請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/54051
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 蕭斐元 | |
dc.contributor.author | Chih-Wan Lin | en |
dc.contributor.author | 林芝琬 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-16T02:38:03Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2020-09-24 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2015-09-24 | |
dc.date.issued | 2015 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2015-07-24 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 1. Nebeker JR, Barach P, Samore MH. Clarifying adverse drug events: a clinician's guide to terminology, documentation, and reporting. Ann Intern Med 2004;140:795-801. 2. Salvi F, Marchetti A, D'Angelo F, Boemi M, Lattanzio F, Cherubini A. Adverse drug events as a cause of hospitalization in older adults. Drug Saf 2012;35 Suppl 1:29-45. 3. Lazarou J, Pomeranz BH, Corey PN. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. JAMA 1998;279:1200-5. 4. Rottenkolber D, Schmiedl S, Rottenkolber M, et al. Adverse drug reactions in Germany: direct costs of internal medicine hospitalizations. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2011;20:626-34. 5. Budnitz DS, Pollock DA, Weidenbach KN, Mendelsohn AB, Schroeder TJ, Annest JL. National surveillance of emergency department visits for outpatient adverse drug events. JAMA 2006;296:1858-66. 6. Al Hamid A, Ghaleb M, Aljadhey H, Aslanpour Z. A systematic review of hospitalization resulting from medicine-related problems in adult patients. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2014;78:202-17. 7. Kongkaew C, Noyce PR, Ashcroft DM. Hospital admissions associated with adverse drug reactions: a systematic review of prospective observational studies. Ann Pharmacother 2008;42:1017-25. 8. Ernst FR, Grizzle AJ. Drug-related morbidity and mortality: updating the cost-of-illness model. J Am Pharm Assoc 2001;41:192-9. 9. Leendertse AJ, Egberts AC, Stoker LJ, van den Bemt PM. Frequency of and risk factors for preventable medication-related hospital admissions in the Netherlands. Arch Intern Med 2008;168:1890-6. 10. Kongkaew C, Hann M, Mandal J, et al. Risk factors for hospital admissions associated with adverse drug events. Pharmacotherapy 2013;33:827-37. 11. McDonnell PJ, Jacobs MR. Hospital admissions resulting from preventable adverse drug reactions. Ann Pharmacother 2002;36:1331-6. 12. Vassilev ZP, Chu AF, Ruck B, Adams EH, Marcus SM. Evaluation of adverse drug reactions reported to a poison control center between 2000 and 2007. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2009;66:481-7. 13. Schneeweiss S, Gottler M, Hasford J, et al. First results from an intensified monitoring system to estimate drug related hospital admissions. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2001;52:196-200. 14. Onder G, Pedone C, Landi F, et al. Adverse drug reactions as cause of hospital admissions: results from the Italian Group of Pharmacoepidemiology in the Elderly (GIFA). J Am Geriatr Soc 2002;50:1962-8. 15. Pirmohamed M, James S, Meakin S, et al. Adverse drug reactions as cause of admission to hospital: prospective analysis of 18 820 patients. BMJ 2004;329:15-9. 16. Benard-Laribiere A, Miremont-Salame G, Perault-Pochat MC, Noize P, Haramburu F. Incidence of hospital admissions due to adverse drug reactions in France: the EMIR study. Fundam Clin Pharmacol 2015;29:106-11. 17. van der Hooft CS, Dieleman JP, Siemes C, et al. Adverse drug reaction-related hospitalisations: a population-based cohort study. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2008;17:365-71. 18. Budnitz DS, Lovegrove MC, Shehab N, Richards CL. Emergency hospitalizations for adverse drug events in older Americans. N Engl J Med 2011;365:2002-12. 19. Chen YC, Fan JS, Hsu TF, et al. Detection of patients presenting with adverse drug events in the emergency department. Intern Med J 2012;42:651-7. 20. Burgess CL, Holman CD, Satti AG. Adverse drug reactions in older Australians, 1981-2002. Med J Aust 2005;182:267-70. 21. van der Hooft CS, Sturkenboom MC, van Grootheest K, Kingma HJ, Stricker BH. Adverse drug reaction-related hospitalisations: a nationwide study in The Netherlands. Drug Saf 2006;29:161-8. 22. Patel H, Bell D, Molokhia M, et al. Trends in hospital admissions for adverse drug reactions in England: analysis of national hospital episode statistics 1998-2005. BMC Clin Pharmacol 2007;7:9. 23. Carrasco-Garrido P, de Andres LA, Barrera VH, de Miguel GA, Jimenez-Garcia R. Trends of adverse drug reactions related-hospitalizations in Spain (2001-2006). BMC Health Serv Res 2010;10:287. 24. Price SD, Holman CD, Sanfilippo FM, Emery JD. Use of case-time-control design in pharmacovigilance applications: exploration with high-risk medications and unplanned hospital admissions in the Western Australian elderly. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2013;22:1159-70. 25. Miguel A, Azevedo LF, Lopes F, Freitas A, Pereira AC. Methodologies for the detection of adverse drug reactions: comparison of hospital databases, chart review and spontaneous reporting. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2013;22:98-102. 26. Jha AK, Kuperman GJ, Teich JM, et al. Identifying adverse drug events: development of a computer-based monitor and comparison with chart review and stimulated voluntary report. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1998;5:305-14. 27. Miguel A, Bernardo M, Freitas A, Lopes F, Azevedo L, Pereira AC. Detection of adverse drug reactions using hospital databases-a nationwide study in Portugal. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2013;22:907-13. 28. Maclure M. The case-crossover design: a method for studying transient effects on the risk of acute events. Am J Epidemiol 1991;133:144-53. 29. Schneeweiss S, Sturmer T, Maclure M. Case-crossover and case-time-control designs as alternatives in pharmacoepidemiologic research. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 1997;6 Suppl 3:S51-9. 30. Suissa S. The case-time-control design. Epidemiology 1995;6:248-53. 31. Maclure M, Fireman B, Nelson JC, et al. When should case-only designs be used for safety monitoring of medical products? Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2012;21 Suppl 1:50-61. 32. Wang S, Linkletter C, Maclure M, et al. Future cases as present controls to adjust for exposure trend bias in case-only studies. Epidemiology 2011;22:568-74. 33. Greenland S. Confounding and exposure trends in case-crossover and case-time-control designs. Epidemiology 1996;7:231-9. 34. Hallas J, Pottegard A. Use of self-controlled designs in pharmacoepidemiology. J Intern Med 2014;275:581-9. 35. National Health Insurance Database. Ntaional Health Research Institute. (Accessed May, 15, 2015, at http://nhird.nhri.org.tw/en/Data_Subsets.html#S3.) 36. 陳世雄, 胡百敏, 廖浩欽, 廖訓禎. 以全民健康保險研究資料庫之抽樣歸人檔資料分析急診病人就醫流向. 臺灣急診專科醫學會雜誌 2009;1:11-21. 37. Greenland S, Rothman KJ, Lash TL. Measures of effects and measures of association. In: Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL, eds. Modern Epidemiology. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams Wilkins, 2008: 51–70. 38. Pan HH, Ho ST, Lu CC, Wang JO, Lin TC, Wang KY. Trends in the consumption of opioid analgesics in Taiwan from 2002 to 2007: a population-based study. J Pain Symptom Manage 2013;45:272-8. 39. Narcotic drugs - technical reports. International Narcotics Control Board, 2008. (Accessed June 21, 2015, at http://www.incb.org/documents/Narcotic-Drugs/Technical-Publications/2008/Narcotics_drugs_publication2008.pdf.) 40. Howard RL, Avery AJ, Slavenburg S, et al. Which drugs cause preventable admissions to hospital? A systematic review. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2007;63:136-47. 41. Howard RL, Avery AJ, Howard PD, Partridge M. Investigation into the reasons for preventable drug related admissions to a medical admissions unit: observational study. Qual Saf Health Care 2003;12:280-5. 42. Hampton LM, Daubresse M, Chang HY, Alexander GC, Budnitz DS. Emergency department visits by adults for psychiatric medication adverse events. JAMA Psychiatry 2014;71:1006-14. 43. James PA, Oparil S, Carter BL, et al. 2014 evidence-based guideline for the management of high blood pressure in adults: report from the panel members appointed to the Eighth Joint National Committee (JNC 8). JAMA 2014;311:507-20. 44. American Diabetes Association. Standards of medical care in diabetes--2014. Diabetes Care 2014;37 Suppl 1:S14-80. 45. Sokol MC, McGuigan KA, Verbrugge RR, Epstein RS. Impact of medication adherence on hospitalization risk and healthcare cost. Med Care 2005;43:521-30. 46. Lau DT, Nau DP. Oral antihyperglycemic medication nonadherence and subsequent hospitalization among individuals with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2004;27:2149-53. 47. Nicholas JM, Grieve AP, Gulliford MC. Within-person study designs had lower precision and greater susceptibility to bias because of trends in exposure than cohort and nested case-control designs. J Clin Epidemiol 2012;65:384-93. 48. Meltzer HY. Update on typical and atypical antipsychotic drugs. Annu Rev Med 2013;64:393-406. 49. Kennedy J, Tien YY, Cohen LJ, et al. The association between class of antipsychotic and rates of hospitalization: results of a retrospective analysis of data from the 2005 Medicare current beneficiary survey. Clin Ther 2009;31:2931-9. 50. Aparasu RR, Jano E, Johnson ML, Chen H. Hospitalization risk associated with typical and atypical antipsychotic use in community-dwelling elderly patients. Am J Geriatr Pharmacother 2008;6:198-204. 51. Al-Zakwani IS, Barron JJ, Bullano MF, Arcona S, Drury CJ, Cockerham TR. Analysis of healthcare utilization patterns and adherence in patients receiving typical and atypical antipsychotic medications. Curr Med Res Opin 2003;19:619-26. 52. Simoni-Wastila L, Ryder PT, Qian J, Zuckerman IH, Shaffer T, Zhao L. Association of antipsychotic use with hospital events and mortality among medicare beneficiaries residing in long-term care facilities. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 2009;17:417-27. 53. Chang CH, Chen HC, Lin JW, Kuo CW, Shau WY, Lai MS. Risk of hospitalization for upper gastrointestinal adverse events associated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: a nationwide case-crossover study in Taiwan. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2011;20:763-71. 54. LaRoche SM, Helmers SL. The new antiepileptic drugs: scientific review. JAMA 2004;291:605-14. 55. Sica DA, Carter B, Cushman W, Hamm L. Thiazide and loop diuretics. J Clin Hypertens 2011;13:639-43. 56. Terzano MG, Rossi M, Palomba V, Smerieri A, Parrino L. New drugs for insomnia: comparative tolerability of zopiclone, zolpidem and zaleplon. Drug Saf 2003;26:261-82. 57. Allain H, Bentue-Ferrer D, Polard E, Akwa Y, Patat A. Postural instability and consequent falls and hip fractures associated with use of hypnotics in the elderly: a comparative review. Drugs Aging 2005;22:749-65. 58. Cleare A, Pariante CM, Young AH, et al. Evidence-based guidelines for treating depressive disorders with antidepressants: A revision of the 2008 British Association for Psychopharmacology guidelines. J Psychopharmacol 2015;29:459-525. 59. Chen YC, Huang HH, Fan JS, et al. Comparing characteristics of adverse drug events between older and younger adults presenting to a Taiwan emergency department. Medicine 2015;94:e547. 60. Jankovic SM, Dostic M. Choice of antiepileptic drugs for the elderly: possible drug interactions and adverse effects. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol 2012;8:81-91. 61. Salas M, Hofman A, Stricker BH. Confounding by indication: an example of variation in the use of epidemiologic terminology. Am J Epidemiol 1999;149:981-3. 62. Quan H, Sundararajan V, Halfon P, et al. Coding algorithms for defining comorbidities in ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data. Med Care 2005;43:1130-9. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/54051 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 研究背景 藥物不良事件會惡化病人的健康情況,也會為有限的醫療資源帶來沉重的負擔,若能有效率地找出可能導致嚴重藥物不良事件(如:藥物不良事件引起之住院)的高風險藥物,將有助臨床工作者與政策制定者針對此議題進行改善。過去研究探討不同藥物相關之住院風險此一議題時,多採用分析自動通報紀錄、病歷回顧、以及從病歷資料庫中篩選藥物不良反應相關之診斷碼等方式進行,然而這些方式普遍存在通報不足的問題且各個藥物不良反應之特性會影響通報率;此外,多數研究僅呈現藥物引起之住院事件數而未考慮藥物在整體族群之使用盛行率。
研究目的 為解決上述的研究限制,本研究使用臺灣全民健康保險研究資料庫為資料來源,以病例─時間─對照設計 (case–time–control design) 探討高風險藥物和急性住院事件之間的相關性。 研究方法 由2000年承保抽樣歸人檔中選取年滿20歲且2000年1月1日至2011年12月31日至少有一筆門診處方紀錄者為研究族群。於研究族群中篩選出急性住院事件為index visits而門診就醫事件為reference visits,並將index visits與reference visits以性別、年齡、index date (定義為index 及reference visits 的首日)、Charlson Comorbidity Index、門診次數進行1:1配對。Index visits與reference visits之病例期定為index date 前1-14天,對照期則定為index date 前366-379天,再比較高風險藥物分別在病例期與對照期之暴露情形,本研究選定的高風險藥物為diabetic agents、diuretics、nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)、anticoagulants、antiplatelets、antihypertensives、 antiarrhythmics、anticonvulsants、antipsychotics、antidepressants、benzodiazepine (BZD)/Z-hypnotics以及narcotics。統計分析使用條件式邏輯迴歸模型進行odds ratio (OR)的預測,並校正隨時間改變之干擾因子 (包含病例期和對照期之Charlson Comorbidity Index、門診就診次數、急診就診次數、慢性用藥總數),另計算急性住院事件中與高風險藥物相關之可歸因風險 (attributable fraction (AF))。 研究結果 於12種本研究選定的高風險藥物中,急性住院風險顯著增加者有7種,風險高至低依序為antipsychotics (adjusted OR: 1.54, 95% confidence interval [1.37-1.73], AF: 35.0%)、NSAIDs (1.50, [1.44-1.56], 33.3%)、anticonvulsants (1.34, [1.10-1.64], 25.6%)、diuretics (1.24, [1.15-1.33], 19.1%)、BZD/Z-hypnotics (1.23, [1.16-1.31], 18.8%)、antidepressants (1.17, [1.05-1.31], 14.7%)及antiplatelets (1.16, [1.07-1.26], 14.0%)。anticoagulants、antiarrhythmics、antihypertensives、narcotics與急性住院無顯著之相關性;diabetic agents則顯示保護作用 (0.86, [0.77-0.97])。 以全部急性住院事件進行分析時,使用narcotics之風險增加未達統計顯著,但僅分析住院天數≥10天之急性住院事件時,風險顯著增加。將各個高風險藥物細分為不同子類別進行分析時急性住院風險不同,急性住院風險最高之antipsychotics及NSAIDs中,又以typical antipsychotics及non-selective NSAIDs之風險較高。依年齡分層分析時,antipsychotics、NSAIDs、diuretics、BZD/Z-hypnotics及antiplatelets在<65歲者和≥65歲者之急性住院風險皆顯著增加,anticonvulsants和antidepressants則只在≥65歲者和急性住院有顯著相關性。 研究結論 本研究提供一種全新的「主動監測藥物不良事件」之方式,與現有之被動監測機制互補可提供更完整的資訊,本研究中急性住院風險顯著增加之藥物antipsychotics、NSAIDs、anticonvulsants、diuretics、BZD/Z-hypnotics、antidepressants及antiplatelets等,可作為未來臨床研究與政策執行之目標。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | Background: Adverse drug events (ADEs) could threaten the health of the patients and imposed a substantial economic burden on the healthcare system. Therefore, efficient identification of severe ADEs, such as ADE-related hospitalizations, can help highlight area in which improvement of treatment practices clinicians and policy-makers can put efforts in. Previous studies have adopted several approaches to identify ADE-related hospitalizations, such as analysis of spontaneous reporting data, medical chart review, and screening diagnostic codes from electronic medical charts databases. However, these methods were limited by under-reporting and reporting bias. Furthermore, most of the studies only examined the number of ADE-related hospitalizations, and did not consider the prevalence of medication exposure within the population.
Objectives: To address the limitations of current approaches, we used a case–time–control design to evaluate the association between high-risk medications and emergency hospitalizations from the National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD) in Taiwan. Methods: Using data from the Longitudinal Health Insurance Database (LHID) 2000, patients aged 20 years and over and had received at least one outpatient prescription during 2000 to 2011 were included as our study cohort. Among them, emergency hospitalizations and outpatient visits were identified as index visits and reference visits, respectively. The first date of index and reference visit was defined as the index date. Each index visit was then matched to a randomly selected reference visits by age, gender, index date, Charlson Comorbidity Index and number of outpatient visits. For both index and reference visits, the period of 1-14 days and 366-379 days prior to the index date were defined as case period and control period, respectively. The exposure of high-risk medications during the case period and the control period were then compared. High-risk medications included in our study were diabetic agents, diuretics, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), anticoagulants, antiplatelets, antihypertensives, antiarrhythmics, anticonvulsants, antipsychotics, antidepressants, benzodiazepine (BZD)/Z-hypnotics and narcotics. Conditional logistic regression models were used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) with adjustment for time-varying variables, including Charlson Comorbidity Index, number of outpatient visits, number of emergency visits and number of chronic drugs used. Attributable fractions (AFs) were also calculated to determine the proportion of emergency hospitalizations attributable to exposure of high-risk medications. Results: Overall, antipsychotics (adjusted OR: 1.54, 95% confidence interval [1.37-1.73], AF: 35.0%), NSAIDs (1.50, [1.44-1.56], 33.3%), anticonvulsants (1.34, [1.10-1.64], 25.6%), diuretics (1.24, [1.15-1.33], 19.1%), BZD/Z-hypnotics (1.23, [1.16-1.31], 18.8%), antidepressants (1.17, [1.05-1.31], 14.7%) and antiplatelets (1.16, [1.07-1.26], 14.0%) were significantly associated with increased risks of emergency hospitalizations. Such associations were not found in anticoagulants, narcotics, antiarrhythmics and antihypertensives. Diabetic agents showed protective effect (0.86, [0.77-0.97]). However, when we limited our analyses in emergency hospitalizations with a length of stay ≥10 days, the narcotics significantly associated with an increased risk of emergency hospitalizations. In subgroup analysis by pharmacological properties, typical antipsychotics were associated with higher risks of emergency hospitalizations than atypical antipsychotics. Non-selective NSAIDs was linked with higher risk of emergency hospitalizations than COX-2 selective NSAIDs. Age-stratified analyses showed that antipsychotics, NSAIDs, diuretics, BZD/Z-hypnotics, and antiplatelets were significantly associated with emergency hospitalizations in aged<65 years and aged ≥65 years, but anticonvulsants and antidepressants were associated with increased risk of emergency hospitalizations in the elderly (age ≥65 years) only. Conclusion: This study provides an alternative approach for active pharmacovigilance, which may complement the present passive pharmacovigilance system in Taiwan. Future research can focus on medications significantly associated with increased risks of emergency hospitalizations, including antipsychotics, NSAIDs, anticonvulsants, diuretics, BZD/Z-hypnotics, antidepressants and antiplatelets. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-16T02:38:03Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-104-R02451010-1.pdf: 877405 bytes, checksum: a6e94b2f5d75a07d8c0660db33e43b0d (MD5) Previous issue date: 2015 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 誌謝 i 中文摘要 ii Abstract iv 目錄 vii 表目錄 ix 圖目錄 x 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究背景與動機 1 第二節 研究目的 2 第二章 文獻回顧 3 第一節 比較不同藥物住院風險之文獻 3 2.1.1 描述性研究 3 2.1.2 分析性研究 5 第二節 過去文獻研究方式之優點與缺點 15 第三節 病例─時間─對照設計 17 第三章 研究方法 19 第一節 資料來源 19 3.1.1 臺灣全民健康保險研究資料庫承保抽樣歸人檔 19 第二節 研究設計 20 第三節 研究對象與觀察時間 22 3.3.1 研究族群 22 3.3.2 研究事件 ─ Index Visits 與 Reference Visits 22 3.3.3 觀察時間 ─ 病例期與對照期 23 第四節 研究架構與研究變項 24 3.4.1 自變項 ─ 高風險藥物之暴露情形 25 3.4.2 依變項 ─ 急性住院事件 28 3.4.3 控制變項 29 第五節 統計分析 30 3.5.1 描述性統計分析 30 3.5.2 推論性統計分析 30 第四章 研究結果 32 第一節 研究對象之基本性質 32 4.1.1 納入之研究族群與研究事件 32 4.1.2 研究事件之基本性質比較 37 第二節 高風險藥物與急性住院之相關性 41 4.2.1 不同高風險藥物與急性住院之相關性 41 4.2.2 不同高風險藥物與急性住院中住院天數≥ 10天者之相關性 45 4.2.3 不同高風險藥物子類別與急性住院之相關性 48 第三節 以年齡分層分析高風險藥物與急性住院之相關性 51 第四節 以病例期與對照期之長度進行敏感度分析 54 第五章 討論 55 第一節 不同高風險藥物與急性住院之相關性 55 5.1.1 研究結果與過去文獻之異同 55 5.1.2 不同高風險藥物與急性住院中住院天數≥ 10天者之相關性 60 5.1.3 不同高風險藥物子類別與急性住院之相關性 60 5.1.4 以年齡分層分析高風險藥物與急性住院之相關性 62 第二節 研究特色與限制 63 5.2.1 研究特色與優點 63 5.2.2 研究限制 64 第六章 結論與建議 65 參考文獻 66 附錄 71 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 高風險藥物與急性住院:病例─時間─對照研究 | zh_TW |
dc.title | High-Risk Medications and Emergency Hospitalizations: A Case–Time–Control Study | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 103-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 陳亮恭,陳建煒,溫有汶 | |
dc.subject.keyword | 藥物不良事件,高風險藥物,急性住院,病例─時間─對照研究, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | adverse drug events,high-risk medications,emergency hospitalizations,case–time–control design, | en |
dc.relation.page | 71 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2015-07-24 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 藥學專業學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 臨床藥學研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 臨床藥學研究所 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-104-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 856.84 kB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。