Falconer et al. 1 reported a systematic review of prediction models designed to identify hospitalized patients as high risk for adverse drug events (ADE) including those with adverse drug reactions (ADR). The authors identified 11 studies which met the inclusion criteria and were incorporated in the review.
Although the systematic review acknowledged the challenges of defining model outcomes, the explicit specification of ADR outcomes such as intracranial/gastrointestinal bleeding and acute kidney injury has not been emphasized and discussed within the context of model outcomes. The above issue is paramount since each outcome may be influenced by customized set of predictors which may be greatly beneficial in developing actionable interventions to prevent specific ADR outcomes. Examples of these models have been reported in the literature for bleeding events and acute kidney injury 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. It is also possible that the explicit use of well‐defined specific ADR outcomes may improve the performance of developed models.
Competing Interests
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Iuga, A. , and Genaidy, A. (2018) Comment on Falconer et al. (2018) – the need for specific adverse drug reaction outcomes. Br J Clin Pharmacol, 84: 1856 10.1111/bcp.13610.
References
- 1. Falconer N, Barras M, Cottrell N. Systematic review of predictive risk models for adverse drug events in hospitalized patients. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2018; 84: 846–864. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Gage BF, Yan Y, Milligan PE, Waterman AD, Culverhouse R, Rich MW, et al Clinical classification schemes for predicting hemorrhage: results from the National Registry of Atrial Fibrillation (NRAF). Am Heart J 2006; 151: 713–719. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Pisters R, Lane DA, Nieuwlaat R, de Vos CB, Crijns HJGM, Lip GYH. A novel user‐friendly score (HAS‐BLED) to assess 1‐year risk of major bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation: the Euro Heart Survey. Chest 2010; 138: 1093–1100. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Hippisley‐Cox J, Coupland C. Predicting risk of upper gastrointestinal bleed and intracranial bleed with anticoagulants: cohort study to derive and validate the QBleed scores. Br Med J 2014; 349: g4606. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Fang MC, Go AS, Chang Y, Borowsky LH, Pomernacki NK, Udaltsova N, et al A new risk scheme to predict warfarin‐associated hemorrhage. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011; 58: 395–401. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. O'Brien EC, Simon DN, Thomas LE, Hylek EM, Gersh BJ, Ansell JE, et al The ORBIT bleeding score: a simple bedside score to assess bleeding risk in atrial fibrillation. Eur Heart J 2015; 36: 3258–3264. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Ruíz‐Giménez N, Suárez C, González R, Nieto JA, Todolí JA, Samperiz AL, et al Predictive variables for major bleeding events in patients presenting with documented acute thromboembolism. Findings from the RIETE registry. Thromb Haemost 2008; 100: 26–31. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Hodgson LE, Dimitrov BD, Roderick PJ, Venn R, Forni LG. Predicting AKI in emergency admissions: an external validation study of the acute kidney injury prediction score (APS). BMJ Open 2017b; 7: e013511. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Kate RJ, Perez RM, Mazumdar D, Pasupathy KS, Nilakantan V. Prediction and detection models for acute kidney injury in hospitalized older adults. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2016; 16: 39. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]