 |
|
 |
BMJ 1998;316:1295-1298 ( 25 April )
Clinical review
Fortnightly review
Adverse drug reactions
Adverse drug reactions
Munir Pirmohamed, senior lecturer in clinical pharmacology, Alasdair M
Breckenridge, professor of clinical pharmacology, Neil R Kitteringham,
senior lecturer in pharmacology, B Kevin Park, professor of
pharmacology.
Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, University of Liverpool,
Box 147, Liverpool L69 3BX
An adverse drug reaction is any undesirable effect of a drug beyond
its
anticipated therapeutic effects occurring during clinical use. In
contrast, an adverse drug event is an untoward occurrence after
exposure to a drug that is not necessarily caused by the drug.1
When a drug is marketed little is known about its safety in clinical
use because only about 1500 patients are likely to have been exposed
to it. 1 2 Thus drug safety assessment should be considered an
integral part of everyday clinical practice since detection and
diagnosis often depend on clinical acumen.
In this article we review the current status of adverse drug
reactions,
briefly describing the complexity of the more bizarre reactions and
outlining a strategy to eliminate serious adverse drug reactions.
Summary points
Adverse drug reactions are a common clinical problem
They are diagnosed on clinical grounds from the temporal relation
between the start and finish of drug treatment and the onset and
offset of the reaction
Pharmacological adverse reactions are generally
dose-dependent, related to the pharmacokinetic properties of the drug,
and resolve when the dose is reduced
Idiosyncratic adverse reactions are not related to the known
pharmacology of the drug, do not show any simple dose-response
relation, and resolve only when treatment is discontinued
Vigilance by clinicians in detecting, diagnosing, and reporting
adverse
reactions is important for continued drug safety monitoring
Methods
We conducted a search on the BIDS ISI database
between 1981 and 1997 using key words such as toxicity and
hypersensitivity combined with drug. The references most relevant to
this review were then scanned together with any other relevant
references cited within the articles. We also continuously review the
literature because of our research interests.
Importance of adverse drug reactions
Adverse drug reactions are a major clinical problem, accounting for
2-6% of all hospital admissions (box).3-6 Recent surveys in the United
States have indicated that adverse drug events increase the length of
hospital stay and costs. 5 6
Types of adverse drug reactions
Adverse drug reactions are type A (pharmacological) or type B
(idiosyncratic).7 Type A reactions represent an augmentation of the
pharmacological actions of a drug. They are dose-dependent and are
therefore readily reversible on reducing the dose or withdrawing the
drug. In contrast, type B adverse reactions are bizarre and cannot be
predicted from the known pharmacology of the drug.
Pharmacological adverse drug reactions
Type A adverse drug reactions are more common than type B reactions,3
accounting for over 80% of all reactions. They can be divided into
those due to the primary pharmacology of the drugthat is, augmentation
of the drug's therapeutic actionsand those due to the secondary
pharmacology of the drugthat is, an action different from the drug's
therapeutic actions but still rationalisable from the known
pharmacology of the drug.
Importance of adverse drug reactions
Adverse drug reactions:
Account for 5% of all hospital admissions
Occur in 10-20% of hospital inpatients
Cause deaths in 0.1% of medical and 0.01% of surgical inpatients
Adversely affect patients' quality of life
Cause patients to lose confidence in their doctors
Increase costs of patient care
Preclude use of drug in most patients, although
they may occur in only a few patients. May mimic disease, resulting in
unnecessary investigations and delay in treatment
Thus, for blockers, bradycardia and heart block are primary
pharmacological adverse effects while bronchospasm is a secondary
pharmacological adverse effect. More emphasis is now placed on the
secondary pharmacology of new drugs during preclinical evaluation to
anticipate problems that might arise once the drug is given to humans.
Recent experience with fialuridine, an experimental drug for hepatitis
B, highlights the need for continued development of appropriate in
vivo and bridging in vitro test systems to predict secondary
pharmacological adverse effects in humans. In June 1993, during phase
II trials, 5 out of 15 patients died while two others required
emergency liver transplantation for liver and kidney failure8; this
effect had not been observed in four animal species. On the basis of
results from in vitro studies in cultured hepatoblasts, the toxicity
may be due to inhibition of mitochondrial DNA polymerase by
fialuridine and its metabolites.9
Mechanisms of idiosyncratic adverse drug reactions
Pharmaceutical variationeosinophilia-myalgia syndrome with L-tryptophan
Receptor abnormalitymalignant hyperthermia with general anaesthetics
Abnormal biological system unmasked by drugprimaquine induced
haemolysis in patients deficient in glucose 6-phosphate dehydrogenase
Abnormalities in drug metabolismisoniazid induced peripheral
neuropathy in people deficient in the enzyme N-acetyl transferase
(that is, those who are slow acetylators)Immunologicalpenicillin
induced anaphylaxis
Drug-drug interactionsincreased incidence of hepatitis when isoniazid
is prescribed with rifampicin Multifactorialhalothane hepatitis
Factors predisposing to pharmacological adverse reactions include
dose,
pharmaceutical variation in drug formulation, pharmacokinetic or
pharmacodynamic abnormalities, and drug-drug interactions (table).
Some
drugs, including captopril, were introduced into clinical practice at
a dose that was subsequently shown to be associated with an
unacceptable frequency of toxicity and for which a lower dose was
found to be both safe and effective. Elderly people and patients with
diseases such as renal failure which affect drug handling are more
likely to have type A reactions. The likelihood of developing an
adverse interaction also increases with the number of drugs
prescribedfor example, if five drugs are given simultaneously the
chance of an adverse interaction occurring is 50%.10 To date, this has
largely been a problem in elderly people but it is becoming
increasingly common in younger patients with chronic diseases such as
AIDS, who may be taking 6-10 different drugs.11
Factors predisposing to pharmacological adverse drug reactions
Idiosyncratic adverse drug reactions
Idiosyncratic adverse reactions are less common than pharmacological
adverse reactions, but they are as important because they are often
serious and account for many deaths. Mechanisms of idiosyncratic
adverse effects12 are listed in the box.
The body's drug metabolising system has been implicated in the
pathogenesis of many idiosyncratic reactions.13 Drug metabolism is
conventionally divided into phase I and phase II14; it acts as a
defence mechanism by facilitating excretion of the parent drug and its
metabolites, limiting their ability to accumulate within the body and
cause dose-dependent toxicity. Metabolic processes may also prevent
accumulation of some drugs within particular cells or cellular
compartments, which would eventually lead to toxicity. The best
example of this is perhexilene, an antianginal agent, which caused
hepatotoxicity and peripheral neuropathy in people deficient in the
CYP2D6 (debrisoquine hydroxylase) isoform of cytochrome P-450.15
Paradoxically, drug metabolising enzymes, particularly the phase I
cytochrome P-450 enzymes, may also cause the formation of chemically
reactive metabolitesa process termed bioactivation. 12 13 16 Such
metabolites may be toxic. In most people the formation of chemically
reactive metabolites is counterbalanced by detoxification mechanismsa
process termed bioinactivation. In susceptible people the usually
favourable balance between bioactivation and bioinactivation may be
perturbed by either genetic or host factors such as age, enzyme
induction, and disease, all of which allow the toxic metabolites to
escape detoxification. Under these circumstances, the toxic
metabolites may bind covalently to various cellular macromolecules and
cause toxicity. With most drugs, however, the factors which cause this
imbalance are unknown, which explains why such reactions continue to
occur.
In some cases chemically reactive metabolites will be formed
irrespective of the dose.16 At therapeutic doses any toxic metabolite
formed will be detoxified by cellular defence mechanisms, but an
imbalance between bioactivation and bioinactivation may result after
overdoses. This will lead to the formation of large amounts of
chemically reactive metabolite, which will overwhelm cellular
detoxification capacity and lead to cell damage. The clearest example
of this occurs in paracetamol overdose, which causes hepatotoxicity
and kills about 160 people each year in the United Kingdom.17
Paracetamol hepatotoxicity should not be classed as an adverse
reaction since the hepatic injury occurs when the drug is used
inappropriately. However, the occurrence and severity of liver damage
with paracetamol is a
function not only of the dose but also of various host factors.13
Indeed,paracetamol hepatotoxicity has been reported with therapeutic
drug use. For example, a recent study in 67 alcoholic patients with
paracetamol hepatotoxicity showed that 40% had taken less than 4 g/day
(the recommended therapeutic dose) and 20% had taken 4-6 g/day (a
non-toxic dose).18 Paracetamol is largely metabolised by phase II
processes (glucuronidation and sulphation) to stable metabolites, with
5-10% undergoing P-450 metabolism to the toxic quinoneimine
metabolite.19 This is detoxified by cellular glutathione. At overdose,
saturation of the phase II pathways results in a greater proportion of
the drug undergoing bioactivation. This leads to glutathione depletion
and allows the toxic metabolite to bind to proteins, resulting in
hepatocellular damage.19 The use of N-acetylcysteine to treat
paracetamol overdose shows that elucidation of the mechanism of drug
toxicity can lead to the development of rational treatments that will
prevent toxicity. Alcoholic patients show increased susceptibility to
paracetamol because excess alcohol consumption depletes glutathione20
and induces the CYP2E1 isoform of cytochrome P-450,21 the primary
enzyme concerned with paracetamol bioactivation.22
Importance of the immune system
Many idiosyncratic adverse reactions are thought to be mediated by the
immune system on the basis of clinical criteria. 12 13 23 The
mechanism by which a drug leads to an immune mediated adverse reaction
is explained by the hapten hypothesis.24 Central to the hypothesis is
the assumption that small molecules such as drugs can be recognised as
immunogensthat is, a substance capable of eliciting a specific immune
responseonly when they become covalently bound to macromolecules such
as proteins (to form haptens).24 The type of hypersensitivity is
partly determined by the nature of the immune response and the site of
antigen formation. The best understood reactions are the type I
ypersensitivity reactions induced by penicillins and mediated by IgE
antibodies directed against a drug hapten conjugated to protein. 13 25
Severe anaphylactic reactions occur in only 1 in 2000 patients; the
genetic basis of the IgE response to penicillins remains unclear.
Less well understood are the immunological mechanisms underlying
severe
reactions such as the Stevens-Johnson syndrome and immunoallergic
hepatitis. In vitro studies have shown that drugs causing these
reactions undergo oxidative metabolism to chemically reactive
metabolites that can form haptens with proteins.26 Both humoral and
cell mediated responses directed against drug induced antigen have
been detected in patientsfor example, in halothane hepatitis.27 With
some compounds the immune response is directed predominantly towards
an autoantigen. For example, in hepatitis induced by tienilic acid
patients have circulating autoantibodies directed against the P-450
isoform (CYP2C9) that is responsible for bioactivation of the drug.28
However, whether such autoantibodies are pathogenic or represent an
epiphenomenon (their appearance is secondary) needs further study. The
role of T cells in drug induced tissue injury is also poorly
understood, although recent immunohistochemical studies, particularly
of skin reactions, suggests that they subserve a pathogenic role.29
Host factors and adverse drug reactions
Genetically determined alterations in drug metabolising enzymes can
predispose to both pharmacological and idiosyncratic toxicity.26
Single gene defects account for only a minority of adverse drug
reactions. For most adverse reactions, particularly the idiosyncratic
drug reactions,
predisposition seems to be multifactorial, involving not only defects
at multiple gene loci but also environmental factors such as
concomitant infection. 13 26 Most work has focused on enzyme
polymorphisms in drug oxidation and conjugation as risk factors for
drug toxicity, but this search for genes affecting susceptibility
needs to be extended to include cell repair mechanisms, elaboration of
cytokines, and immune responsiveness. Such investigations may in the
future provide us with the capability to predict a person's
susceptibility to the different forms of drug toxicity.
Concomitant host disease may also influence susceptibility to adverse
reactions. The best recent example is HIV disease, which increases the
frequency of idiosyncratic toxicity with anti-infective drugs such as
co-trimoxazole.30 Around 50% of patients receiving high doses of
co-trimoxazole for Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia and 30% receiving
prophylactic doses develop skin rashes.31 This contrasts with a
frequency of 3% in people who are negative for HIV infection.31
Glutathione deficiency has been suggested by some 32 33 but not all 34
35 investigators to be responsible for the increased frequency of
reactions. 30 31 The reasons are likely to be more complex and to
include not only changes in drug metabolising capacity (bioactivation
and bioinactivation) but also immune dysregulation.
Spontaneous reporting schemes
The exposure of 1500 patients to a drug by the time of licensing 1 2
will allow the more common adverse reactions to be detected but not
necessarily characterised. At least 30 000 people need to be treated
with a drug to discoverwith a power of 0.95at least one patient with
an adverse reaction which has an incidence of 1 in 10 000.36 Thus,
postmarketing surveillance is important to permit detection of less
common adverse effects. Spontaneous adverse drug reaction reporting
schemes, as exemplified by the yellow card system in the United
Kingdom, form the cornerstone of postmarketing drug safety
surveillance. Indeed, spontaneous reporting schemes remain the only
way of monitoring the safety of a drug throughout its marketed life.
The yellow card scheme is important in identifying previously
undetected adverse reactions37 and over the years has provided many
early warnings of drug safety hazardsfor example, remoxipride and
aplastic anaemiato allow appropriate drug regulatory action to be
taken. A problem with spontaneous reporting is that less than 10% of
all serious and 2-4% of non-serious adverse reactions are reported. 2
38 All doctors need to
be aware that adverse drug reaction reporting is part of overall
patient care and is not simply an afterthought. Since 1964 reporting
in the United Kingdom has been restricted to doctors, dentists, and
coroners, although more recently a reporting scheme for pharmacists
has been introduced. In some European countries all healthcare
professionals are allowed to report adverse drug reactions, while in
the United States patients can also report through the MEDWatch
scheme.39
Conclusion
The importance of adverse drug reactions is often underestimated. They
are common and can be life threatening and unnecessarily expensive.
The measures outlined in the box above are important to improve the
benefit to risk ratio of drug treatment by reducing the burden of drug
toxicity. Because of the wide range of drugs available, the
manifestations of toxicity may vary and affect any organ system. In
fact, adverse reactions have taken over from syphilis and tuberculosis
as the great mimics of other diseases. The pattern of toxicity is
likely to change with the introduction of new biotechnology
products. It is therefore important for prescribing clinicians to be
aware of the toxic profile of drugs they prescribe and to be ever
vigilant for the occurrence of unexpected adverse reactions.
Strategy to improve drug safety
Avoidance of chemical functional groups that are well recognised to
cause toxicity during drug designfor example, aromatic amines,
phenols, epoxides, and quinones.
Development of metabolically inert drugs to
avoid metabolic interactions and prevent formation of toxic
metabolitesfor example, vigabatrin and gabapentin.
Development of suitable in vitro
and in vivo systems to elucidate the role of shortlived, potentially
toxic metabolites in the pathogenesis of idiosyncratic toxicity.
Increased use of in vitro systems, such as cell lines expressing drug
metabolising enzymes, to predict the potential for adverse drug
interactionsand polymorphic routes of metabolism.
Study of high risk patients during the premarketing drug development
phase to identify pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic factors that
influence susceptibility to drug toxicity.
Development of computer based schemes to monitor for adverse reactions
and adverse events in primary and secondary care.
Encouragement to report adverse drug reactions to regulatory agencies
Identification of risk factors for different types of drug toxicity by
using pharmacoepidemiological approaches.
Identification of multigenetic predisposing factors to allow the
prediction of individual susceptibility
References
Asscher AW, Parr GD, Whitmarsh VB. Towards the
safer use of medicines. BMJ 1995; 311: 1003-1005[Full Text].
Rawlins MD. Pharmacovigilance: paradise lost, regained or postponed? J
R Coll Physicians Lond 1995; 29: 41-49[Medline].
Einarson TR. Drug-related hospital admissions. Ann Pharmacother 1993;
27: 832-840[Medline].
Bates DW, Cullen DJ, Laird N, Petersen LA, Small SD, Servi D, et al.
Incidence of adverse drug events and potential adverse drug
events implications for prevention. JAMA 1995; 274: 29-34[Medline].
Bates DW, Spell N, Cuilen DJ, Burdick E, Laird
N, Petersen LA, et al. The costs of adverse drug events in
hospitalized patients. JAMA 1997; 277:307-311[Medline].
Classen DC, Pestotnik SL, Evans RS, Lloyd JF, Burke JP. Adverse drug
events in hospitalized patients. Excess length of stay, extra costs,
and attributable mortality. JAMA 1997; 277: 301-306[Medline].
Rawlins MD, Thompson JW. Mechanisms of adverse drug reactions. In:
Davies DM, ed. Textbook of adverse drug reactions. , Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1991:18-45.
McKenzie R, Fried MW, Sallie R, Conjeevaram H, Dibisceglie AM, Park Y,
et al. Hepatic-failure and lactic-acidosis due to fialuridine (fiau),
an investigational nucleoside analog for chronic hepatitis B. N Engl J
Med 1995; 333: 1099-1105[Medline].
Lewis W, Levine ES, Griniuviene B, Tankersley KO, Colacino JM,
Sommadossi J-P, et al. Fialuridine and its metabolites inhibit DNA
polymerase gamma at sites of multiple adjacent analog incoroporation,
decrease mtDNA abundance, and cause mitochondrial structural defects
in cultured hepatoblasts. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1996; 93:
3592-3597[Abstract].
Atkin PA, Shenfield GM. Medication-related adverse reactions and the
elderly: a literature review. Adverse Drug Reactions Toxicol Rev 1995;
14: 175-191[Medline].
Harb GE, Jacobson MA. Human immunodeficiency virus infection: does it
increase susceptibility to adverse drug reactions? Drug Safety 1993;
9:
1-8[Medline].
Park BK, Pirmohamed M, Kitteringham NR. Idiosyncratic drug reactions:
a
mechanistic evaluation of risk factors. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1992; 34:
377-395[Medline].
Pirmohamed M, Kitteringham NR, Park BK. The role of active metabolites
in drug toxicity. Drug Safety 1994; 11: 114-144[Medline].
Williams RT. The metabolism of foreign compounds and the detoxication
mechanisms Detoxication mechanisms. , New York: Wiley, 1959:717-740.
Shah RR, Oates NS, Idle JR, Smith RL, Lockhart
JDF. Impaired oxidation of debrisoquine in patients with perhexilene
neuropathy. BMJ 1982; 284:
295-298[Medline].
Pirmohamed M, Madden S, Park BK. Idiosyncratic drug reactions:
metabolic bioactivation as a pathogenic mechanism. Clin Pharmacokinet
1996; 31: 215-230[Medline].
Bray GP. Liver failure induced by paracetamol. BMJ 1993; 306:
157-158[Medline].
Zimmerman HJ, Maddrey WC. Acetaminophen (paracetamol) hepatotoxicity
with regular intake of alcohol: analysis of instances of therapeutic
misadventure. Hepatology 1995; 22: 767-773[Abstract].
Nelson SD. Molecular mechanisms of the hepatotoxicity caused by
acetaminophen. Semin Liver Dis 1990; 10: 267-278[Medline].
Lauterburg BH, Velez ME. Glutathione deficiency in alcoholics: risk
factor for paracetamol hepatotoxicity. Gut 1988; 29:
1153-1157[Abstract].
Raucy JL, Lasker JM, Lieber CS, Black M. Acetaminophen activation by
human liver cytochromes P-45011E1 and P-4501A2. Arch Biochem Biophys
1989; 271: 270-283[Medline].
Lee SST, Buters JTM, Pineau T, Fernandezsalguero P, Gonzalez FJ. Role
of cyp2e1 in the hepatotoxicity of acetaminophen. J Biol Chem 1996;
271: 12063-12067[Abstract/Full Text].
Pohl LR, Satoh H, Christ DD, Kenna JG. Immunologic and metabolic basis
of drug hypersensitivities. Ann Rev Pharmacol 1988; 28:
367-387[Medline].
Park BK, Coleman JW, Kitteringham NR. Drug disposition and drug
hypersensitivity. Biochem Pharmacol 1987; 36: 581-590[Medline].
Weiss ME, Adkinson MF. Immediate hypersensitivity reactions to
penicillin and related antibiotics. Clin Allergy 1988; 18:
515-540[Medline].
Park BK, Pirmohamed M, Kitteringham NR. The role of cytochrome P450
enzymes in hepatic and extrahepatic human drug toxicity. Pharmacol
Ther 1995; 68: 385-424[Medline].
Pohl LR. Drug-induced allergic hepatitis. Semin Liver Dis 1990; 10:
305-315[Medline].
Beaune PH, Bourdi M. Autoantibodies against cytochrome P-450 in drug
induced autoimmune hepatitis. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1993; 685:
641-645[Medline].
Friedmann PS, Strickland I, Pirmohamed M, Park BK. Investigation of
mechanisms in toxic epidermal necrolysis induced by carbamazepine.
Arch
Dermatol 1994; 130: 598-604[Medline].
Koopmans PP, van der Ven AJAM, Vree TB, van der Meer JWM. Pathogenesis
of hypersensitivity reactions to drugs in patients with HIV
infectionallergic or toxic. AIDS 1995; 9: 217-222[Medline].
Van der Ven AJ, Koopmans PP, Vree TB, van der Meer JW. Adverse
reactions to co-trimoxazole in HIV infection. Lancet 1991; ii:
431-433.
Roederer M, Staal FJT, Osada H, Herzenberg LA,
Herzenberg LA. CD4 and CD8 T cells with high intracellular glutathione
levels are selectively lost as the HIV infection progresses. Int
Immunol 1991; 3: 933-937[Abstract].
Buhl R, Holroyd KJ, Mastrangeli A, Cantin AM, Jaffe HA, Wells FB, et
al. Systemic glutathione deficiency in symptom-free HlV-seropositive
individuals. Lancet 1989; ii: 1294-1298.
Aukrust P, Svardal AM, Muller F, Lunden B, Berge RK, Ueland PM, et al.
Increased levels of oxidized glutathione in CD4+ lymphocytes
associated with disturbed intracellular redox balance in human
immunodeficiency virus type 1 infection. Blood 1995; 86:
258-267[Abstract].
Pirmohamed M, Williams D, Tingle MD, Barry M, Khoo SH, O'Mahony C, et
al. Intracellular glutathione in the peripheral blood cells of HlV-infected
patients: failure to show a deficiency. AIDS 1996; 10:
501-507[Medline].
Stricker BHC. Drug-induced hepatic injury. , 2nd ed. , Vol 5
Amsterdam:
Elsevier Science , 1992.
Belton KJ, Lewis SC, Payne S, Rawlins MD. Attitudinal survey of
adverse drug reaction reporting by medical practitioners in the United
Kingdom. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1995; 39: 223-226[Medline].
Smith CC, Bennett PM, Pearce HM, Harrison PI, Reynolds DJM, Aronson JK,
et al. 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[Medline].
Kessler DA. Introducing MEDWatch: a new approach to reporting
medication and device adverse effects and product problems. JAMA 1993;
269: 2765-2768[Medline].
|
 |