Assessment of pattern of adverse drug reactions with chemo-therapeutic drugs in a tertiary care hospital of Government Medical College Anantnag: a prospective observational study

Sheikh Hanan Ismail; Asra Jabeen; Masrat Nabi; Nasreen Chashoo; Sami Magray

doi:10.18203/2319-2003.ijbcp20242054

Authors

Sheikh Hanan Ismail Department of Pharmacology, GMC, Anantnag, Jammu and Kashmir, India
Asra Jabeen Department of Pharmacology, GMC, Anantnag, Jammu and Kashmir, India
Masrat Nabi Department of Pharmacology, GMC, Anantnag, Jammu and Kashmir, India
Nasreen Chashoo Department of Pharmacology, GMC, Anantnag, Jammu and Kashmir, India
Sami Magray Department of Pharmacology, GMC, Anantnag, Jammu and Kashmir, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2319-2003.ijbcp20242054

Keywords:

Chemotherapy drugs, ADRs, Causality, Pharmacovigilance, World health organization, Uppsala monitoring centre, Modified Hartwig and Siegel scale

Abstract

Background: Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are a global problem. The high toxicity of chemo-therapeutic agents makes assessment of ADR's due to anti-cancer drugs essential. The present study is done with the aim to assess and evaluate the pattern of ADR's due to anti-cancer therapy in hospitalized patients and to analyse the causality and severity of these reactions.

Methods: A prospective observational study was conducted in department of pharmacology after getting approval from institutional ethics committee, GMC Anantnag over a period of 1 year. Patients of either sex with age >18 years was included. Data was collected directly from admitted patients in the oncology department and also from their medical case files. Causality and severity of ADRs were assessed by using the WHO-UMC causality scale and modified Hartwig and Seigel severity scale, respectively.

Results: A total of 982 ADRs were reported from 442 patients. Mean age of all patients was 37.49±11.88 years with 260 (58.82%) females and 182 (41.17%) males. Colorectal carcinoma (18.55%) was found to be the most common. Among 442 patients included in this study, 982 ADRs were recorded, with the most common being nausea/vomiting (n=166, 16.90%) followed by alopecia (n=142, 14.46%) and skin rashes (n=121, 12.32%). On causality assessment, as per WHO-UMC criteria 85.78% of the reactions were probable and 8.26% were possible. The severity of the reported reactions based on modified Hartwig and Siegel scale showed 742 (75.56%) ADRs to be mild, 227 (23.1%) ADRs to be moderate and 13 (1.32) to be severe.

Conclusions: ADRs are most important causes of morbidity and mortality and increase the economic burden on patient and society. Management of ADRs beforehand will help in reducing the suffering of patients and increase compliance. ADR monitoring is the need of the hour especially in cancer patients in order to increase quality of life, and decrease morbidity and mortality. However, early detection of the ADRs may help to modify the doses or the drug regimen to minimize the adverse effects.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Ferlay J, Colombet M, Soerjomataram I, Parkin DM, Piñeros M, Znaor A, et al. Cancer statistics for the year 2020: An overview. Int J Cancer. 2021;149(4):778-89.

Mathur P, Kumar SK, Chaturvedi M, Das P, Sudarshan KL, Santhappan S, et al. Cancer statistics, 2020: Report from National Cancer Registry Programme, India. JCO Glob Oncol. 2020;6:1063-75.

Wellstein A. General principles in the pharmacotherapy of cancer. In: Brunton LL, Hilal-Dandan R, Knollmann BC, editors. Goodman and Gilman’s the pharmacological basis of therapeutics, 13th ed, McGraw Hill Education, New York. 2018;1161-6.

Kirthi C, Afzal A, Reddy M, Ali S. A study on the adverse effects of anticancer drugs in an oncology center of a tertiary care hospital. Int J Pharm Pharm Sci. 2014;6(2):18-21.

Pirmohamed M, James S, Meakin S, Green C, Scott AK, Walley TJ, et al. Adverse drug reactions as cause of admission to hospital: Prospective analysis of 18820 patients. BMJ. 2004;329(7456):15-9.

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.

World Health Organization. The use of the WHO-UMC system for standardized case causality assessment. 2011. Available at: https://www.who. int/docs/default-source/medicines/pharmacovi-gilance/whocausality-assessment.pdf. Accessed on 3 June 2024.

Brown SD, Jr, Landry FJ. Recognising, reporting, and reducing adverse drug reactions. South Med J. 2001;94(4):370-3.

Couffignal AL, Lapeyre-Mestre M, Bonhomme C, Bugat R, Montastruc JL. Adverse effects of anticancer drugs: Apropos of a pharmacovigilance study at a specialized oncology institution. Therapie. 2000;55(5):635-41.

Adithan C. National pharmacovigilance programme. Indian J Pharmacol. 2005;37(6):347.

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.

Upadhyaya HB, Vora MB, Nagar JG, Patel PB. Knowledge, attitude and practices toward pharmacovigilance and adverse drug reactions in postgraduate students of tertiary care hospital in Gujarat. J Adv Pharm Technol Res. 2015;6(1):29-34.

World Health Organisation. Safety monitoring of medicinal products. Guidelines for setting up and running a pharmacovigilance centre. Available at: http://www.who-umc.org/graphics/4807. Accessed on 1 June 2024.

Krishnarajan D, Sivasakthi K, Ariyamol R, Kumar DN, Varghese S. A prospective observational study of chemotherapy induced adverse drug reaction and the quality of life in cancer patients in a tertiary care hospital. J Cancer Res Therapeutics. 2021;17(2):530.

Arulmani R, Rajendran SD, Suresh B. Adverse drug reaction monitoring in a secondary care hospital in South India. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2008;65:210 6.

Sriram S, Ghasemi A, Ramasamy R, Devi M, Balasubramanian R, Ravi TK, et al. Prevalence of adverse drug reactions at a private tertiary care hospital in south India. J Res Med Sci 2011;16(1):16 25.

UMC. About VigiFlow-Uppsala Monitoring Centre. Available at: https://www.who-umc.org›global-pharmacovigilance. Accessed on 1 June 2024.

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.

Surendiran A, Balamurugan N, Gunaseelan K, Akhtar S, Reddy KS, Adithan C. Adverse drug reaction profile of cisplatin-based chemotherapy regimen in a tertiary care hospital in India: An evaluative study. Indian J Pharmacol. 2010;42(1):40-3.

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.

Soldin OP, Chung SH, Mattison DR. Sex differences in drug disposition. J Biomed Biotechnol. 2011;2011:187103.

Prasad A, Datta PP, Bhattacharya J, Pattanayak C, Chauhan AS, Panda P, et al. Pattern of adverse drug reactions due to cancer chemotherapy in a tertiary care teaching hospital in Eastern India. J Pharmacovigilance. 2013;1(2):107.

Sunny S, Thampi A, Kennedy J, Shetty N, Babasahib SK, Chacko C. Assessment of adverse effects of most commonly prescribed anticancer drugs in a tertiary care teaching hospital. Indian J Pharmacy Pract. 2017;10(4):270-5.

Saini VK, Sewal RK, Ahmad Y, Medhi B. Prospective observational study of adverse drug reactions of anticancer drugs used in cancer treatment in a tertiary care hospital. Indian J Pharm Sci. 2015;77(6):687-93.

Rout A, Panda RK, Mishra V, Parida P, Mohanty S. Pharmacovigilance in cancer chemotherapy in regional cancer center of Eastern India: Prospective observational study. Int J Basic Clin Pharmacol. 2017;6(8):1910-6.

Chopra D, Rehan HS, Sharma V, Mishra R. Chemotherapy-induced adverse drug reactions in oncology patients: A prospective observational survey. Indian J Med Paediatric Oncol. 2016;37(1):42-6.

Swathi B, Bhavika D, Begum N. Adverse drug reaction profiles of commonly used platinum compounds in cancer chemotherapy. Int J Basic Clin Pharmacol. 2015;4(2):284-9.