Advertisement

Klinische Wochenschrift

, Volume 69, Issue 17, pp 775–779 | Cite as

A need to intensify drug surveillance in Germany

  • J. -F. Kapp
  • R. Zentgraf
  • A. Widmer
  • E. Schöpf
Originals

Summary

Despite all its limitations, the spontaneous reporting system still forms the basis for drug safety assessments in the Federal Republic of Germany. Although there have been some promising attempts to standardise the methodology of detecting, analysing and evaluating adverse drug events (ADEs) in certain clinico-pharmacological institutes and psychiatric departments, the approaches have not been integrated and are used only locally. The only exception is the Freiburg Documentation Centre for Severe Skin Diseases, which is attempting comprehensive, country-wide documentation of toxic epidermal necrolysis (Lyell's syndrome) and Stevens-Johnson syndrome. We show that surveillance of 40% of all hospital beds would allow the acquisition of reliable data even on rare and serious AEs which could then be extrapolated in a statistically meaningful way. The medical societies in Germany have traditionally taken a leading role in establishing standards for the preclinical and clinical investigation of new drug compounds. We suggest that they also make it their task to define the framework for an intensified adverse events monitoring system, since it is the patient who ultimately benefits from a quantification of drug therapy risks.

Key words

Adverse events Risk evaluation Quantification of drug risks 

Abbreviations

AE

Adverse event

ADR

Adverse drug reaction

BGA

Bundesgesundheitsamt (Federal Health Authority)

DDD

Defined daily dose

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Benichou C (1990) Criteria of drug-induced liver disorders. Report of an international consensus meeting. J Hepatol 11:272–276Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Danan G, Benichou C (1990) Réunion internationale de consensus sur les définitions et les critères d'evaluation des atteintes hépatiques médicamenteuses (1). Abstract 36. First European Symposium of Pharmacovigilance. 12th Meeting on Pharmacovigilance, 29–30 October, StrasbourgGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Faich GA (1989) Memorandum. Department of Health and Human Services Public Health Service, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, April PMS News Quarterly, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fink JL, Myers MJ, Palumbo FB (1978) Use of patient medication records: a three-state study. AMJ Pharm sc Support-Public-Health 150 (63): 81–88Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hasford J (1986) Methoden zur Erfassung unerwünschter Arzneimittelwirkungen. In: Dölle W et al. (Hrsg) Grundlagen der Arzneimitteltherapie. Bibliographisches Institut, Mannheim, S 281–287Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hasford J, Victor N (1987) Risk-benefit analyses of drugs: fundamental considerations and requirements from the point of view of the biometrician. Problems in the assessment of the combination of trimethoprim with sulfamethoxazole. Infection 15 [Suppl 5]:S236–S240Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Helmchen H, Hippius B, Müller-Oerlinghausen B, Rüther E (1985) Arzneimittelüberwachung in der Psychiatric. Nervenarzt 56:12–18Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Inman WHW (1980) The United Kingdom. In: Inman WHW (ed) Monitoring for drug safety. MTP Press, Lancaster, pp 9–48Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jick H (1977) The discovery of drug-induced illness. N Engl J Med 296:481–485Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jick H, Miettinen OS, Shapiro S, Lewis GP, Siskind V, Slone D (1970) Comprehensive drug surveillance. JAMA 213 (9):1455–1460Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kapp JF (1987) Vortrag: Welche Lehren hat die pharmazeutische Industrie aus dem Contergan-Unglück gezogen? BPI-Symposium: 25 Jahre Arzneimittelgesetz — Fortschritte der Arzneimittelsicherheit, 18. Mai 1987, BonnGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kewitz H (1977) Erhebungen über die Arzneimitteltherapie in der Klinik. Verh Dtsch Ges Inn Med 83:1487–1502Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kreutz G (1990) Mitteilung: The principles and practice of pharmacoepidemiology. Conference 14.–17. October 1990, StrassburgGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Porta MS, Hartzema AG (1987) The contribution of epidemiology to the study of drugs. Drug Intell Clin Pharm 21:741–746Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rawson NSB, Pearce GI, Inman WHW (1990) Prescriptionevent monitoring: methodology and recent progress. J ClinEpidemiol 43:509–522Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rossi AC, Hsu JP, Faich GA (1987) Ulcerogenicity of piroxicam: an analysis of spontaneous reported data. Br Med J 294:147–150Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schönhöfer PS, Wessely-Stickel B, Schulte-Sasse H, Werner W (1989) Flächendeckende Erfassung schwerer, potentiell lebensbedrohlicher unerwünschter Arzneimittelwirkungen. Verh Dtsch Ges Inn Med 95:687–690Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schöpf E, Stühmer A, Rzany B, Victor N, Zentgraf R, Kapp JF (1990) Toxische epidermale Nekrolyse und Stevens-Johnson-Syndrom. Epidemiologische Studie 1981 bis 1985. Dtsch Aerztebl 87 (46): A3641–3642Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schöpf E, Stühmer A, Rzany B, Victor N, Zentgraf R, Kapp JF (in press) Toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) and StevensJohnson Syndrome (SJS). An epidemiologic study conducted in West Germany. Arch DermatolGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schwabe U, Paffrath D (1987) Arzneiverordnungsreport '87. Fischer, Stuttgart New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Scott HD, Thacher-Renshaw A, Rosenbaum SE, Waters WJ, Green M, Andrews LG, Faich GA (1990) Physician reporting of adverse drug reations. Results of the Rhode Island Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Project. JAMA 263:1785–1788Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Solal-Celigny P, Benichou C, Boivin P, Castot A, Coulombel L, Danan G, Degos L, Evreux JC, Lagier G, Lavarenne J, Sonbrié C, Tchernia G, Tobelem G (1987) Critères d'imputation d'une cytopénie granuleuse ou plaquettaire à un médicament. Résultats de réunions de consensus. Nouv Rev Fr Hematol 29:265–270Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Venning GR (1983) Identification of adverse reactions to new drugs. III: Alerting processes and early warning systems. Br Med J 286:458–460Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Victor N (1990) Nutzen-Risiko-Bewertung von Arzneimitteln. Dtsch Aerztebl 87 (13): A1008–1019Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Weber JCP (1984) Epidemiology of adverse reactions to nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs. In: Rainsford KD, Velo GP (eds) Advances in inflammation research 6, Raven Press, New York, pp 1–7Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Weber E, Ding R, Gundert-Remy U, Harenberg J, von Kenne H, Spohr U, Walter E, Oh KU, Seidl G, Fritz U (1979) Verordnungsmuster einer Medizinischen Universitätsklinik. Klinikarzt 8:851–854Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. -F. Kapp
    • 1
  • R. Zentgraf
    • 1
  • A. Widmer
    • 1
  • E. Schöpf
    • 2
  1. 1.Gödecke AGFreiburg
  2. 2.Universitäts-HautklinikFreiburg

Personalised recommendations