Browsing by Subject "Adverse event"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Open Access
    A retrospective study of patients with biologics treatment at Groote Schuur and Red Cross Children's War Memorial Hospitals
    (2020) Ahmed, Mohammed Awad Eltoum; Hodkinson, Bridget; Gcelu, Ayanda
    Introduction. The high cost and concern of adverse events, particularly infections, limit the use of biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic (bDMARD) therapies. We undertook this retrospective study to document their use for immune-mediated diseases (IMDs) and explore the efficacy, safety, adherence and screening practices prior to initiating bDMARDs in a tertiary referral hospital. Methods. A folder review of all adult and paediatric patients treated for IMDs with bDMARDs at Groote Schuur and Red Cross Hospitals between January 2013 and December 2019. Clinico-demographic particulars, details of bDMARD therapy, and adverse events were collated. Changes in disease activity were measured by diseasespecific tools at 6, 12, 24-months and at the last available visit, and patient adherence to bDMARDs was explored by folder and pharmacy record review. Results. We studied 151 folders, with 182 bDMARDs uses (29 patients used more than 1 bDMARD). Patients were from rheumatology (n= 38: 13 rheumatoid arthritis; 10 spondyloarthritis, 5 Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) , 5 inflammatory myositis and 5 other conditions); gastroenterology (n=31; 26 Crohn`s and 5 Ulcerative Colitis), dermatology (n=9; psoriasis), neurology (n=4, ophthalmology (n= 25; 6 scleritis, 18 uveitis, 1 optic neuritis), and paediatrics (n= 45, 26 juvenile idiopathic arthritis , 12 SLE, 7 other conditions). The bDMARDs used were TNF inhibitors (112), rituximab (55), tocilizumab (10), anakinra (3), abatacept (1), and tofacitinib (1). The vast majority of patients had an excellent response and were in low disease activity or remission at their last available visit. Adverse events included severe infection (4), tuberculosis (TB) (2), mild infection (4), severe allergic reaction (3), mild skin reaction (14), elevated liver enzymes (2), and worsening interstitial lung disease ILD (1). bDMARD Therapy was discontinued in 18 patients, most commonly due to adverse reaction (9), lack of response (3), poor adherence (2), or remission (1). bDMARD Therapy was changed to alternative therapy in 29 patients, most commonly because of poor response (14), or adverse effects (9) or poor adherence (3). Poor adherence or patients lost to follow-up was noted in 18/182 (9.9%). Complete latent TB infection screening with chest x-ray and TB skin test was performed in only 55 (36.4 %) but INH prophylaxis was given to 51/88 (57.9%) of patients prescribed TNFi therapy. Hepatitis B screening performed in 93 (61.6 %) patients, but most patients (72.2 %) were not tested for Hepatitis B core ab. Hepatitis C screening was performed in 81 (53.6 %) patients. Only 88 (58.3%) patients had a recent HIV test. The majority (17.2%) received the influenza vaccine, but only 24 (15.8 %) received pneumococcal vaccination. Discussion and Conclusion. bDMARD therapy was an effective treatment, and the most common adverse effect was infection (7.2%), with 2 TB infections. Vaccination and screening for TB, viral hepatitis and HIV was suboptimal. Of concern, poor adherence to bDMARDs was frequently encountered.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Open Access
    Evaluating harm associated with anti-malarial drugs: a survey of methods used by clinical researchers to elicit, assess and record participant-reported adverse events and related data
    (BioMed Central Ltd, 2013) Allen, Elizabeth; Chandler, Clare; Mandimika, Nyaradzo; Pace, Cheryl; Mehta, Ushma; Barnes, Karen
    BACKGROUND:Participant reports of medical histories, adverse events (AE) and non-study drugs are integral to evaluating harm in clinical research. However, interpreting or synthesizing results is complicated if studies use different methods for ascertaining and assessing these data. To explore how these data are obtained in malaria drug studies, a descriptive online survey of clinical researchers was conducted during 2012 and 2013. METHODS: The survey was advertised through e-mails, collaborators and at conferences. Questions aimed to capture the detail, rationale and application of methods used to obtain relevant data within various study designs and populations. Closed responses were analysed using proportions, open responses through identifying repeating ideas and underlying concepts. RESULTS: Of fifty-two respondents from 25 counties, 87% worked at an investigational site and 75% reported about an interventional study. Studies employed a range of methods to elicit, assess and record participant-reported AEs and related data. Questioning about AEs in 31% of interventional studies was a combination of general (open questions about health) and structured (reference to specific health-related items), 26% used structured only and 18% general only. No observational studies used general questioning alone. A minority incorporated pictorial tools. Rationales for the questioning approach included: standardization of assessment or data capture, specificity or comprehensiveness of data sought, avoidance of suggestion, feasibility, and understanding participants' perceptions. Most respondents considered the approach they reported was optimal, though several reconsidered this. Four AE grading, and three causality assessment approaches were reported. Combining general and structured questions about non-study drug use were considered useful for revealing and identifying specific medicines, while pictures could enhance reports, particularly in areas of low literacy. CONCLUSIONS: It is critical to evaluate the safety of anti-malarial drugs being deployed in large, diverse populations. Many studies would be suitable for contributing to a larger body of evidence for answering questions on harm. However this survey showed that various methods are used to obtain relevant data, which could influence study results. As the best practices for obtaining such data are unclear, anti-malarial clinical researchers should work towards consensus about the selection and/or design of optimal methods.