Dataset Information

The adverse drug reaction reporting assignment for specialist oncology nurses: a preliminary evaluation of quality, relevance and educational value in a prospective cohort study.

ABSTRACT: In a new prescribing qualification course for specialist oncology nurses, we thought that it is important to emphasize pharmacovigilance and adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting. We aimed to develop and evaluate an ADR reporting assignment for specialist oncology nurses. The quality of report documentation was assessed with the "Clinical Documentation tool to assess Individual Case Safety Reports" (ClinDoc). The relevance of the reports was evaluated in terms of ADR seriousness, the listing for additional monitoring of the drug by European Medicines Agency (EMA), and lack of labelling information about the ADR. Nurses' opinions of the assignment were evaluated using an E-survey. Thirty-three ADRs were reported, 32 (97%) of which were well documented according to ClinDoc. Thirteen ADRs (39%) were "serious" according to CIOMS criteria. In five cases (15%), the suspect drugs were listed for additional monitoring by EMA and in seven cases (21%), the ADR was not mentioned in the Summary of Product Characteristics. Twenty-five (78.1%) of the 32 enrolled nurses completed the E-survey. Most were > 45 years of age (68%), female (92%) and had extensive clinical experience (6-33 years). All agreed or completely agreed that the reporting assignment was useful, that it fitted in daily practice and that it increased their attention for medication/patient safety. A large majority (84.0%) agreed the assignment changed how they dealt with ADRs. Specialist oncology nurses are capable of reporting ADRs, and they considered the assignment useful. The assignment yielded valuable, relevant, and well-documented ADR reports for pharmacovigilance practice.

SUBMITTER: Schutte T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5748417 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The adverse drug reaction reporting assignment for specialist oncology nurses: a preliminary evaluation of quality, relevance and educational value in a prospective cohort study.

Schutte Tim T van Eekeren Rike R Richir Milan M van Staveren Jojanneke J van Puijenbroek Eugène E Tichelaar Jelle J van Agtmael Michiel M

Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology 20171023 1

In a new prescribing qualification course for specialist oncology nurses, we thought that it is important to emphasize pharmacovigilance and adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting. We aimed to develop and evaluate an ADR reporting assignment for specialist oncology nurses. The quality of report documentation was assessed with the "Clinical Documentation tool to assess Individual Case Safety Reports" (ClinDoc). The relevance of the reports was evaluated in terms of ADR seriousness, the listing for ...[more]

PMID: 29063137

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAntibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) have emerged as the focus and hotspots in the cancer field, yet the accompanying ocular toxicity has often been underestimated. We aimed to comprehensively and comparatively analyze the risk of ocular toxicity associated with various ADCs using the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database.MethodsData were extracted from the FAERS database from Q3 2011 to Q3 2023. We analyzed the clinical characteristics of ADCs-related ocular adverse events (AEs). These data were further mined by proportional analysis and Bayesian approach to detect signals of ADCs-induced ocular AEs. Moreover, the time to onset of ocular toxicity was also evaluated.ResultsA total of 1,246 cases of ocular AEs were attributed to ADCs. Ocular toxicity signals were observed in patients treated with belantamab mafodotin, brentuximab vedotin, enfortumab vedotin, mirvetuximab soravtansine, sacituzumab govitecan, trastuzumab deruxtecan, and trastuzumab emtansine. Of these, belantamab mafodotin, trastuzumab emtansine, and mirvetuximab soravtansine, whose payloads are microtubule polymerization inhibitors, were more susceptible to ocular toxicity. The ten most common ADCs-related ocular AEs signals are keratopathy [ROR = 1,273.52, 95% CI (1,129.26-1,436.21)], visual acuity reduced [ROR = 22.83, 95% CI (21.2-24.58)], dry eye [ROR = 9.69, 95% CI (8.81-10.66)], night blindness [ROR = 259.87, 95% CI (228.23-295.89)], vision blurred [ROR = 1.78, 95% CI (1.57-2.02)], photophobia [ROR = 10.45, 95% CI (9.07-12.05)], foreign body sensation in eyes [ROR = 23.35, 95% CI (19.88-27.42)], ocular toxicity [ROR = 144.62, 95% CI (117.3-178.32)], punctate keratitis [ROR = 126.21, 95% CI (101.66-156.69)], eye disorder [ROR = 2.71, 95% CI (2.21-3.32)]. In terms of onset time, sacituzumab govitecan displayed an earlier onset of 21 days, while trastuzumab deruxtecan exhibited the latest onset of 223 days.ConclusionADCs may increase the risk of ocular toxicity in cancer patients, leading to serious mortality. With the widespread application of newly launched ADCs, combining the FAERS data with other data sources is crucial for monitoring the ocular toxicity of ADCs. In addition, novel ocular toxicity signals not documented in product labeling were detected. Further research will be necessary to validate our findings in the future.

Project description:BackgroundSpontaneous adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting is the cornerstone of pharmacovigilance. ADR reporting with Yellow Cards has tremendously improved pharmacovigilance of drugs in many developed countries and its use is advocated by the World Health Organization (WHO). This study was aimed at investigating the knowledge and attitude of doctors in a teaching hospital in Lagos, Nigeria on spontaneous ADR reporting and to suggest possible ways of improving this method of reporting.MethodsA total of 120 doctors working at the Lagos State University Teaching Hospital (LASUTH), in Nigeria were evaluated with a questionnaire for their knowledge and attitudes to ADR reporting. The questionnaire sought the demographics of the doctors, their knowledge and attitudes to ADR reporting, the factors that they perceived may influence ADR reporting, and their levels of education and training on ADR reporting. Provision was also made for suggestions on the possible ways to improve ADR reporting.ResultsThe response rate was 82.5%. A majority of the respondents (89, 89.9%) considered doctors as the most qualified health professionals to report ADRs. Forty (40.4%) of the respondents knew about the existence of National Pharmacovigilance Centre (NPC) in Nigeria. Thirty-two (32.3%) respondents were aware of the Yellow Card reporting scheme but only two had ever reported ADRs to the NPC. About half (48.5%) of the respondents felt that all serious ADRs could be identified after drug marketing. There was a significant difference between the proportion of respondents who felt that ADR reporting should be either compulsory or voluntary (chi2 = 38.9, P < 0.001). ADR reporting was encouraged if the reaction was serious (77, 77.8%) and unusual (70, 70.7%). Education and training was the most recognised means of improving ADR reporting.ConclusionThe knowledge of ADRs and how to report them are inadequate among doctors working in a teaching hospital in Lagos, Nigeria. More awareness should be created on the Yellow Card reporting scheme. Continuous medical education, training and integration of ADR reporting into the clinical activities of the doctors would likely improve reporting.

Dataset Information

The adverse drug reaction reporting assignment for specialist oncology nurses: a preliminary evaluation of quality, relevance and educational value in a prospective cohort study.

Publications

The adverse drug reaction reporting assignment for specialist oncology nurses: a preliminary evaluation of quality, relevance and educational value in a prospective cohort study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets