Skip to main content
Log in

Flight safety risk assessment of self-medication among fighter pilots: a cross-sectional study

  • Research Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Fighter pilots are a specific population in which any adverse drug reaction can unpredictably interact with aeronautical constraints and thus compromise flight safety. This issue has not been evaluated in risk assessments.

Aim

To provide a semi-quantitative assessment of the risk to flight safety of self-medication in fighter pilots.

Method

A cross-sectional survey that aimed at identifying the determinants of self-medication in fighter pilots was conducted. All medications consumed within 8 h preceding a flight were listed. A modified Failure Mode and Effects Analysis was performed, and any adverse drug reaction reported in the French marketing authorization document of a drug was considered a failure mode. The frequency of occurrence and severity were evaluated using specific scales to assign each to three risk criticality categories: acceptable, tolerable, and unacceptable.

Results

Between March and November 2020, the responses of 170 fighter pilots were analyzed, for an overall return rate of approximately 34%. Among them, 78 reported 140 self-medication events within 8 h preceding a flight. Thirty-nine drug trade names (48 different international nonproprietary names) were listed, from which 694 potential adverse drug reactions were identified. The risk criticality was considered unacceptable, tolerable and acceptable for 37, 325 and 332 adverse drug reactions, respectively. Thus, the risk criticality was considered unacceptable, tolerable and acceptable for 17, 17, and 5 drugs, respectively.

Conclusion

This analysis suggests that the overall risk to flight safety of the current practice of self-medication in fighter pilots may be considered at least tolerable, or even unacceptable.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Noone J, Blanchette CM. The value of self-medication: summary of existing evidence. J Med Econ. 2018;21(2):201–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Cohen J, Millier A, Karray S, et al. Assessing the economic impact of Rx-to-OTC switches: systematic review and guidelines for future development. J Med Econ. 2013;16(6):835–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Asseray N, Ballereau F, Trombert-Paviot B, et al. Frequency and severity of adverse drug reactions due to self-medication: a cross-sectional multicentre survey in emergency departments. Drug Saf. 2013;36(12):1159–68.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Berreni A, Montastruc F, Bondon-Guitton E, et al. Adverse drug reactions to self-medication: a study in a pharmacovigilance database. Fundam Clin Pharmacol. 2015;29(5):517–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Locquet M, Honvo G, Rabenda V, et al. Adverse health events related to self-medication practices among elderly: a systematic review. Drugs Aging. 2017;34(5):359–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hetland A, Carr DB. Medications and impaired driving. Ann Pharmacother. 2014;48(4):494–506.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. McKay MP, Groff L. 23 years of toxicology testing fatally injured pilots: Implications for aviation and other modes of transportation. Accid Anal Prev. 2016;90:108–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. DeJohn CA, Greenhaw R, Lewis R, et al. Drug use reported by U.S. Pilots, 2009–2014. Aerosp Med Hum Perform. 2020;91(7):586–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hormeño-Holgado AJ, Clemente-Suárez VJ. Effect of different combat jet manoeuvres in the psychophysiological response of professional pilots. Physiol Behav. 2019;208:112559.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Sicard B, Desmants F. Médication et aviation embarquée. Méd Aéro Spat. 1990;29(116):275–7.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Sicard B, Desmants F. Consommation de médicaments chez les pilotes de chasse embarquée : évolution des comportements. Méd Aéro Spat. 1997;36(143):205–8.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Paris JF, Magrit C, Martel V, et al. Effets secondaires des médicaments. Automédication, hypnotiques, mélatonine et activité aéronautique. Enquête anonyme chez 1000 pilotes. Méd Aéro Spat. 1999;38(152):225–30.

    Google Scholar 

  13. du Baret de Limé M, Monin J, Leschiera J, et al. Self-medication among military fighter aircrews. Aerospace Med Human Perform. 2022;93(7):571–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Rah JE, Manger RP, Yock AD, et al. A comparison of two prospective risk analysis methods: traditional FMEA and a modified healthcare FMEA. Med Phys. 2016;43(12):6347.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Liu HC, Zhang LJ, Ping YJ, et al. Failure mode and effects analysis for proactive healthcare risk evaluation: a systematic literature review. J Eval Clin Pract. 2019;26(4):1320–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Fratus L, Brocq FX, Lepoyvre A, et al. La prise de médicaments chez les pilotes. Le rôle du pharmacien d’officine. Méd Aéro Spat. 2011;52(195):89–100.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ministère des solidarités et de la santé. Base de données publique des médicaments. 2022. https://base-donnees-publique.medicaments.gouv.fr/index.php. Accessed 09 May 2023.

  18. Marotte H. Physiologie Aéronautique : comportement de l'organisme humain dans l'environnement aéronautique et spatial. 1st ed. Editions SEES; 2004. ISBN: 2-908414-24-4.

  19. Duijm NJ. Recommendations on the use and design of risk matrices. Saf Sci. 2015;76:21–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ni H, Chen A, Chen N. Some extensions on risk matrix approach. Saf Sci. 2010;48(10):1269–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Scarlett L, Linkov I, Kousky C. Risk management practices: cross-agency comparisons with minerals management service. RFF Press; 2011.

  22. Prudhomme MB, Ropp LG, Sauer SW, et al. Aeromedical risk assessment of pharmaceuticals using evidence-based medicine. Aerosp Med Hum Perform. 2015;86(9):824–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Cronrath CM, Klick MP, Merfeld CM, et al. Medication adverse reaction, risk stratification (MAR2S) model. Aerosp Med Hum Perform. 2019;90(10):896–900.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Pascarella G, Rossi M, Montella E, et al. Risk analysis in healthcare organizations: methodological framework and critical variables. Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2021;14:2897–911.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Peace C. The risk matrix: Uncertain results? Policy Pract Health Saf. 2017;15(2):131–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Cossmann M, Kohnen C, Langford R, et al. Tolerance and safety of tramadol use. Results of international studies and data from drug surveillance. Drugs. 1997;53:50–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Golightly LK, Greos LS. Second-generation antihistamines: actions and efficacy in the management of allergic disorders. Drugs. 2005;65(3):341–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Carter NJ. Bilastine: in allergic rhinitis and urticaria. Drugs. 2012;72(9):1257–69.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Davies M, Wilton LV, Shakir SAW. Safety profile of esomeprazole: results of a prescription-event monitoring study of 11 595 patients in England. Drug Saf. 2008;31(4):313–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Thompson G, Bundell C, Lucas M. Paracetamol allergy in clinical practice. Aust J Gen Pract. 2019;48(4):216–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Hider-Mlynarz K, Cavalié P, Maison P. Trends in analgesic consumption in France over the last 10 years and comparison of patterns across Europe. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2018;84(6):1324–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to express our sincere thanks to, in alphabetical order: Dr. Laura Bareau, Dr. Pauline Brocaires, Dr. Adeline Coqueblin, Dr. Jonathan Duquet, Dr. Eléna Labourdère, Dr. Julie Leschiera, and Dr. Jean Baptiste Raingeval for their participation in the conduct of the original study.

Funding

This study has been promoted and funded by the French Military Medical Service, registered under number 2019PPRC04 dated 26th July, 2019.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Chiniard.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. The French Military Medical Service had no editorial control over the content of any publication regarding this study. The opinions or assertions expressed here are the private views of the authors and are not to be considered as official or as reflecting the views of the French Military Medical Service or the French Air Force.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chiniard, T., Dib, É., Guénot, F. et al. Flight safety risk assessment of self-medication among fighter pilots: a cross-sectional study. Int J Clin Pharm 45, 1415–1423 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-023-01611-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-023-01611-y

Keywords

Navigation