Prevalence and profile of adverse drug reactions in high-risk pregnancy: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Commonly used drugs in pregnant women include antihypertensives, hypoglycemic agents, analgesics, antimicrobials, antiemetics and antispasmodics but the use of medicines during pregnancy, especially in high-risk pregnancy, may be associated with high risk of adverse drug reactions (ADR). The objective of this study was to determine the risk of an adverse drug reaction in hospitalized high-risk pregnant women and the factors associated with their occurrence. METHODS: The study received IRB approval and all patients gave written informed consent. Observational cohort study conducted from September 2015 to November 2016 in 1070 pregnant women consecutively admitted to the high risk sector of the University Maternity Januário Cicco in Brazil. ADR were detected through daily active search. Risk factors for the occurrence of ADR were determined using multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: The mean age of the study population was 26.2 ± 7.2 years and gestational age was 31.2 ± 7.2 weeks. The average number of previous pregnancies was 2.4 ± 1.8 and 46.4% reported cases of previous abortion/miscarriage. ADR were observed in 10.7% of women. The main medicines involved, with the incidence rate of ADR per 100 prescriptions of the drug (IR), were parenteral scopolamine (IR 14.9%), methyldopa (IR 15.9%), insulin (IR 8.46%), oral scopolamine (IR 3.58%), captopril (IR 2.38%) and ceftriaxone (IR 18.4%). Multivariate analysis showed that only gestational age in weeks (odds-ratio 0.97, 95% confidence interval 0.95-0.98) was related to the occurrence of adverse reactions. CONCLUSION: Lower gestational age is a risk factor for high-risk pregnant women, increasing the likelihood of adverse reactions, with parenteral medications being those that have the highest potential risk of harm.

Temporal profile of adverse drug reactions and associated clinical factors: a prospective observational study in a neonatal intensive care unit.

OBJECTIVE: Although adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are quite common in hospitalised neonates, pharmacovigilance activities in this public are still incipient. This study aims to characterise ADRs in neonates in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), identifying causative drugs, temporal profile and associated factors. DESIGN: Prospective observational study. SETTING: NICU of a public maternity hospital in Natal/Brazil. PARTICIPANTS: All neonates admitted to the NICU for more than 24 hours and using at least one medication were followed up during the time of hospitalisation. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Incidence rate and risk factors for ADRs. The ADRs were detected by an active search in electronic medical records and analysis of spontaneous reports in the hospital pharmacovigilance system. RESULTS: Six hundred neonates were included in the study, where 118 neonates had a total of 186 ADRs. The prevalence of ADRs at the NICU was 19.7% (95% CI 16.7% to 23.0%). The most common ADRs were tachycardia (30.6%), polyuria (9.1%) and hypokalaemia (8.6%). Tachycardia (peak incidence rate: 57.1 ADR/1000 neonates) and hyperthermia (19.1 ADR/1000 neonates) predominated during the first 5 days of hospitalisation. The incidence rate of polyuria and hypokalaemia increased markedly after the 20th day, with both reaching a peak of 120.0 ADR/1000 neonates. Longer hospitalisation time (OR 0.018, 95% CI 0.007 to 0.029; p<0.01) and number of prescribed drugs (OR 0.127, 95% CI 0.075 to 0.178; p<0.01) were factors associated with ADRs. CONCLUSION: ADRs are very common in NICU, with tachycardia and hyperthermia predominant in the first week of hospitalisation and polyuria and hypokalaemia from the third week onwards.

Causality assessment of adverse drug reactions in neonates: a comparative study between Naranjo's algorithm and Du's tool.

BACKGROUND: Algorithms for causality assessment of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) are important in the management of adverse events, however, it is inconclusive which tool best suits pharmacovigilance in neonates. AIM: To compare the performance of the algorithms of Du and Naranjo in determining causality in cases of ADRs in neonates in a NICU. METHOD: This observational and prospective study was conducted in a NICU of a Brazilian maternity school between January 2019 and December 2020. Independently, three clinical pharmacists used the algorithms of Naranjo and Du in 79 cases of ADRs in 57 neonates. The algorithms were evaluated for inter-rater and inter-tool agreement using Cohen's kappa coefficient (k). RESULTS: The Du algorithm showed greater ability to identify definite ADRs (≈ 60%), but had low reproducibility (overall k = 0.108; 95% CI 0.064-0.149). In contrast, the Naranjo algorithm showed a lower proportion of definite ADRs (< 4%), but had good reproducibility (overall k = 0.402; 95% CI 0.379-0.429). The tools showed no significant correlation regarding ADR causality classification (overall k = - 0.031; 95% CI - 0.049 to 0.065). CONCLUSION: Although the Du algorithm has a lower reproducibility compared to the Naranjo, this tool showed good sensitivity for classifying ADRs as definite, proving to be a more suitable tool for neonatal clinical routine.

[Comparative assessment of off-label and unlicensed drug prescription in neonatal intensive care: FDA versus Brazilian guidelines]. / Evaluación comparativa de la prescripción off-label y unlicensed de fármacos en cuidados intensivos neonatales: Guías de la FDA versus guías brasileñas.

INTRODUCTION: Regulatory agencies are responsible for defining the use of off-label (OL) and unlicensed (UL) drug prescription in neonatal intensive care. However, these regulatory criteria may differ between agencies in different countries. The aim of this study was to establish the frequency of OL and UL drug prescription in a sample of patients in a neonatal intensive care unit applying the criteria of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of the United States and the Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (ANVISA) of Brazil, analysing the differences observed in the results based on the applied criteria. METHODS: Prospective cohort study in neonates admitted for more than 24hours to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) of a teaching maternity hospital between August 2017 and July 2018. We obtained information concerning the drugs included in the analysis of OL and UL prescriptions from the DrugDex-Micromedex® and official information on pharmaceutical products in Brazil. We used the kappa correlation coefficient to assess the agreement between the FDA and ANVISA criteria. We defined disagreement as a kappa value of less than 0.200. RESULTS: We evaluated 220 neonates admitted to the NICU and 17,421 items prescribed during the study period. We did not find a difference in the proportion of neonates in which at least 1 drug was prescribed under OL conditions applying the FDA versus the ANVISA criteria (96.4% vs. 98.6%). We found differences between the FDA and ANVISA in the OL classification based on the authorised age of use and indications for prescription, mainly in systemic antimicrobials and cardiovascular drugs. When we compared the prescribing information provided by the FDA and the ANVISA, we found that the criteria of the ANVISA were less specific. CONCLUSIONS: OL and UL drug prescription are frequent in neonatal intensive care applying the criteria of either agency, although the FDA has established more detailed criteria in terms of the ages and indications for which prescription is authorised.