Using routinely collected prescribing data to determine drug persistence for the purpose of pharmacovigilance

Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

Volumn 51, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 279-284

  Mohamed, Isa Naina ^a   Helms, Peter J ^a   Simpson, Colin R ^a   McLay, James S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Clinical Pharmacology (CPH); Drug Information (DRI); Pediatrics (PED); Pharmacoepidemiology (PHE); Pharmacology (PHA); Pharmacovigilance (PVG)

Indexed keywords

ANGIOTENSIN RECEPTOR ANTAGONIST; RAMIPRIL; SIMVASTATIN;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; DATA BASE; DRUG INFORMATION; DRUG SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM; DRUG WITHDRAWAL; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY; PRESCRIPTION; REGRESSION ANALYSIS;

ADVERSE DRUG REACTION REPORTING SYSTEMS; AGED; ANGIOTENSIN RECEPTOR ANTAGONISTS; DATA COLLECTION; DATABASES, FACTUAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MEDICATION ADHERENCE; MIDDLE AGED; PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY; RAMIPRIL; SIMVASTATIN; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 79551713752     PISSN: 00912700     EISSN: 15524604     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0091270010366444     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. World Health Organization. Pharmacovigilance. http://www.who.int/ medicines/areas/quality-safety/safety-efficacy/pharmvigi/en/index.html. Accessed May 13, 2009.
2. Strom BL Pharmacoepidemiology. 4th ed. Oxford, UK: Churchill Livingstone ; 1994.
3. World Health Organization. Safety of Medicines: A Guide to Detecting and Reporting Adverse Drug Reactions. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2002.
4. Goettler M., Schneeweiss S., Hasford J. Adverse drug reaction monitoring: cost and benefit considerations: Part II. Cost and preventability of adverse drug reactions leading to hospital admission. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 1997 ; 6 (suppl 3). S79 - S90.
5. Einarson TR Drug-related hospital admissions. Ann Pharmacother. 1993 ; 27: 832-840.
6. Bates DW, Cullen DJ, Laird N., et al. Incidence of adverse drug events and potential adverse drug events implications for prevention. JAMA. 1995 ; 274: 29-34.
7. Bates DW, Spell N., Cullen DJ, et al. The costs of adverse drug events in hospitalized patients. JAMA. 1997 ; 277: 307-311.
8. Pirmohamed M., James S., Meakin S., et al. Adverse drug reactions as cause of admission to hospital: prospective analysis of 18 820 patients. Br Med J. 2004 ; 329: 15-19. (Pubitemid 38869995)
9. Lazarou J., Pomeranz BH, Corey PN Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. JAMA. 1998 ; 279: 1200-1205.
10. Clarkson A., Conroy S., Burroughs K., Choonara I. Surveillance for adverse drug reactions in children: a paediatric regional monitoring centre. Paediatr Perinat Drug Ther. 2004 ; 6: 20-23.
11. Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). www.mhra.gov.uk. Accessed January 11, 2010.
12. Rawlins MD Spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions: I. The data. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1988 ; 26: 1-5.
13. Lumley CE, Walker SR, Hall GC, Staunton N., Grob PR The under-reporting of adverse drug reactions seen in general practice. Pharm Med. 1986 ; 1: 205-212.
14. Smith CC, Bennett PM, Pearce HM, Harrison PI, Reynolds DJ, Aronson JK Adverse drug reactions in a hospital general medical unit meriting notification to the Committee on Safety of Medicines. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1996 ; 42: 423-429.
15. Hitchen L. Adverse drug reactions result in 250 000 UK admissions a year. Br Med J. 2009 ; 332: 1109.
16. Information Services Division (ISD) Scotland. General practice: practice team information. http://www.isdscotland.org/isd/3727.html. Accessed January 11, 2010.
17. Primary Care Clinical Informatics Unit (PCCIU). http://www.abdn.ac.uk/ capc/research/special/pcciu.shtml. Accessed May 13, 2009.
18. Hurwitz N. Predisposing factors in adverse reactions to drugs. Br Med J. 1969 ; 1: 536-539.
19. Seidl LG, Thornton GF, Smith JW, Cluff LE Studies on the epidemiology of adverse drug reactions: III. Reactions in patients on a general medical service. Bull Johns Hopkins Hosp. 1966 ; 119: 299-315.
20. Kaplan NM The CARE study: a postmarketing evaluation of ramipril in 11,100 patients. Clin Ther. 1996 ; 18: 658-670.
21. Morimoto T., Gandhi TK, Fiskio JM, et al. An evaluation of risk factors for adverse drug events associated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. J Eval Clin Pract. 2004 ; 10: 499-509.
22. Zabludowski J., Rosenfeld J., Akbary MA, Ragoonwala B., Schinzel S. A multi-centre comparative study between ramipril and enalapril in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension. Curr Med Res Opin. 1988 ; 11: 93-105.
23. Ose L., Shah A., Davies M., et al. Consistency of lipid-altering effects of ezetimibe/simvastatin across gender, race, age, baseline low density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, and coronary heart disease status: results of a pooled retrospective analysis. Curr Med Res Opin. 2006 ; 22: 823-835.
24. Kim YS, Sunwoo S., Lee HR, et al. Determinants of non-compliance with lipid-lowering therapy in hyperlipidemic patients. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2002 ; 11: 593-600.
25. Zanchetti A., Omboni S. Comparison of candesartan versus enalapril in essential hypertension. Am J Hypertens. 2001 ; 14: 129-134.
26. Amerena J., Pappas S., Ouellet J-P., Williams L., O'Shaughhnessy D. ABPM comparison of the anti-hypertensive profiles of telmisartan and enalapril in patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension. J Int Med Res. 2002 ; 30: 543-552.
27. Pederson TR, Wilhelmsen L., Faergeman O., et al. Follow-up study of patients randomized in the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S) of cholesterol lowering. Am J Cardiol. 2000 ; 86: 257-262.
28. Strandberg TE, Pyorala K., Cook TJ, et al. Mortality and incidence of cancer during 10-year-follow-up of the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S). Lancet. 2004 ; 364: 771-777.
29. Park S., Kang HJ, Rim SJ A randomized, open-label study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pitavastatin compared with simvastatin in Korean patients with hypercholestrolemia. Clin Ther. 2005 ; 27: 1074-1082.
30. Fujikawa K., Hasebe N., Kikuchi K. Cost-effectiveness analysis of hypertension treatment: controlled release nifedipine and candesartan low-dose combination therapy in patients with essential hypertension. The Nifedipine and Candesartan Combination (NICE-Combi) Study. Hypertens Res. 2005 ; 28: 585-591.
31. Ruilope L., Jager B., Prichard B. Eprosartan versus enalapril in elderly patients with hypertension: a double-blind, randomized trial. Blood Press. 2001 ; 10: 223-229.
32. Tanser PH, Campbell LM, Carranza J., Karrash J., Toutouzas P., Watts R. Candesartan cilexetil is not associated with cough in hypertensive patients with enalapril-induced cough. Am J Hypertens. 2000 ; 13: 214-218.
33. Gavras HP Issues in hypertension: drug tolerability and special populations. Am J Hypertens. 2001 ; 147: 231S - 236S.
34. Philipp T., Smith TR, Glazer R., et al. Two multicenter, 8-week, randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group studies evaluating the efficacy and tolerability of amlodipine and valsartan in combination and as monotherapy in adult patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension. Clin Ther. 2007 ; 29: 563-580.
35. Baguet JP, Nisse-Durgeat S., Mouret S., Asmar R., Mallion JM A placebo-controlled comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of candesartan cilexetil, 8 mg, and losartan, 50 mg, as monotherapy in patients with essential hypertension, using 36-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Int J Clin Pract. 2006 ; 60: 391-398.
36. Information Services Division (ISD). Practice Team Information (PTI) statistics and analysis. http://www.isdscotland.org/isd/1044.html. Accessed May 13, 2009.
37. Simpson CR, Helms PJ, Taylor MW, Baxter-Jones ADG. Respiratory morbidity in primary care: a population based study, using practices from the Scottish Continuous Morbidity Recording Research Database. Health Bull (Edinburgh). 2000 ; 60: 489-496.