Drug Safety

, Volume 31, Issue 8, pp 703–713

Drug-Related Deaths

An Analysis of the Italian Spontaneous Reporting Database
  • Roberto Leone
  • Laura Sottosanti
  • Maria Luisa Iorio
  • Carmela Santuccio
  • Anita Conforti
  • Vilma Sabatini
  • Ugo Moretti
  • Mauro Venegoni
Original Research Article


Background: Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) represent a major public health concern, with death as the ultimate adverse drug outcome. Despite the relevance of this, the frequency of fatal ADRs (FADRs) is to a large extent unknown. Although spontaneous reporting data cannot give an exact estimate of the magnitude of drug-related mortality, it may highlight the importance and large dimensions of this public health problem.

Objective: To describe the types and pattern of reported FADRs by analysing data from the national spontaneous reporting system in Italy.

Methods: The Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) runs a pharmacovigilance database where all the individual case safety reports (since January 2001) are stored. We selected and then analysed in detail all the case reports (to the end of December 2006) in which death was reported as the outcome. We included in the study only FADR case reports with a probable or possible causality assessment, according to the criteria established by the WHO. In line with the Italian reporting form, we divided FADR reports into two groups: (i) suspected ADRs that caused death; and (ii) suspected ADRs that contributed to death.

Results: In the AIFA database 38 507 suspected ADR case reports were collected, of which 641 (1.66%) had a fatal outcome. We analysed 450 case reports (1.17% of total reports), 159 (35.33%) of them causing the patient’s death and 291 (64.67%) contributing to death. The annual percentage of FADR reports followed a constant trend during the 6-year period. The majority of fatal reports (79%) were sent by hospital doctors. In total, 222 different drugs were suspected as causes of FADRs. ‘Systemic anti-infective drugs’ was the drug category associated with the highest percentage of FADRs (21.9%), followed by antineoplastic and immunomodulating agents (18.8%), and then by nervous system drugs (14.8%). Other drug categories involved in the fatal case reports were antithrombotic agents, NSAIDs and contrast media.

Conclusions: The drugs most frequently involved in FADRs were drugs of wide usage with a narrow therapeutic range or those that caused serious skin or systemic allergic reactions. Ceftriaxone, ticlopidine and nimesulide were associated with the highest number of fatal case reports; the related FADRs were already known and recognized for each of these drugs. We highlight some cases reflecting probable inappropriate drug use by Italian physicians. This suggests a need for continued clinical pharmacology training and that many FADRs might be preventable through better medical and prescribing practice.


  1. 1.
    Ives TJ, Bentz EJ, Gwyther RE. Drug-related admissions to a family medicine inpatient service. Arch Intern Med 1987; 147: 1117–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stoukides CE, D’Agostino PR, Kaufman MB. Adverse drug reaction surveillance in an emergency room. Am J Hosp Pharm 1993; 50: 712–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lazarou J, Pomeranz BH, Corey PN. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalised patients: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. JAMA 1998; 279: 1200–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Muehlberger N, Schneeweiss S, Hasford J. Adverse drug reaction monitoring-cost and benefit considerations. Part I: frequency of adverse drug reactions causing hospital admissions. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 1997; 6 Suppl. 3: S71–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lagnaoui R, Moore N, Fach J, et al. Adverse drug reactions in a department of systemic diseases-oriented internal medicine: prevalence, incidence, direct costs and avoidability. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2000; 56: 181–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beijer HJ, de Blaey CJ. Hospitalisations caused by adverse drug reactions (ADR): a meta-analysis of observational studies. Pharm World Sci 2002; 24: 46–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pirmohamed M, James S, Meakin S, et al. Adverse drug reactions as cause of admission to hospital: prospective analysis of 18820 patients. BMJ 2004; 329: 15–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Samoy LJ, Zed PJ, Wilbur K, et al. Drug-related hospitalizations in a tertiary care internal medicine service of a Canadian hospital: a prospective study. Pharmacotherapy 2006; 26: 1578–86PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    van der Hooft CS, Sturkenboom M, van Grootheest K, et al. Adverse drug reaction-related hospitalisations: a nationwide study in the Netherlands. Drug Saf 2006; 29: 161–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Porter J, Jick H. Drug-related deaths among medical inpatients. JAMA 1977; 237: 879–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bains N, Hunter D. Adverse reporting on adverse reactions. CMAJ 1999; 160: 350–1PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zoppi M, Braunschweig S, Kuenzi UP, et al. Incidence of lethal adverse drug reactions in the comprehensive hospital drug monitoring, a 20-year survey, 1974–1993, based on the data of Berne/St Gallen. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2000; 56: 427–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ebbesen J, Buajordet I, Erikssen J, et al. Drug-related deaths in a department of internal medicine. Arch Intern Med 2001; 161: 2317–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Juntti-Patinen L, Neuvonen PJ. Drug-related deaths in a university central hospital. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2002; 58: 479–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    WHO. International drug monitoring: the role of the hospital. Geneva: WHO, 1966. Technical report series N. 425Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wolfe MM, Lichtenstein DR, Singh G. Gastrointestinal toxicity of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs. N Engl J Med 1999; 340: 1888–99PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mittmann N, Liu BA, Iskedjian M, et al. Drug-related mortality in Canada (1984–1994). Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 1997; 6: 157–68PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wester K, Jönsson A, Spigset O, et al. Spontaneously reported fatal suspected adverse drug reactions: a 10-year survey from Sweden. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2007; 16: 173–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Moore TJ, Cohen MR, Furberg CD. Serious adverse drug events reported to the Food and Drug Administration, 1998–2005. Arch Intern Med 2007; 167: 1752–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco. Pharmacovigilance [online]. Available from URL: http://www.agenziafarmaco.it/ [Accessed 2007 Apr 16]
  21. 21.
    Bousquet C, Lagier G, Lillo-Le Louet A, et al. Appraisal of the MedDRA conceptual structure for describing and grouping adverse drug reactions. Drug Saf 2005; 28: 19–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Uppsala Monitoring Centre. Safety monitoring of medicinal products: guidelines for setting up and running a pharmacovigilance centre. Uppsala: The Uppsala Monitoring Centre, WHO Collaborating Centre for International Drug Monitoring, 2000Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    van der Heijden PG, van Puijenbroek EP, van Buuren S, et al. On the assessment of adverse drug reactions from spontaneous reporting systems: the influence of under-reporting on odds ratios. Stat Med 2002; 21: 2027–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Thiessard F, Roux E, Miremont-Salamé G, et al. Trends in spontaneous adverse drug reaction reports to the French pharmacovigilance system (1986–2001). Drug Saf 2005; 28: 731–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Onder G, Pedone C, Landi F, et al. Adverse drug reactions as cause of hospital admissions: results from the Italian Group of Pharmacoepidemiology in the Elderly (GIFA). J Am Geriatr Soc 2002; 50: 1962–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tiaden JD, Wenzel E, Berthold HK, et al. Adverse reactions to anticoagulants and to antiplatelet drugs recorded by the German spontaneous reporting system. Semin Thromb Hemost 2005; 31: 371–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chyka PA. How many deaths occur annually from adverse drug reactions in the United States? Am J Med 2000; 109: 122–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Liu BA, Knowles SR, Mittmann N, et al. Reporting of fatal adverse drug reactions. Can J Clin Pharmacol 2001; 8: 84–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Repertorio Farmaceutico Italiano [CD ROM]. 15th ed. Milan: Masson, 2006Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Baldo BA, Pham NH, Zhao Z. Chemistry of drug allergenicity. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol 2001; 1: 327–35PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Vaccheri A, Castelvetri C, Esaka E, et al. Pattern of antibiotic use in primary health care in Italy. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2000; 56: 417–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco. Drug utilization in Italy: National Report year 2005 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.agenziafarmaco.it/ [Accessed 2007 Feb 14]
  33. 33.
    Ortqvist A. Antibiotic treatment of community-acquired pneumonia in clinical practice: a European perspective. J Antimicrob Chemother 1995; 35: 205–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gulbinovic J, Myrback KE, Bytautiene J, et al. Marked differences in antibiotic use and resistance between university hospitals in Vilnius, Lithuania, and Huddinge, Sweden. Microb Drug Resist 2001; 7: 383–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bremon AR, Ruiz-Tovar M, Gorricho BP, et al. Non-hospital consumption of antibiotics in Spain: 1987–1997. J Antimicrob Chemother 2000; 45: 395–400PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mazzaglia G, Arcoraci V, Greco S, et al. Prescribing habits of general practitioners in choosing an empirical antibiotic regimen for lower respiratory tract infections in adults in Sicily. Pharm Res 1999; 40: 47–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Vaccheri A, Bjerrum L, Resi D, et al. Antibiotic prescribing in general practice: striking differences between Italy (Ravenna) and Denmark (Funen). J Antimicrob Chemother 2002; 50: 989–97PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Elseviers MM, Ferech M, Vander Stichele RH, et al. Antibiotic use in ambulatory care in Europe (ESAC data 1997–2002): trends, regional differences and seasonal fluctuations. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2007; 16: 115–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    WHO. WHO Global Strategy for Containment of Antimicrobial Resistance [online]. Available from URL: http://www.who.int/csr/resources/publications/drugresist/WHO_CDS_CSR_DR-S_2001_2_EN/en/ [Accessed 2007 May 10]
  40. 40.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. A public health action plan to combat antimicrobial resistance [online]. Available from URL: http://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/actionplan/aractionplan.pdf [Accessed 2007 May 10]
  41. 41.
    Bennett CL, Davidson CJ, Raisch DW, et al. Thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura associated with ticlopidine in the setting of coronary artery stents and stroke prevention. Arch Intern Med 1999; 159: 2524–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Bennett CL, Weinberg PD, Rozenberg-Ben-Dror K, et al. Thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura associated with ticlopidine: a review of 60 cases. Ann Intern Med 1998; 128: 541–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Bennett CL, Kiss JE, Weinberg PD, et al. Thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura after stenting and ticlopidine. Lancet 1998; 352: 1036–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Venegoni M, Conforti A, Cocci A, et al. Spontaneous reports of ticlopidine-associated thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura from two Italian regions [letter]. Arch Intern Med 1999; 159: 2227PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Fialova D, Topinkova E, Gambassi G, et al. Potentially inappropriate medication use among elderly home care patients in Europe. JAMA 2005; 293: 1348–58PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Onder G, Landi F, Liperoti R, et al. Impact of inappropriate drug use among hospitalized older adults. Eur J Clin Pharm 2005; 61: 453–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Motola D, Vaccheri A, Silvani MC, et al. Pattern of NSAID use in the Italian general population: a questionnaire based survey. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2004; 60: 731–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Bergman U, Andersen M, Vaccheri A, et al. Deviations from evidence based prescribing of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in three European regions. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2000; 56: 269–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Traversa G, Bianchi C, Da Cas R, et al. Cohort study of hepatotoxicity associated with nimesulide and other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. BMJ 2003; 327: 18–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Pascual E, Sivera F. Therapeutic advances in gout. Curr Opin Rheumatol 2007; 19: 122–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Roujeau JC, Kelly JP, Naldi L, et al. Medication use and the risk of Stevens-Johnson syndrome or toxic epidermal necrolysis. N Engl J Med 1995; 333: 1600–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Gutierrez-Macias A, Lizarralde-Palacios E, Martinez-Odriozola P, et al. Fatal allopurinol hypersensitivity syndrome after treatment of asymptomatic hyperuricaemia. BMJ 2005; 331: 623–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Zhang W, Doherty M, Bardin T, et al. EULAR evidence based recommendations for gout. Part II: management. Report of a task force of the EULAR Standing Committee for International Clinical Studies Including Therapeutics (ESCISIT). Ann Rheum Dis 2006; 65: 1312–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Caro JJ, Trindade E, McGregor M. The risks of death and of severe non fatal reactions with high vs low-osmolality contrast media: a meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1991; 156: 825–32PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Meth MJ, Maibach HI. Current understanding of contrast media reactions and implications for clinical management. Drug Saf 2006; 29: 133–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roberto Leone
    • 1
  • Laura Sottosanti
    • 2
  • Maria Luisa Iorio
    • 1
  • Carmela Santuccio
    • 2
  • Anita Conforti
    • 1
  • Vilma Sabatini
    • 2
  • Ugo Moretti
    • 1
  • Mauro Venegoni
    • 2
  1. 1.Clinical Pharmacology Unit, Reference Centre for Education and Communication within the WHO Programme for International Drug MonitoringUniversity of VeronaVeronaItaly
  2. 2.Agenzia Italiana del FarmacoRomaItaly
  3. 3.Clinical Pharmacology Unit, Policlinico G.B. RossiVeronaItaly

Personalised recommendations