Evaluation of two European risk models for predicting medication harm in an Australian patient cohort.

PURPOSE: To externally evaluate the performance of two European risk prediction models, for identifying patients at high-risk of medication harm, in an Australian hospital setting. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a pre-existing cohort study described in a recently published study by Falconer et al. (Br J Clin Pharmacol 87(3):1512-1524, 2021) describing the development of a predictive risk model for inpatient medication harm. We retrospectively extracted relevant variables using the electronic health records of general medical and geriatric patients admitted to a quaternary hospital, in Brisbane, over 6 months from July to December 2017. This dataset was used to externally evaluate the two European models, The Brighton Adverse Drug Reaction Risk (BADRI) model by Tangiisuran et al. and a risk model developed by Trivalle et al. The variables were entered into both models and the patients' risk of medication harm was calculated, and compared with actual patient outcomes. Predictive performance was evaluated by measuring area under the receiver operative characteristic (AuROC) curves. RESULTS: The Australian patient cohort included 1982 patients (median age 74 years), of which 136 (7%) patients experienced ≥ 1 medication harm event(s). External evaluation of the two European models identified that both the BADRI and the Trivalle models had reduced predictive performance in an Australian patient cohort, compared with their original studies (AuROC of 0.63 [95% CI: 0.58-0.68] and 0.60 [95% CI: 0.55-0.65], respectively). CONCLUSION: Neither model demonstrated sufficient discrimination to warrant further evaluation in our local setting. This is likely a result of variations between the development and the validation cohorts, and the change in healthcare systems over time, and highlights the need for an up-to-date and context-specific risk prediction model.

Development and validation of the Adverse Inpatient Medication Event model (AIME).

AIMS: Medication harm has negative clinical and economic consequences, contributing to hospitalisation, morbidity and mortality. The incidence ranges from 4 to 14%, of which up to 50% of events may be preventable. A predictive model for identifying high-risk inpatients can guide a timely and systematic approach to prioritisation. The aim of this study is to develop and internally validate a risk prediction model for prioritisation of hospitalised patients at risk of medication harm. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted in general medical and geriatric specialties at an Australian hospital over six months. Medication harm was identified using International Classification of Disease (ICD-10) codes and the hospital's incident database. Sixty-eight variables, including medications and laboratory results, were extracted from the hospital's databases. Multivariable logistic regression was used to develop the final risk model. Performance was evaluated using area under the receiver operative characteristic curve (AuROC) and clinical utility was determined using decision curve analysis. RESULTS: The study cohort included 1982 patients with median age 74 years, of which 136 (7%) experienced at least one adverse medication event(s). The model included: length of stay, hospital re-admission within 12 months, venous or arterial thrombosis and/or embolism, ≥ 8 medications, serum sodium < 126 mmol/L, INR > 3, anti-psychotic, antiarrhythmic and immunosuppressant medications, and history of medication allergy. Validation gave an AuROC of 0.70 (95% CI: 0.65-0.74). Decision curve analysis identified that the AIME may be clinically useful to help guide decision making in practice. CONCLUSION: We have developed a predictive model with reasonable performance. Future steps include external validation and impact evaluation.