Advertisement

Epidemiology of Drug Allergy: Drug Monitoring

  • R. Hoigné
  • F. Stocker
  • P. Middleton
Part of the Handbook of Experimental Pharmacology book series (HEP, volume 63)

Abstract

The interval between the initial observation of symptoms and syndromes and the final recognition of a disease entity, with known pathogenesis or aetiology, may be a long one and much careful investigation may be necessary. At one end of the whole procedure is clinical observation and at the other, medical science and epidemiology. This principle also holds true for adverse drug effects and drug-induced illnesses. In any system designed to detect adverse reactions to drugs it is of fundamental importance to observe each syndrome or symptom and to record it, independently of its interpretation (Hoigné 1978). Evaluation can follow two distinct routes: a review of interpreted, individual data, or a statistical analysis of non-or not extensively interpreted events.

Keywords

Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Adverse Reaction Adverse Drug Reaction Drug Monitoring Drug Group 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arndt K, Jick H (1976) Rates of cutaneous reactions to drugs. JAMA 235:918–923PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baumgartner A, Hoigné R, Müller U, Hess T (1982) Medikamentöse Schäden des Blutbildes. Erfahrungen aus dem Komprehensiven Spital-Drug-Monitoring Bern, 1974–1979. Schweiz med Wochenschr 112:1530–1539Google Scholar
  3. Böttiger LE, Westerholm B (1973) Drug-induced blood dyscrasias in Sweden. Br med J 3:339–343PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Coombs RRA, Gell PGH (1963) The classification of allergic reactions underlying disease. In: Clinical aspects of immunology. Gell PGH, Coombs RRA (eds.) Blackwell Scientific, Oxford, pp 317–337Google Scholar
  5. de Weck A (1971) Acetyl-Salicylsäure: ein altes Arzneimittel in neuerem Blickwinkel. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 96:1109–1115PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dukes MNG (1978) Drug utilization studies: a perspective. In: Ducrot H, Goldberg M, Hoigné R, Middleton P (eds.) IFIP TC-4 working conference on computer aid to drug therapy and to drug monitoring, Berne. North-Holland, Amsterdam Oxford New York, pp 373–377Google Scholar
  7. Dunne JF (1978) Spontaneous reporting of adverse reactions to drugs. In: Ducrot H, Goldberg M, Hoigné R, Middleton P (eds.) IFIP TC-4 working conference on computer aid to drug therapy and to drug monitoring, Berne. North-Holland, Amsterdam Oxford New York, pp 105–108Google Scholar
  8. Ettlin R, Hoigné R, Bruppacher R, Müller U, Stocker F (1981) Atopy and adverse drug reactions. Int Arch Allergy 66 (Suppl. 1):93–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Finney DJ (1974) Systematic signalling of adverse reactions to drugs. Methods Inf Med 13:1–10PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Fleiss JL (1973) Statistical methods for rates and proportions. John Wiley and Sons, New York Chichester, p 142Google Scholar
  11. Flicker U (1976) Exantheme bei Ampicillin- und Epicillintherapie. Medical dissertation, University of BerneGoogle Scholar
  12. Friedman GD (1974) Primer of epidemiology. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Friedman GD, Collen MF, Harris LE, Van Brunt EE, Davis LS (1971) Experience in monitoring drug reactions in outpatients. JAMA 217:567–572PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Green GR, Rosenblum A (1971) Report of the penicillin study group, American Academy of Allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol 48:331–343PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hoigné R (1965 a) Arzneimittel-Allergien. Huber BerneGoogle Scholar
  16. Hoigné R (1965 b) Penicillin hypersensitivity. In: Meyler L, Peck HM (eds) Drug-induced diseases. Excerpta Medica, Amsterdam, pp 89–96Google Scholar
  17. Hoigné R (1978) Monitoring of drug effects in outpatients: discussion. In: Ducrot H, Goldberg M, Hoigné R, Middleton P (eds) IFIP TC-4 working conference on computer aid to drug therapy and to drug monitoring, Berne. North-Holland, Amsterdam Oxford New York, p 97Google Scholar
  18. Hoigné R, Biedermann HP, Nägeli HR (1975) INH-induzierter systemischer Lupus erythematodes (SLE): 2 Beobachtungen mit Reexpositon. Schweiz Med Wochenschr 105:1726–1729Google Scholar
  19. Hoigné R, Ettlin R, Hintermann R et al. (1978) Die Auswahl antibakterieller Chemotherapeutika unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von Disposition und Grundkrankheit des Patienten. Schweiz Rundschau Med 67:1822–1828Google Scholar
  20. Hoigné R, Streit C, Stocker F et al. (1981) Drug Monitoring und Epidemiologie von Arzneimittel-Nebenwirkungen. In: Borelli S, Düngemann H (eds) Fortschritte der Allergologie und Dermatologie. Klinik für Dermatologie und Allergie, Davos and I.M.P. Verlagsgesellschaft, Basel Neu Isenburg Wien, pp 169–174Google Scholar
  21. Hurwitz N (1969 a) Predisposing factors in adverse reactions to drugs. Br Med J 1:536–539PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hurwitz N, Wade OL (1969 b) Intensive hospital monitoring of adverse reactions to drugs. Br Med J 1:531–536PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Idsøe O, Guthe T, Willcox RR, de Weck AL (1969) Art und Ausmaß der Penizillinnebenwirkungen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von 151 Todesfällen nach anaphylaktischem Schock. Schweiz Med Woschenschr 99:1190–1197, 1221–1229Google Scholar
  24. Inman WH, Adelstein AM (1969) Rise and fall of asthma mortality in England and Wales in relation to use of pressurised aerosols. Lancet 2:279–285PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Inman WHW (1982) Attitudes to type 1 (false positive) and type 2 (false negative) errors in assessment. In: Venulet J, Berneker GC, Ciucci AG (eds) Assessing causes of adverse drug reactions. Academic Press, London New York, pp 69–78Google Scholar
  26. Irey NS (1976) Adverse drug reactions and death. A review of 827 cases. JAMA 236:575–578PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jämes D, Haller E, Rosselet G, Brooke EM, Schelling JL (1978) Fréquence des prescriptions de médicaments et de leurs effets indésirables dans un département de médecine. Schweiz Med Wochenschr 108:1270–1277PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Jick H (1977) The discovery of drug-induced illness. N Engl J Med 296:481–485PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jick H, Miettinen OS, Shapiro S, Lewis GP, Siskind V, Slone D (1970) Comprehensive drug surveillance. JAMA 213:1455–1460PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Karch FE, Lasagna L (1977) Toward the operational identification of adverse drug reactions. Clin Pharmacol Ther 21:247–254PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Klein U, Klein M, Sturm H et al. (1976) The frequency of adverse drug reactions as dependent upon age, sex and duration of hospitalization. Int J Clin Pharmacol 13:187–195Google Scholar
  32. Koch-Weser J (1968) Definition and classification of adverse drug reactions. Drug Inform Bull 2:72–78Google Scholar
  33. Köhler CO, Kimbel KH (1978) Spontaneous monitoring data processing and information feedback to the physician. In: Ducrot H, Goldberg M, Hoigné R, Middleton P (eds) IFIP TC-4 working conference on computer aid to drug therapy and to drug monitoring, Berne. North-Holland, Amsterdam Oxford New York, pp 125–132Google Scholar
  34. Kurland L, Annegers JF, O’Fallon W (1978) Utilization of Mayo Clinic records for population-based long-term evaluations of drug exposure. In: Ducrot H, Goldberg M, Hoigné R, Middleton P (eds) IFIP TC-4 working conference on computer aid to drug therapy and to drug monitoring, Berne. North-Holland, Amsterdam Oxford New York, pp 69–76Google Scholar
  35. Lawson DH, Jick H (1976) Drug prescribing in hospitals: an international comparison. Am J Public health 66:644–648PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lee SL, Rivero I, Siegel M (1966) Activation of systemic lupus erythematosus by drugs. Arch Intern Med 117:620–626PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Maronde RF, Rho J, Rucker TD (1978) Monitoring for adverse drug reactions including mutations, in outpatients. In: Ducrot H, Goldberg M, Hoigné R, Middleton P (eds) IFIP TC-4 working conference on computer aid to drug therapy and to drug monitoring, Berne. North-Holland, Amsterdam Oxford New York, pp 63–68Google Scholar
  38. Mayer RL (1933) Toxicodermien. In: Marchionini A, Nasemann T (eds) Die Viruskrank-heiten der Haut und die Hautsymptome bei Rickettsiosen und Bartonellosen. (Handbuch der Haut- und Geschlechtskrankheiten, vol IV/2, p 1) Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  39. McFadden ER Jr, Austen KF (1977) Asthma. In: Thorn GW, Adams RD, Braunwald E, Isselbacher KJ, Petersdorf RG (eds) Harrison’s priciples of internal medicine, 8th edn. McGraw-Hill Kogakusha, Tokyo, pp 1349–1354Google Scholar
  40. Meyer UA (1978) Role of genetic factors in the rational use of drugs. In: Melmon KL, Morelli HF (eds) Clinical pharmacology. Basic principles in therapeutics, 2nd edn. Macmillan, New York, pp 913–929Google Scholar
  41. Miller RR (1973) Drug surveillance utilizing epidemiologic methods. A report from the Boston Collaborative Drug Surveillance Program. Am J Hosp Pharm 30:584–592PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Pirquet C von, Schick B (1905) Die Serumkrankheit. Deutike, Leipzig ViennaGoogle Scholar
  43. Porter J, Jick H (1977) Drug-related deaths among medical inpatients. JAMA 237:879–881PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rollof SL (1950) Erythema nodosum in association with sulfathiazole in children. Clinical investigation with special reference to primary tuberculosis. Acta Tuberc Scand [Suppl.] 24:1Google Scholar
  45. Shapiro S, Slone D, Siskind V, Lewis GP, Jick H (1969) Drug rash with ampicillin and other penicillins. Lancet 2:969–972PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Skegg DCG (1978) Use of record linkage for drug surveillance. A progress report. In: Ducrot H, Goldberg M, Hoigné R, Middleton P (eds) IFIP TC-4 working conference on computer aid to drug therapy and to drug monitoring, Berne. North-Holland, Amsterdam Oxford New York, pp 77–83Google Scholar
  47. Slone D, Shapiro S, Miettinen OS, Finkle WD, Stolley PD (1979) Drug evaluation after marketing. Ann Intern Med 90:257–261PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Smith JW, Johnson JE III, Cluff LE (1966 a) Studies on the epidemiology of adverse drug reactions. II. An evaluation of penicillin allergy. N Engl J Med 274:998–1002PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Smith JW, Seidl LG, Cluff LE (1966 b) Studies on the epidemiology of adverse drug reactions. V. Clinical factors influencing susceptibility. Ann Intern Med 65:629–640PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Speizer FE, Doll R, Haef P (1968) Observations on recent increase in mortality from asthma. Br Med J 1:335–339PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Streit C (1979) Das komprehensive Spital-Drug Monitoring Bern in methodischer Hinsicht. A) Methodik, unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Prüfprogramme. B) Epidemiologie der makulo-papulösen Exantheme bei erwachsenen Patienten. Medical dissertation, University of BerneGoogle Scholar
  52. Török M, Zoppi M, Winzenried P, Marty H, Hess T, Stoller-Güleryüz D, Stucki P, Bickel MH, Stocker F, Hoigné R (1982) Drug related death among 17,285 inpatients in the division of internal medicine of two teaching hospitals in Berne, 1974–1980. In: Manell P, Johansson SG (eds) The impact of computer technology on drug information. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 79–84Google Scholar
  53. Venulet J (1982) Concluding remarks. In: Venulet J, Berneker GC, Ciucci AG (eds) Assessing causes of adverse drug reactions. Academic Press, London New York, pp 217–221Google Scholar
  54. WHO (1969) International drug monitoring. The role of the hospital. WHO Tech Rep SerGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Hoigné
  • F. Stocker
  • P. Middleton

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations