Login Register Cart 0
Generic placeholder image

Current Drug Safety

Editor-in-Chief

ISSN (Print): 1574-8863
ISSN (Online): 2212-3911

Back
Journal Home About Journal Editorial Board Journal Insight Current Issue Volumes/Issues
Subscribe
Research Article

Adverse Drug Reaction Profile of Anticancer Agents in a Tertiary Care Hospital: An Observational Study

Author(s): Sana Parveen Shaikh* and Rajan Nerurkar

Volume 17, Issue 2, 2022

Published on: 12 January, 2022

Page: [136 - 142] Pages: 7

DOI: 10.2174/1574886316666210825122152

Price: $65

conference banner
Abstract

Background: Anti-cancer agents are known to be toxic, leading to a number of adverse drug reactions (ADRs). ADRs not only increase the financial burden on the patient/healthcare system but also decrease the quality of life. Understanding the burden of ADR will help strengthen the knowledge on patient safety and implement intervention strategies to reduce it.

Objectives: The objectives of the study are as follows:

1. To study the pattern of adverse drug reactions of anticancer agents of patients admitted in the oncology ward.

2. To assess the causality, severity, and preventability of the adverse drug reactions observed.

Methods: This was a cross-sectional, observational study carried out in 200 adult patients in the daycare center for chemotherapy. Details of ADRs noted in the previous and current cycles were noted. Causality assessment was done using Naranjo and WHO scales. For severity and preventability assessment, Hartwig Siegel and Modified Schumock Thorton scale were used, respectively.

Results: Out of the total 732 ADRs encountered, alopecia was the most common ADR. The average number of ADRs observed per patient was 3.66 + 1.59 (mean + SD). The maximum number of ADRs were seen in Paclitaxel-carboplatin 3 weekly regimen. Nausea and alopecia were the most common ADRs reported with most regimens.

On causality assessment, 95 (12.97%) were definitely related according to Naranjo’s Causality scale, while 15.71% were certainly related according to the WHO scale. Of all the ADRs recorded, 47.81% were of moderate intensity, while 52.18% were of mild intensity. The majority of ADRs, i.e., 87.59%, were not preventable.

Conclusion: Alopecia was the most common ADR reported. Most of the ADRs could be causally related to drugs. These ADRs were mild to moderate in severity and were not preventable. There is a need to identify the underlying factors that predispose patients to these ADRs and target them in future research.

Keywords: Pharmacovigilance, cancer, chemotherapy, causality assessment, severity assessment, alopecia.

« Previous Next »
Graphical Abstract

[1]
The top 10 causes of death. World Health Organization 2017. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs310/en/
[2]
NCRP annual reports. National centre for disease informatics and research-national cancer registry programme 2015. http://www.ncrpindia.org/Annual_Reports.aspx
[3]
Louis SG, Alfred G. general principles of cancer chemotherapy. Chabner The pharmacological basis of therapeutics (12th ed), Newyork: McGraw-Hill 2011.
[4]
Pharmacovigilance. World health organisation 2007. http://www.who.int/medicines/areas/quality_safety/safety_efficacy/trainingcourses/definitions.pdf
[5]
Manichavasagam M, Martin PJ, Lavanya R, Karthik S, Seenivasan P. Prescribing pattern of anticancer drugs in a medical oncology department of a tertiary care teaching hospital. Ann Med Health Sci Res 2017; (7): 31-3.
[6]
Trüeb RM. Chemotherapy-induced hair loss. Skin Therapy Lett 2010; 15(7): 5-7.
[PMID: 20700552]
[7]
Niraula S, Seruga B, Ocana A, et al. The price we pay for progress: A meta-analysis of harms of newly approved anticancer drugs. J Clin Onco 2012.
[8]
Jose J, Rao PG. Pattern of adverse drug reactions notified by spontaneous reporting in an Indian tertiary care teaching hospital. Pharmacol Res 2006; 54(3): 226-33.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.phrs.2006.05.003] [PMID: 16781163]
[9]
Sutradhar SD, Ray D. A cross-sectional study of patterns of adverse drug reactions reported in the department of pharmacology of a tertiary care teaching hospital in North East India. Int J comprehen adv pharmacol 2017; 2(1): 33-5.
[10]
Sultana J, Cutroneo P, Trifirò G. Clinical and economic burden of adverse drug reactions. J pharmacol pharmacother 2013; 4: S73-7.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0976-500X.120957] [PMID: 24347988]
[11]
Tandon VR, Mahajan V, Khajuria V, Gillani Z. Under-reporting of adverse drug reactions: A challenge for pharmacovigilance in India. Indian J Pharmacol 2015; 47(1): 65-71.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0253-7613.150344] [PMID: 25821314]
[12]
2014. http://www.cdsco.nic.in/forms/contentpage1.aspx?lid=1752
[13]
Sample size calculator. Creative research systems https://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm
[14]
Naranjo CA, Busto U, Sellers EM, et al. A method for estimating the probability of adverse drug reactions. Clin pharmacol ther 1981; 30(2): 239-45.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/clpt.1981.154] [PMID: 7249508]
[15]
The use of the WHO-UMC system for standardized case causality assessment. World Health Organisation http://www.who.int/medicines/areas/quality_safety/safety_efficacy/WHOcausality_assessment.pdf
[16]
Hartwig SC, Siegel J, Schneider PJ. Preventability and severity assessment in reporting adverse drug reactions. Am j hosp pharm 1992; 49(9): 2229-32.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ajhp/49.9.2229] [PMID: 1524068]
[17]
Schumock GT, Thornton JP. Focusing on the preventability of adverse drug reactions. Hospl Pharm 1992; (27)6: 538.
[18]
Sutradhar SD, Ray D. A cross-sectional study of patterns of adverse drug reactions reported in the department of pharmacology of a tertiary care teaching hospital in North East India. Int Jour Compreh Adv Pharmacol 2017; 2(1): 33-5.
[19]
Boussios S, Pentheroudakis G, Katsanos K, Pavlidis N. Systemic treatment-induced gastrointestinal toxicity: Incidence, clinical presentation and management. Ann gastroenterol 2012; 25(2): 106-18.
[PMID: 24713845]
[20]
Janelsins MC, Tejani MA, Kamen C, Peoples AR, Mustian KM, Morrow GR. Current pharmacotherapy for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in cancer patients. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2013; 14(6): 757-66.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1517/14656566.2013.776541] [PMID: 23496347]
[21]
Singh S, Singh PK. Pattern and impact of drugs targeted toward toxicity amelioration in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy. Perspect clin res 2018; 9(1): 23-30.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/picr.PICR_156_16] [PMID: 29430414]
[22]
Chopra D, Rehan HS, Sharma V, Mishra R. Chemotherapy-induced adverse drug reactions in oncology patients: A prospective observational survey. Indian j med paediatr oncol 2016; 37(1): 42-6.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0971-5851.177015] [PMID: 27051157]
[23]
Sharma A, Kumari KM, Manohar HD, Bairy KL, Thomas J. Pattern of adverse drug reactions due to cancer chemotherapy in a tertiary care hospital in South India. Perspect clin res 2015; 6(2): 109-15.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/2229-3485.154014] [PMID: 25878957]
[24]
Wahlang JB, Laishram PD, Brahma DK, Sarkar C, Lahon J, Nongkynrih BS. Adverse drug reactions due to cancer chemotherapy in a tertiary care teaching hospital. Ther adv drug saf 2017; 8(2): 61-6.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2042098616672572] [PMID: 28255433]
[25]
Piccolo J, Kolesar JM. Prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy. Am J health syst pharm 2014; 71(1): 19-25.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2146/ajhp130126] [PMID: 24352178]
[26]
Windebank AJ, Grisold W. Chemotherapy-induced neuropathy. J peripher nerv syst 2008; 13(1): 27-46.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-8027.2008.00156.x] [PMID: 18346229]
[27]
Goyal YN, Solanki KC, Mistry RA, Joshi ND, Singh AP, Gajera MV. Pattern of adverse drug reactions due to cancer chemotherapy in tertiary care teaching hospital in Gujarat. Int J Sci Res (Ahmedabad) 2014; 3: 333-5.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.15373/22778179/JAN2014/112]
[28]
Kirthi C, Afzal A, Reddy M, Ali SA, Yerramilli A, Sharma S. A study on the adverse effects of anticancer drugs in an oncology center of a tertiary care hospital. Int J Pharm Pharm Res 2014; 6(2): 580-3.
[29]
Mezzano V, Giavina-Bianchi P, Picard M, Caiado J, Castells M. Drug desensitization in the management of hypersensitivity reactions to monoclonal antibodies and chemotherapy. BioDrugs 2014; 28(2): 133-44.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40259-013-0066-x] [PMID: 23990250]
[30]
Chow R, Warr DG, Navari RM, et al. Efficacy and safety of 1-day versus 3-day dexamethasone for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J hosp manag health policy 2018; 2(5)
[http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/jhmhp.2018.04.05]
[31]
Crona DJ, Faso A, Nishijima TF, McGraw KA, Galsky MD, Milowsky MI. A Systematic review of strategies to prevent cisplatin-induced nephrotoxicity. Oncologist 2017; 22(5): 609-19.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2016-0319] [PMID: 28438887]
[32]
Yoshida T, Niho S, Toda M, et al. Protective effect of magnesium preloading on cisplatin-induced nephrotoxicity: A retrospective study. Jpn j clin oncol 2014; 44(4): 346-54.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jjco/hyu004] [PMID: 24503028]
[33]
Zbârcea CE, Ciotu IC, Bild V, et al. Therapeutic potential of certain drug combinations on paclitaxel-induced peripheral neuropathy in rats. Rom J morphol embryol 2017; 58(2): 507-16.
[PMID: 28730237]
[34]
Sharma S, Gupta AK, Reddy GJ. Inter-rater and intra-rater agreement in causality assessment of adverse drug reactions: A comparative study of WHO-UMC versus naranjo scale. Int. J Res Med Sci 2017; 5(10): 4389-94.
[35]
Belhekar MN, Taur SR, Munshi RP. A study of agreement between the naranjo algorithm and who-umc criteria for causality assessment of adverse drug reactions. Indian J Pharmacol 2014; 46(1): 117-20.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0253-7613.125192] [PMID: 24550597]

Rights & Permissions Print Cite
Article Metrics
23
1
© 2024 Bentham Science Publishers | Privacy Policy