Pharmacovigilance in Hospitals: Retrospective Study at the Pharmacovigilance Service of UHE-Oran, Algeria

Authors: Nadjet Mekaouche, Hanane Zitouni, Fatma Boudia, Habiba Fetati, A. Saleh, A. Lardjam, H. Geniaux, A. Coubret, H. Toumi

Abstract:

Medicines have undeniably played a major role in prolonging shelf life and improving quality. The absolute efficacy of the drug remains a lever for innovation, its benefit/risk balance is not always assured and it does not always have the expected effects. Prior to marketing, knowledge about adverse drug reactions is incomplete. Once on the market, phase IV drug studies begin. For years, the drug was prescribed with less care to a large number of very heterogeneous patients and often in combination with other drugs. It is at this point that previously unknown adverse effects may appear, hence the need for the implementation of a pharmacovigilance system. Pharmacovigilance represents all methods for detecting, evaluating, informing and preventing the risks of adverse drug reactions. The most severe adverse events occur frequently in hospital and that a significant proportion of adverse events result in hospitalizations. In addition, the consequences of hospital adverse events in terms of length of stay, mortality and costs are considerable. It, therefore, appears necessary to develop ‘hospital pharmacovigilance’ aimed at reducing the incidence of adverse reactions in hospitals. The most widely used monitoring method in pharmacovigilance is spontaneous notification. However, underreporting of adverse drug reactions is common in many countries and is a major obstacle to pharmacovigilance assessment. It is in this context that this study aims to describe the experience of the pharmacovigilance service at the University Hospital of Oran (EHUO). This is a retrospective study extending from 2011 to 2017, carried out on archived records of declarations collected at the level of the EHUO Pharmacovigilance Department. Reporting was collected by two methods: ‘spontaneous notification’ and ‘active pharmacovigilance’ targeting certain clinical services. We counted 217 statements. It involved 56% female patients and 46% male patients. Age ranged from 5 to 78 years with an average of 46 years. The most common adverse reaction was drug toxidermy. For the drugs in question, they were essentially according to the ATC classification of anti-infectives followed by anticancer drugs. As regards the evolution of declarations by year, a low rate of notification was noted in 2011. That is why we decided to set up an active approach at the level of some services where a resident of reference attended the staffs every week. This has resulted in an increase in the number of reports. The declarations came essentially from the services where the active approach was installed. This highlights the need for ongoing communication between all relevant health actors to stimulate reporting and secure drug treatments.

Keywords: adverse drug reactions, hospital, pharmacovigilance, spontaneous notification