No abstract

ObjectiveWe analyzed differences between spontaneously reported drug-induced (not including contrast media) and contrast media-induced adverse reactions.MethodsAdverse drug reactions reported by an in-hospital pharmacovigilance center (St. Mary’s teaching hospital, Daejeon, Korea) from 2010–2012 were classified as drug-induced or contrast media-induced. Clinical patterns, frequency, causality, severity, Schumock and Thornton’s preventability, and type A/B reactions were recorded. The trends among causality tools measuring drug and contrast-induced adverse reactions were analyzed.ResultsOf 1,335 reports, 636 drug-induced and contrast media-induced adverse reactions were identified. The prevalence of spontaneously reported adverse drug reaction-related admissions revealed a suspected adverse drug reaction-reporting rate of 20.9/100,000 (inpatient, 0.021%) and 3.9/100,000 (outpatients, 0.004%). The most common adverse drug reaction-associated drug classes included nervous system agents and anti-infectives. Dermatological and gastrointestinal adverse drug reactions were most frequently and similarly reported between drug and contrast media-induced adverse reactions. Compared to contrast media-induced adverse reactions, drug-induced adverse reactions were milder, more likely to be preventable (9.8% vs. 1.1%, p < 0.001), and more likely to be type A reactions (73.5% vs. 18.8%, p < 0.001). Females were over-represented among drug-induced adverse reactions (68.1%, p < 0.001) but not among contrast media-induced adverse reactions (56.6%, p = 0.066). Causality patterns differed between the two adverse reaction classes. The World Health Organization–Uppsala Monitoring Centre causality evaluation and Naranjo algorithm results significantly differed from those of the Korean algorithm version II (p < 0.001).ConclusionsWe found differences in sex, preventability, severity, and type A/B reactions between spontaneously reported drug and contrast media-induced adverse reactions. The World Health Organization–Uppsala Monitoring Centre and Naranjo algorithm causality evaluation afforded similar results.

The outcome of interest was the cost-effectiveness results of statins reported in the studies. In accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, two reviewers independently screened the title, abstract, and full-text articles. From the selected studies, data were extracted independently by two reviewers, and discrepancies were discussed with a third reviewer to reach consensus. Results: After removing duplicates and irrelevant articles, we identified a total of 283 articles; of these, 16 articles met our inclusion criteria. Nine studies compared statins with placebo or no treatment in their economic evaluations while seven studies evaluated cost-effectiveness between different statins. Statins (simvastatin, atorvastatin, and rosuvastatin) were considered to be cost-effective compared with placebo or no treatment in some countries. However, one study found pravastatin to be cost-ineffective compared with no treatment for primary prevention of coronary artery disease. Atorvastatin has consistently been reported as cost-effective compared with simvastatin. Mixed results were reported regarding the cost-effectiveness of rosuvastatin compared with atorvastatin: two studies found rosuvastatin could be economically more favorable than atorvastatin while one study reported the opposite findings. ConClusions: Most statins were found to be cost-effective compared with placebo or no treatment. In addition, some statins were found economically favorable over other statins. Notably, these cost-effectiveness results should be interpreted with the consideration of the specific healthcare settings where statins were placed for their economic evaluations.