells/µl, female gender, tuberculosis and illiteracy were observed as risk factors for ADRs by bivariate analysis. Concurrent tuberculosis was the only influential risk factor for development of ADRs identified by multivariate logistic regression.Conclusion
Prevalence of ADRs in intensively monitored patients was found to be 39.7%. Tuberculosis in HIV patients is an influential risk factor for occurrence of ADRs. With the increasing access to antiretrovirals in India, ADRs to antiretrovirals require monitoring and reporting. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

30 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Pharmacovigilance is concerned with the assessment of benefit and harm. Disease burden, status of healthcare delivery through government centres and practitioners, existing pharmacovigilance programmes, relevant pre-marketing studies and the likely effectiveness and risks of drugs must be considered for planning pharmacovigilance activity. The risk of a drug may be known, unknown, potential or specific to the context of the programme. The potential benefits of a public health programme aimed at reducing or eliminating a specific condition will depend on the health burden due to that condition, which is a function of the seriousness of the condition and its frequency, as well as the likely efficacy of the programme in reaching its goals. The present article has outlined an approach to pharmacovigilance for such a donor-funded programme, using pharmacovigilance in leishmaniasis as an example.
    Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 02/2011; 105(2):61-7. DOI:10.1016/j.trstmh.2010.11.004 · 1.84 Impact Factor
  • Source
    03/2012; 10(1):1-2. DOI:10.4321/S1886-36552012000100001
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To compare Beers' criteria (BC) and Screening Tool of Older Persons' potentially inappropriate Prescriptions (STOPP) for prevalence, specificity, sensitivity and predictors for potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) use. Patients aged ≥ 60 years from medicine wards of a tertiary care hospital were included. Comparisons between BC and STOPP were made using Pearson's χ(2) -test for categorical variables and Mann-Whitney U-test for continuous variables. Specificity and sensitivity were assessed by using 2 × 2 contingency table. Bivariate analysis and subsequent multivariate logistic regression was used to identify the predictors of PIM use. In the 540 patients included, prevalence of PIM use as per BC and STOPP was 24.6% and 13.3%, respectively. Sensitivity and specificity of BC in detecting PIM was 0.65 and 0.53, respectively. Considering the diagnoses/conditions, sensitivity and specificity of BC was 0.12 and 0.48, respectively, whereas independent of diagnoses/conditions, corresponding values were 0.75 and 0.54. PIM as per BC and STOPP accounted for 11 and 6 adverse drug reactions (ADR), respectively. Medications not listed in BC or STOPP were more likely to be associated with ADR. Multiple diseases (≥ 4) and use of more drugs during hospital stay (10-14) predicted PIM use as per BC, whereas age (60-74 years) predicted PIM use as per STOPP. Overall, BC is useful in the detection of PIM use independent of diagnoses/conditions, whereas STOPP is useful in detection of PIM use considering the diagnoses/conditions. There is a need for consensus on using the tool for detection of PIM use in Indian elderly.
    Geriatrics & Gerontology International 01/2012; 12(3):506-14. DOI:10.1111/j.1447-0594.2011.00806.x · 2.19 Impact Factor
Show more