Advertisement

Pharmaceutisch Weekblad

, Volume 11, Issue 5, pp 151–154 | Cite as

Pharmaco-epidemiological perspectives

  • Ulf Bergman
Update Articles

Abstract

Parallel with increasing concerns about drug safety, the importance of drug surveillance and the application of epidemiologic techniques have grown rapidly during the past decades. The increasing use of computerized health care data facilitates the establishment of populations large enough (millions) to allow epidemiological studies. Such extensive studies are now being done routinely in North America. By the use of computerized pharmacy or billing records, drug exposure is linked to files which include diagnoses. These record-linkage systems provide ‘objective’ drug histories for pharmaco-epidemiological cohort and case-control studies and these large data bases offer powerful tools for drug evaluation. A number of new drug-disease associations, many of potential importance for European populations, will be discovered through the increased use of large data bases in North America. The European community needs to develop a strategy to respond to these overseas findings to protect the society from either overreaction or underreaction to drug safety issues.

Keywords

Drug utilization Epidemiology Geography Product surveillance, postmarketing Side effects 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Anonymous. The selection of essential drugs. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1977. (Techn Rep Ser 615.)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Last JM, ed. A dictionary of epidemiology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Colombo F, Shapiro S, Slone D, Tognoni G, eds. Epidemiological evaluation of drugs. Amsterdam: Elsevier/ North Holland, 1977.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Inman WHW, ed. Monitoring for drug safety. Lancaster: MTP Press Ltd., 1980.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lawson DH. Pharmacoepidemiology: a new discipline. Br Med J 1984;289:940.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Edlavitch SA. Pharmacoepidemiology. A call for action. J Clin Res Drug Dev 1988;2:179–206.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hartzema AG, Porta MS, Tilson HH, eds. Pharmacoepidemiology. An introduction. Cincinnati: Harvey Whitney Books Company, 1988.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Strom BL, ed. Pharmacoepidemiology: the science of postmarketing surveillance. Washington: Churchill Livingstone, 1989.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shapiro S. The epidemiological evaluation of drugs. Acta Med Scand 1984;(Suppl 683):23–7.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wilholm BE, Lindquist M. The detection and evaluation of drug-induced agranulocytosis by spontaneous reports. Acta Pharmacol Toxicol 1986;(Suppl 59):abstract 1061.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rossi AC, Hsu JP, Faich GA. Ulcerogenicity of piroxicam: an analysis of spontaneously reported data. Br Med J 1987;294:147–50.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lasagna L. The desire to regulate: the wish to discover. Drugs Exp Clin Res XIII 1987;(11):659–64.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Faich GA. Postmarketing surveillance of prescription drugs: current status. Clin Med Res Inst 1986;(Oct):1–12.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Skegg DCG, Doll R. Record linkage for drug monitoring. J Epidemiol Commun Health 1981;35:25–31.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Venning GR. Identification of adverse reactions to new drugs. What have been the important adverse reactions since thalidomide? Br Med J 1983;286:199–202.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Venning GR. Identification of adverse reactions to new drugs. II. How were 18 important adverse reactions discovered and with what delays? Br Med J 1983;286: 289–92.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Venning GR. Identification of adverse reactions to new drugs. II (continued). How were 18 important adverse reactions discovered and with what delays? Br Med J 1983;286:365–8.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Venning GR. Identification of adverse reactions to new drugs. III. Alerting processes and early warning systems. Br Med J 1983;286:458–60.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Venning GR. Identification of adverse reactions to new drugs. IV. Verification of suspected adverse reactions. Br Med J 1983;286:544–7.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jick H, Madsen S, Nudelman PM, Perera DR, Stergachis A. Postmarketing follow-up at Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound. Pharmacotherapy 1984;4: 99–100.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Strom BL, Morse ML. Use of computerized databases to survey drug utilization in relation to diagnoses. Acta Med Scand 1988;(Suppl 721):13–20.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Guess HA, West R, Strand LM, et al. Fatal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage or perforation among users and nonusers of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in Saskatchewan, Canada 1983. J Clin Epidemiol 1988;41:35–45.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Avorn J, Everitt DE, Weiss S. Increased antidepressant use in patients prescribed beta-blockers. JAMA 1986; 255:357–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    WHO-Drug Utilization Research Group. Validation of observed differences in the utilization of antihypertensive and antidiabetic drugs in Northern Ireland, Norway and Sweden. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1985;29:1–8.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nordic Statistics on Medicines 1984–1986. NLN Publication No. 21. Uppsala: Nordic Council on Medicines, 1988.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Thiessen BQ, Wallace SM, Blackburn JL, Bergman U. Concurrent prescribing of beta-blockers and antidepressants. J Clin Res Drug Dev 1988;2:202.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ray WA, Griffin MR, Schaffner W, Baugh DK, Melton LJ. Psychotropic drug use and the risk of hip fracture. N Engl J Med 1987;316:363–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 20.
    Bergman U, Dahlström M, Nordenstam I. Insomnia and pills in Sweden. In: Treatment of sleep disorders. Uppsala: National Board of Health and Welfare Drug Information Committee, 1988;4:65–84.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Carson JL, Strom BL, Morse ML, et al. The relative gastrointestinal toxicity of the nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs. Arch Intern Med 1987;147:1054–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Baum C, Kennedey DL, Forbes MB. Utilization of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs. Arthritis Rheum 1985;28:686–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bergman U, Dahlström M, Sanz EJ. Use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and other minor analgesics in Sweden. In: Pharmacological treatment of osteoarthritis. Uppsala: National Board of Health and Welfare Drug Information Committee, 1989;2:55–70.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Strom BL, Carson JL, Morse ML, West SL, Soper KA. The effect of indication on hypersensitivity reactions associated with zomepirac sodium and other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Arthritis Rheum 1987;30: 1142–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Stika L, Hovorova M, Kratochvil J. Automated processing of medical prescriptions. Activ Nerv Sub (Praha) 1971;13:228–9.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Vinarova E, Vinar O, Stika L. Diazepam and drug dependence. Activ Nerv Sup (Praha) 1982;2:261–2.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bergström K, Westerholm B. Consumption of sedatives, hypnotics and minor tranquillizers in a Swedish town. In: De la Fuenta R, Weisman MN, eds. Psychiatry. Proceedings of the V World Congress of Psychiatry, Mexico, 1971. Amsterdam: Excerpta Medica, 1973: 94–102.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Boethius G. Recording of drug prescriptions in the county of Jämtland, Sweden. Drug exposure of pregnant women in relation to course and outcome of pregnancy. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1977;12:37–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Isacsson D, Smedby B. Patterns of psychotropic drug use in a Swedish community. Scand J Prim Health Care 1988;6:51–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Laegreid L, Olegård R, Wahlström J, Conradi N. Abnormalities in children exposed to benzodiazepines in utero. Lancet 1987;108–9.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Laegreid L, Olegård R, Wahlström J, Conradi N, Sisfontes L. Benzodiazepine overconsumption in pregnancy. Lancet 1987;2:1405–6.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Laegreid L, Olegård R, Wahlström J, Conradi N. Teratogenic effects of benzodiazepine use during pregnancy. J Pediatr 1989;114:126–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Bergman U, Boethius G, Swartling PG, Isacson D, Smedby B. Benzodiazepines and pregnancy [Bensodiazepiner och graviditet]. Information from the Department of Drugs, National Board of Health and Welfare 1989;14:16–7.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Inman WHW, Rawson NSB, Wilton LV. Prescription. Event monitoring. In: Inman WHW, ed. Monitoring for drug safety. 2nd ed. Lancaster: MTP Press Ltd., 1986: 213–35.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    WHO-Drug Utilization Research Group. Therapeutic tradition in Northern Ireland, Norway and Sweden: diabetes. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1986;30:513–9.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    WHO-Drug Utilization Research Group. Therapeutic traditions in Northern Ireland, Norway and Sweden: hypertension. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1986;30:521–5.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bergman U, Dahlström M. Benzodiazepine utilization in Sweden and the other Nordic countries. In: Lader MH, Davies HC, eds. Drug treatment of neurotic disorders. Washington: Churchill Livingstone, 1986:43–52.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Bergman U, Baum C, Dahlström M, Juergens JP, Kennedy DL. Use of benzodiazepines in the USA and Sweden. Washington: Drug Information Association, 1986.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Dutch Association for Advancement of Pharmacy 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ulf Bergman
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Karolinska InstituteHuddinge University HospitalHuddingeSweden

Personalised recommendations