Skip to main content
Log in

The ambiguity of adverse drug reactions

  • Originals
  • Published:
European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

Three clinical pharmacologists independently evaluated 500 untoward clinical events reported by physicians as adverse drug reactions (ADRs). They often disagreed with the reporting physicians and with each other. They judged 14.4–28.2% of the events to be definite, 26.4–38.0% probable, 21.4–31.0% possible and 15.8–28.2% unlikely ADRs. In their opinion 19.1–32.4% of the drugs blamed were definitely, 29.8–34.4% probably, 24.9–36.7% possibly and 8.4–14.5% not responsible for the adverse reactions. Evaluators disagreed among themselves about the drug most likely to have been responsible in 36.4% of the events, about ADRs causing hospital admission in 56.8%, about severe ADR morbidity in 55.8%, about ADR prolongation of hospitalization in 67.3% and about ADR contribution to death in 71.0%. The divergence of judgements suggests that suspected ADRs are usually ambiguous clinical events, and that incidence, severity, medical consequences and cost of ADRs can only be estimated.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. McQueen, E. G.: Pharmacologic basis of adverse drug reactions. In: Drug treatment (ed. G.S. Avery), pp. 161–192. Sidney: Adis Press 1976

    Google Scholar 

  2. Feinstein, A. R.: Clinical biostatistics. XXVII. The biostatistical problems of pharmaceutical surveillance. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther.16, 110–123 (1974)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Karch, F. E., Lasagna, L.: Adverse drug reactions. A critical review. J. Amer. med. Ass.234, 1236–1241 (1975)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Koch-Weser, J.: Detection and evaluation of adverse drug reactions. In: Clinical pharmacy and pharmacology (ed. W. A. Gouveia, G. Tognoni). Amsterdam: Excerpta Medica (in press)

  5. Koch-Weser, J., Sidel, V. W., Sweet, R. H., Kanarek, P., Eaton, A.: Factors determining physician reporting of adverse drug reactions. Comparison of 2000 spontaneous reports with surveillance studies at the Massachusetts General Hospital. New Engl. J. Med.280, 20–26 (1969)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Koch-Weser, J.: Definition and classification of adverse drug reactions. Drug Informat. Bull.2, 72–78 (1968)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Miller, R. R., Greenblatt, D. J. (ed): Drug effects in hospitalized patients. Experiences of the Boston Collaborative Drug Surveillance Program 1966–1975. New York: John Wiley & Sons 1976

    Google Scholar 

  8. Koch-Weser, J.: Fatal reactions to drug therapy. New Engl. J. Med.291, 302–303 (1974)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Irey, N. S.: Adverse drug reactions and death. A review of 827 cases. J. Amer. med. Ass.236, 575–578 (1976)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Karch, F. E., Smith, C. L., Kerzner, B., Mazullo, J. M., Weintraub, M., Lasagna, L.: Adverse drug reactions — a matter of opinion. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther.19, 482–492 (1976).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Karch, F. E., Lasagna, L.: Adverse drug reactions in the United States. An analysis of the scope of the problem and recommendations for future approaches. Washington: Medicine in the Public Interest 1974

    Google Scholar 

  12. Green, D. M.: Pre-existing conditions, placebo reactions, and “side-effects”. Ann. intern. Med.60, 255–265 (1964)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Reidenberg, M. M., Lowenthal, D. T.: Adverse nondrug reactions. New Engl. J. Med.279, 678–679 (1968)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Koch-Weser, J., Sellers, E.M. & Zacest, R. The ambiguity of adverse drug reactions. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 11, 75–78 (1977). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00562895

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00562895

Key words

Navigation