Next Article in Journal
Feasibility of Using Oncology-Specific Electronic Health Record (EHR) Data to Emulate Clinical Trial Eligibility Criteria
Previous Article in Journal
Do Propylene Glycol, Benzyl Alcohol, and Ethanol in Concomitant Drugs Influence Clinical Outcomes Following Intravenous Acetaminophen in Critically Ill Neonates?
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Cost Estimations of Managing Adverse Drug Reactions in Hospitalized Patients: A Systematic Review of Study Methods and Their Influences

1
Pharmaceutical Services Programme, Ministry of Health Malaysia, Petaling Jaya 46200, Malaysia
2
School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Gelugor 11800, Malaysia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Pharmacoepidemiology 2023, 2(2), 120-139; https://doi.org/10.3390/pharma2020012
Submission received: 26 March 2023 / Revised: 21 April 2023 / Accepted: 26 April 2023 / Published: 30 April 2023

Abstract

:
This study aimed to systematically review and explore the impact of study methods on the cost of managing adverse drug reactions (ADRs) among hospitalized patients to guide policymakers and researchers. A literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. The search was restricted to studies from 2000 to 2017. Two authors independently reviewed the studies, assessed their risk of bias, and extracted information for analysis. Data abstraction was based on the study design, ADR reporting, and costing approaches. Of 677 studies identified, 12 were included for analysis. All studies defined ADR according to WHO classifications. The percentage of admission due to ADR ranged from 0.03% to 17.11%. All studies adopted a healthcare provider perspective, using either a micro-costing (n = 7), case-mix group costing (n = 3), or average-per-diem costing (n = 2) approach. The cost per ADR widely fluctuated from USD 65.00 to USD 12,129.90 based on various factors. The micro-costing approach generally had a lower cost compared to other approaches. The cost per ADR in high-income countries was also 10 times higher than in lower- or middle-income countries. This study evidenced that the methodological heterogeneity across studies has resulted in a wide range of cost estimations for ADR management.

1. Introduction

An adverse drug reaction (ADR) is defined as any response to a drug that is noxious and unintended, and that occurs at normal therapeutic doses [1,2]. These reactions can range from mild and self-limiting to severe reactions that can lead to disability and death. ADRs can occur in both hospital and outpatient settings, albeit varying in terms of the frequency, types, and severity of the reactions. Reactions in outpatient settings are often thought to be underreported and most often self-limiting [3,4,5]. On the other hand, the ADRs in hospitals are well studied and characterized as patients are closely monitored during the drug administration process. Additionally, hospitalized patients are more susceptible to ADR due to a combination of factors such as more complex and potent treatment regimens, compromised organ functions, and underlying health conditions [6]. Studies have reported that about 10 to 20% of hospitalized patients will experience ADRs during their stay [7]. These high numbers create concern, as ADRs can impair the treatment outcomes and impact the quality of life of patients.
Aside from the health consequences, ADRs cause a substantial economic impact on individuals, the healthcare system, and society as a whole. From the perspective of the patient, the longer hospitalization due to ADR results in a greater loss of productivity and an increase in caregiver burden. Conversely, the healthcare system may face a significant escalation of cost and resource use from ADRs. This is because any reaction would require close monitoring and additional interventions, on top of prolonging the duration of care. A study by Evans et al., for example, evidenced that ADRs can extend hospitalization by 8 to 12 days, which corresponds to an additional expenditure of USD 16,000 to USD 24,000 per patient [8]. In more life-threatening reactions such as Steven-Johnsons syndrome or toxic epidermal necrolysis, the patient would require admission to the intensive care unit and multidisciplinary team effort. Some studies have demonstrated that these expenditures, collectively, can be as high as 15% to 20% of the hospital budgets [9]. The annual expenditure on drug-related events in the United States for example reaches an exorbitant spending of USD 30.1 to 136.8 billion [10]. A separate study exploring drug-related morbidity and mortality in 2000 demonstrated that the cost of illness of ADR amounted to USD 177.4 billion in that year [11]. Out of this amount, healthcare-related drug costs accounted for the largest portion.
Although the clinical consequences and the corresponding healthcare costs are critical public health concerns, the exact economic impact of ADRs is still poorly characterized [2]. This is primarily due to underreporting, arising from a shortcoming in existing pharmacovigilance systems, which underestimates the true economic burden of ADRs [12]. As experimental clinical trials are not possible in this context, the determination of the actual expenditure incurred remains challenging due to the unpredictable nature of ADRs. Reported studies are also often focused on the simulation and extrapolation of existing data and data from cost-of-illness studies [13]. These studies typically vary in the measures used to identify ADRs, the resource use, and how the total cost was established [14]. The ADR classification, for instance, requires a systematic approach to determine if an event is related to drugs and to assess the causality [15,16]. However, the numerous classification systems and guides pose a challenge to the generalizability and interpretation of findings by the level of causality [17].
Information on the economic burden of ADRs is vital to policymakers as it helps in the planning of resource allocation and management. It is also critical to push forward prioritization and the development of patient safety initiatives. However, the current scarcity of evidence, on top of the heterogeneity of findings, makes the interpretation of findings difficult. For instance, between 1998 and 2013, there were at least 14 systematic reviews on the incidence and risk factors of ADRs [6,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28]. Out of this, only three of them [17,25,27] looked into ADR costs while only one [29] explored the potential effect of methodological approaches to cost estimations. Furthermore, the lack of consistent cost data and unascertained methodological influences also limit the ability to evaluate cost-effectiveness strategies such as pharmacovigilance programs, medication reviews, and patient education campaigns. Hence, this study aims to systematically review the methodological impacts on assessing the cost of ADRs with a focus on events occurring in a hospital setting. This review will also identify and explore the association of ADR cost-related factors such as patient characteristics, the type of drug involved, causality tools applied in diagnosing, and the incidence of ADRs.

2. Results

The search yielded a total of 677 potentially relevant articles. After removing the duplicates, 450 abstracts were reviewed and screened for eligibility. Based on the inclusion criteria, 94 articles were selected for further evaluation. A total of 12 studies were found to be eligible for the review. The complete process of the literature search and study selection is illustrated in Figure 1.

2.1. Characteristics of the Included Studies

As shown in Table 1, most of the studies selected for the review were from India (n = 4), followed by one study each from the US, Taiwan, France, Switzerland, Spain, and Germany. Ten of the reports were from single-center studies (n = 10), with five of them conducted at the emergency departments [30,31,32,33,34]. Most studies were based on a prospective study design (n = 7), followed by retrospective data collection [34,35,36,37]. The study duration ranged from as short as 1.5 months to 72 months. In terms of patient characteristics, the mean age of patients ranged from 40 to 72 years. Generally, the ADRs were shown to be more common in males than females in six of the studies [10,32,34,35,38,39].

2.2. ADR Identification Methods, Incidence, and Length of Stay (LOS)

Table 2 describes the characteristics of the ADRs reported and the methods applied to detect them. All studies defined ADR according to WHO classifications. Two studies [30,36] further included additional identification methods based on Edward and Aronson’s classification [41] and Rawlins and Thomson’s classification [42]. All assessments of ADR were conducted by healthcare professionals, including pharmacists, physicians, or nurses. Six studies [9,30,35,37,38,42,43] reported the severity of the ADRs and categorized the events into “mild” (18.5–53.0%) and “moderate” (48.8–74.7%) based on different criteria [1,44]. The Naranjo probability scale was found to be the most widely used tool for the ADR causality assessment (n = 7). Interestingly, a majority of the ADR causalities were reported as being probable (n = 5) [30,31,38,39,40].
Studies by Wasserfallen et al. and Rajakannan et al. demonstrated the highest incidence of admission due to ADR, at 7.10% and 17.11%, respectively [33,40]. Only three studies reported percentages of ADR preventability from 20.0 to 81.6% [31,33,36]. The major types of ADR can be categorized based on gastrointestinal (n = 6, 3.8–24.4%), dermatologic (n = 5, 12.6–75.6%), cardiovascular (n = 5, 3.1–24.1%), and hematologic (n = 5, 9.9–15.2%) system disorders. The most common drugs causing ADRs were anticoagulants (n = 8, 7.5–22.1%), anti-infectives (n = 7, 6.3–40.9%), cardiovascular drugs (n = 5, 7.0–36.0%), and antidiabetic agents (n = 4, 6.0–27.8%). In addition, the means of the length of ADR-caused hospitalization ranged from 3 to 12.8 days.

2.3. Study Quality and Risk of Bias

Table 3 and Figure 2 show a summary of the assessment of the risk of bias, level of evidence, and potential hierarchies of data sources for all 12 selected studies. Overall, the studies had moderate to high risk of bias. Five studies were considered to have a moderate risk of bias as they have distinctly defined the outcome measure and variables, in addition to outcomes being measured using reliable statistical methods [30,31,34,35,37].
Each method has its own advantages and disadvantages. Reliance on patients, for instance, is the most common approach, but is limited by recall biases, non-response, and evasiveness [45]. As for the use of routinely collected data, this depends on the accurate recording and stability of information technology infrastructure. To estimate costs related to ADR, two key data inputs were needed: the frequency of ADRs over a defined period and the cost per episode of care (associated with the event). Frequently, this information was extracted from the baseline clinical data input.
In terms of baseline clinical input data, four studies [34,35,36,37] used reliable administrative medical record databases. Additionally, Wasserfallen et al. (2001) and Rottenkolber et al. (2011) were the only two studies identified to be using previously published resource use results and cost calculations for analysis [33,36]. It was discussed that referring to recently published data and eliciting expert opinions is convenient but is not generally considered a reliable or unbiased method of resource use estimation [46].

2.4. Method of Cost Calculation

Economic analysis frequently combines information from various data sources to estimate cost. Studies in this review collated the cost data from patients’ self-reported health (by questionnaire, interview, and diary cards), available secondary data such as medical records, and hospital administrative databases, in addition to expert opinions [46]. The summary of methods used to calculate ADR costs is shown in Table 4. All studies estimated the cost of ADR management from the healthcare provider’s perspective, with one study incorporating both the provider’s and patient’s perspectives.
Seven studies applied a micro-costing approach, where the unit cost of each resource consumed was calculated and multiplied by the length of stay in the hospital to generate the total healthcare cost of managing ADRs [30,31,32,33,34,39,40]. Most of the studies using the micro-costing approach were prospective in design, while three [35,36,38] were found to have used the diagnosis-related groups (DRG) to determine such costs. The remaining two studies calculated the ADR management costs based on daily hospital charges for patients using the hospital-specific cost/charge ratio [9,36]. It is worth highlighting that while sensitivity analysis was generally not possible for micro-costing approaches, the study conducted by Wasserfallen et al. (2001) reported sensitivity analysis for their imputability (or causality) and avoidability figures [33].

2.5. Cost of ADR

The adjusted hospitalization costs per ADR in each country ranged between USD 65 and 12,129 (n = 11). These costs, however, were not standardized as they varied in terms of their reporting. Suh et al., for example, reported the ADR cost by the number of ADRs occurring per patient case, USD 28,082.65 for one to three ADRs (n = 119) and USD 46,628.44 for more than four ADRs (n = 12) [37]. On the other hand, a study conducted by Geer et al. reported that the cost of ADR per patient per day was USD 65 [30]. Nevertheless, most studies opted to report the cost of ADR in terms of expenditures required per case. Aside from the four studies conducted in India [30,31,32,40], all other studies were from high-income countries. The average costs per case of ADR in high-income countries were demonstrated to be more than 10 times higher than in low-income countries. For instance, the average cost per case of ADR ranged from USD 2908.77 to 12,129.90 in high-income countries, and from USD 65.00 to 581.71 in India.
The average cost was also found to be lower in two studies with a mean length of hospital stay of fewer than five days (USD 346.25 [32] and USD 581.74 [31]). Among the three studies which computed ADR cost based on length of stay (LOS), only the study by Geer et al. defined LOS as “excess days”. This was defined as the difference between the individual duration of the hospital stays of a patient having an ADR and the mean duration of hospital stays for patients without ADRs. This form of reporting was shown to also generate the lowest cost of ADR per case. It was also discovered that the ranges of ADR cost per case were smaller among studies conducting unit cost analysis [31,32,33,39,40].

3. Discussion

Our review found a wide range of values for total ADR costs. Factors such as the study location, ADR characteristics, and methodological differences primarily contributed to this. The lowest reported ADR costs per case were from Indian studies, ranging from USD 65 to USD 581.74 [30,31,32,40]. Meanwhile, those studies from high-income countries reported higher ADR costs [10,35,37,38]. This is due to factors such as the lower currency exchange rates and lower labor costs in India, relative to the high medical inflation rates in developed nations. Despite GDP and health spending growing fastest in low- and middle-income countries, a large gap persists between rich and poor countries. In 2016, the median per capita health spending was over USD 2000 in high-income countries but just a fifth of that (USD 400) in upper-middle-income countries and one-twentieth of that (USD 100) in low- and lower-middle-income countries [47]. A study conducted by Chevat et al. [48] further reported that healthcare costs are country-specific, and the main contributing differences are interventions such as cost per day in hospitals or specific laboratory tests. Therefore, to extrapolate costs from different healthcare settings, policymakers may consider using appropriate conversion methods such as purchase power parities.
It is also postulated that, generally, the cost estimations reported are an underestimation of the true economic impact of ADRs. This is because most studies provide the resource use from a healthcare provider perspective. The inclusion of patient and household expenses for travel, food, and stay during the hospitalization may further increase the actual financial burden of ADRs [32,49]. Furthermore, both hospitalization- and ADR-associated temporary or permanent disabilities can lead to a significant loss of productivity for patients and their households [50]. Thus, the exploration of costs from a wider societal perspective is warranted to push for higher investments in preventive and pharmacovigilance activities.

Streamlining ADR Costing Methods

Almost all studies applying the micro-costing methods had a lower ADR cost (USD 65.00 to USD 4463.59) compared to case-mix group and average-per-diem costing at USD 3102.71 to USD 46,628.44 [34,35,37] and USD 6222.52 to USD 12,129.90, respectively [10,37]. This might be, however, partly attributed to the inadequate identification of contributing cost components. A comprehensive micro-costing study conducted by Gyllensten and colleagues evidenced that if all components are taken into consideration, the cost estimates tend to be higher than those based on registered diagnoses [29]. This was achieved by combining data registers with information from medical records. Furthermore, methods such as micro-costing or using reimbursement records can provide a more accurate picture of the healthcare resources used. However, it is also crucial for both researchers and policymakers to consider the inclusion of factors such as overheads and personnel time to quantify the additional burden caused by ADRs arising during the inpatient stay.
Evaluating the ADR-related length of stay has the advantage of capturing the burden of ADR in terms of prolonging inpatient care [51]. The cost per hospital day provides a crude estimation that can be adapted to different regions and hospitals. However, such reporting also requires two critical factors to be considered for the interpretation of the values: Firstly, whether the mechanism or analysis used could discriminate between the length of stay contributed by the ADR and the primary admission reason. Estimation of the length of stay which includes disease management can underestimate the actual burden of ADR [30,31,33]. Secondly, the most acute interventions and managements often occur in the first few days of the ADRs, especially in mild to moderate conditions. This is then followed by monitoring and maybe symptomatic support. Thus, the process of averaging the expenditures in these cases may discount the initial high resource use during the acute phase of ADRs. Therefore, it is advisable that aside from the total ADR management costs, the researcher can consider reporting the costs based on the acute phase and the monitoring or stabilized phase.
From a clinical and drug safety evaluation point of view, the definition, identification, and causality of ADRs were also found to affect the cost of the ADR [51]. For instance, choosing a threshold causality level of at least “possible” as opposed to at least “probable” could likewise lead to false-positive ADRs [52]. Such an approach often leads to an overestimation of ADR-related costs [53]. To the best of our knowledge, no adjustment methods have been suggested for assessing the level of the causal relationship between drug and symptom for ADR cost estimation [17]. Therefore, current ADR detection systems and tools must be chosen carefully when calculating ADR costs.
From earlier reviews [17,23,24,25,27,28], findings have reported the presence of methodological heterogeneity between studies measuring ADR costs in terms of assessing causal relationships between the drug and the resulting morbidity, and how to define ADR. This is similar to our review, where there is also a large heterogeneity between the methods and cost sources used for cost analysis within these studies. Cost estimation approaches should be viewed as an equally important part of the methods section. It has been argued that there is a need for closer relationships between researchers and research within the fields of pharmacoeconomics and pharmacoepidemiology [54]. It would be useful for researchers if there was an evaluation tool developed based on published checklists aimed at measuring the quality or guiding research within the field of observational descriptive studies and economic evaluation [14,55]. However, still, it depends on the research question, and adapting to international guidelines and terminology within economic cost analyses is required [56].
It is worth highlighting that there were limitations in this review. First, the search process only included articles published in English and reports from the last 18 years. The exclusion of non-English articles could have resulted in a selection bias, especially from lower-income nations. This consequently limits the ability to explore or visualize other methods of costing or ADR classification systems. On the other hand, the more recent time horizon may have excluded past classification and assessment methods. This, conversely, reduces the understanding of how such approaches can be interpreted in our current time. Lastly, this review was only able to explore methodological impacts qualitatively. This was because multiple factors which impacted on the estimated costs made further statistical analysis difficult.

4. Methods

4.1. Search Strategy

This systematic review was conducted in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines [57]. Literature search was performed on MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. The search was restricted to only observational studies published from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2017. A more recent time period was selected based on the emergence of standardized new approaches to identify adverse events [18,19,55,58]. Papers were confined to the English language only or if a full copy in English was available for abstraction. Appropriate Medical Subject Headings (MeSH), thesauruses, and specific keywords were combined using Boolean operators in search terms and guided by the criteria in Table 5.

4.2. Study Selection Criteria

The study title and abstracts were first scrutinized by two reviewers (SFA and HC) based on set criteria. The inclusion criteria were (1) direct or indirect cost of ADRs based on observational studies of clinical data from general patient groups; (2) contains sufficient information to calculate ADR incidence; and (3) prospective or retrospective monitoring to identify ADRs. Studies were only excluded if (1) responses were due to therapeutic failures, intentional poisoning, overdosing, drug abuse, and non-adherence to treatment; (2) patients studied were selected for particular conditions or specific drug exposures; and (3) they contained the cost of specific types of ADRs or specific medications or drug categories only.

4.3. Data Extraction

The information required for the review was independently extracted by two reviewers (SFA and HC) and cross validated by AAS. Data were extracted into three major sections to aid the discussion of findings: (1) study design, (2) ADR reporting, and (3) costing approaches [15]. Study design consists of the adopted methodologies, including the study duration, setting, and population age range and size. For ADR reporting, we abstracted the guidelines used for the definition, classification, severity, causality assessment, and detection methods. The costing approaches were focused on the cost perspectives, method of cost calculation, data sources, the total estimated cost, and adjustment mechanisms. All extracted articles were then scrutinized to determine the relationship between the data collected with the aforementioned hospitalized ADR parameters.

4.4. Quality Assessments

The quality of the studies was subsequently evaluated based on the Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies of NIH (National Institute of Health—USA) [59]. The checklist consists of 14 questions which are rated as Yes, No, or Cannot Determine. The list is intended to focus on the key concepts for evaluating the internal validity of the studies. These questions were taken into consideration when a summary judgment on the quality of the study was made. Studies were also appraised according to the methods of measuring the cost of drug-related morbidity, which were based on items used for assessing economic evaluation studies, mainly study viewpoint and costing methods.

4.5. Data Analysis

A qualitative review approach was taken in interpreting the methodological influences on the ADR cost estimates. The study perspective was categorized as provider, payer, or patient. Studies were judged to measure societal costs if they included direct and indirect costs to the hospital, any third-party payer, and patients. In this review, the terms used for direct and indirect cost follow the categorization in Drummond, 2015 [14]. The methods used to measure the cost of ADR in each study were divided into micro-costing, case-mix group, or average per diem [14]. Micro-costing involves studies which identify and estimate the cost for each component of the resource used (e.g., laboratory tests, days of stay by ward, drugs). Case-mix or disease-related groups, on the other hand, involve the cost estimation by case category using the length of stay. Disease-specific or average per diem involves estimating the average daily cost for treatments in each disease category.
To facilitate the comparison across different settings and years, the cost per case was presented in USD by inflating the cost to its 2016 value using country-specific GDP inflators [43]. The data analysis was performed using Microsoft Excel 2010 (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA).

5. Conclusions

Despite the high incidences and significant impact of ADRs among hospitalized patients, there is still a paucity of evidence in terms of their cost implications. Furthermore, a lack of guidance and standardization in reporting makes it difficult for future researchers to adopt a comprehensive and established methodology. This review well evidenced that these limitations lead to the large heterogeneity in study designs, which consequently causes large variations in ADR cost estimations. The three main recommendations from this review are (1) to adopt a societal perspective in costing, (2) to identify and include all related cost components, and (3) to apply well-acknowledged classification and causal relationships when identifying ADRs. It is hoped that the findings from this study can encourage a more robust exploration of the economic burden of managing ADRs to fill the current knowledge gaps.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.F.A. and A.A.S.; methodology, S.F.A. and H.C.; data extraction, S.F.A. and H.C.; data validation, A.A.S..; formal analysis, S.F.A.; writing—original draft preparation, S.F.A.; writing—review and editing, A.A.S. and H.C..; supervision, A.A.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was registered and approved (NMRR-18-1908-42499) by the Medical Research & Ethics Committee, Ministry of Health Malaysia.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge all individuals who made this review possible.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. WHO. Safety of Medicines: A Guide to Detecting and Reporting Adverse Drug Reactions: Why Health Professionals Need to Take Action; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2002.
  2. Dormann, H.; Muth-Selbach, U.; Krebs, S.; Criegee-Rieck, M.; Tegeder, I.; Schneider, H.T.; Hahn, E.G.; Levy, M.; Brune, K.; Geisslinger, G. Incidence and costs of adverse drug reactions during hospitalisation. Drug Saf. 2000, 22, 161–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Bond, C.; Raehl, C.L.; Franke, T. Clinical pharmacy services, pharmacy staffing, and the total cost of care in United States hospitals. Pharmacother. J. Hum. Pharmacol. Drug Ther. 2000, 20, 609–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Ernst, F.R.; Grizzle, A.J. Drug-related morbidity and mortality: Updating the cost-of-illness model. J. Am. Pharm. Assoc. 2001, 41, 192–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Griffin, J. Survey of the spontaneous adverse drug reaction reporting schemes in fifteen countries. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 1986, 22, 83S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Lazarou, J.; Pomeranz, B.H.; Corey, P.N. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: A meta-analysis of prospective studies. JAMA 1998, 279, 1200–1205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Alhawassi, T.; Krass, I.; Bajorek, B.; Pont, L. A systematic review of the prevalence and risk factors for adverse drug reactions in the elderly in the acute care setting. Clin. Interv. Aging 2014, 9, 2079–2086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Evans, R.S.; Pestotnik, S.L.; Classen, D.C.; Bass, S.; Burke, J. Prevention of adverse drug events through computerized surveillance. In Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer Application in Medical Care, Baltimore, Maryland, 8–11 November 1992; p. 437. [Google Scholar]
  9. Beijer, H.; De Blaey, C. Hospitalisations caused by adverse drug reactions (ADR): A meta-analysis of observational studies. Pharm. World Sci. 2002, 24, 46–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Bordet, R.; Gautier, S.; Le Louet, H.; Dupuis, B.; Caron, J. Analysis of the direct cost of adverse drug reactions in hospitalised patients. Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2001, 56, 935–941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Johnson, J.; Bootman, J. Drug-related morbidity and mortality: A cost of illness model. Arch. Intern. Med. 1995, 155, 1949–1956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Waller, P.C.; Lee, E.H. Responding to drug safety issues. Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. 1999, 8, 535–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Gautier, S.; Bachelet, H.; Bordet, R.; Caron, J. The cost of adverse drug reactions. Expert Opin. Pharmacother. 2003, 4, 319–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Drummond, M.F.; Sculpher, M.J.; Claxton, K.; Stoddart, G.L.; Torrance, G.W. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  15. Coyle, D.; Lee, K.M. Evidence-based economic evaluation: How the use of different data sources can impact results. In Evidence-Based Health Economics: From Effectiveness to Efficiency in Systematic Review; Donaldson, C., Mugford, M., Vale, L., Eds.; BMJ Publishing Group: London, UK, 2002; pp. 55–66. [Google Scholar]
  16. Howard, R.; Avery, A.; Howard, P.; Partridge, M. Investigation into the reasons for preventable drug related admissions to a medical admissions unit: Observational study. BMJ Qual. Saf. 2003, 12, 280–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Marques, F.B.; Penedones, A.; Mendes, D.; Alves, C. A systematic review of observational studies evaluating costs of adverse drug reactions. Clin. Outcomes Res. CEOR 2016, 8, 413. [Google Scholar]
  18. Al Hamid, A.; Ghaleb, M.; Aljadhey, H.; Aslanpour, Z. A systematic review of qualitative research on the contributory factors leading to medicine-related problems from the perspectives of adult patients with cardiovascular diseases and diabetes mellitus. BMJ Open 2014, 4, e005992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Cano, F.G.; Rozenfeld, S. Adverse drug events in hospitals: A systematic review. Cad. Saúde Pública 2009, 25, S360–S372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Dechanont, S.; Maphanta, S.; Butthum, B.; Kongkaew, C. Hospital admissions/visits associated with drug–drug interactions: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. 2014, 23, 489–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Impicciatore, P.; Choonara, I.; Clarkson, A.; Provasi, D.; Pandolfini, C.; Bonati, M. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in paediatric in/out-patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2001, 52, 77–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Khan, L.M. Comparative epidemiology of hospital-acquired adverse drug reactions in adults and children and their impact on cost and hospital stay–a systematic review. Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2013, 69, 1985–1996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Martins, A.; Giordani, F.; Rozenfeld, S. Adverse drug events among adult inpatients: A meta-analysis of observational studies. J. Clin. Pharm. Ther. 2014, 39, 609–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Miguel, A.; Azevedo, L.F.; Araújo, M.; Pereira, A.C. Frequency of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. 2012, 21, 1139–1154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Siltharm, C.; Thavorncharoensap, M. Cost of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) induced hospitalization: A systematic review. Mahidol Univ. J. Pharm. Sci. 2013, 40, 40–49. [Google Scholar]
  26. Smyth, R.M.D.; Gargon, E.; Kirkham, J.; Cresswell, L.; Golder, S.; Smyth, R.; Williamson, P. Adverse drug reactions in children—A systematic review. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e24061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Vallano, A.F.; Agustí, A.E.; Pedrós, C.X.; de Bolós Arnau, J. Systematic review of studies assessing the cost of adverse drug reactions. Gac. Sanit. 2012, 26, 277–283. [Google Scholar]
  28. Wiffen, P.; Gill, M.; Edwards, J.; Moore, A. Adverse Drug Reactions in Hospital Patients. A Systematic Review of the Prospective and Retrospective Studies; Centre for Reviews and Dissemination: York, UK, 2002; pp. 1–16. [Google Scholar]
  29. Gyllensten, H.; Jönsson, A.K.; Rehnberg, C.; Carlsten, A. How are the Costs of Drug-Related Morbidity Measured? Drug Saf. 2012, 35, 207–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Geer, M.; Koul, P.; Tanki, S.; Shah, M. Frequency, types, severity, preventability and costs of adverse drug reactions at a tertiary care hospital. J. Pharmacol. Toxicol. Methods 2016, 81, 323–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Patel, K.; Kedia, M.; Bajpai, D.; Mehta, S.; Kshirsagar, N.; Gogtay, N. Evaluation of the prevalence and economic burden of adverse drug reactions presenting to the medical emergency department of a tertiary referral centre: A prospective study. BMC Clin. Pharmacol. 2007, 7, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Pattanaik, S.; Dhamija, P.; Malhotra, S.; Sharma, N.; Pandhi, P. Evaluation of cost of treatment of drug-related events in a tertiary care public sector hospital in Northern India: A prospective study. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2009, 67, 363–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Wasserfallen, J.-B.; Livio, F.; Buclin, T.; Tillet, L.; Yersin, B.; Biollaz, J. Rate, type, and cost of adverse drug reactions in emergency department admissions. Eur. J. Intern. Med. 2001, 12, 442–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Yee, J.L.; Hasson, N.K.; Schreiber, D.H. Drug-related emergency department visits in an elderly veteran population. Ann. Pharmacother. 2005, 39, 1990–1995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Carrasco-Garrido, P.; de Andrés, L.A.; Barrera, V.H.; de Miguel, G.Á.; Jiménez-García, R. Trends of adverse drug reactions related-hospitalizations in Spain (2001–2006). BMC Health Serv. Res. 2010, 10, 287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Rottenkolber, D.; Schmiedl, S.; Rottenkolber, M.; Farker, K.; Saljé, K.; Mueller, S.; Hippius, M.; Thuermann, P.A.; Hasford, J.; Centers, N.o.R.P. Adverse drug reactions in Germany: Direct costs of internal medicine hospitalizations. Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. 2011, 20, 626–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Wu, W.K.; Pantaleo, N. Evaluation of outpatient adverse drug reactions leading to hospitalization. Am. J. Health-Syst. Pharm. 2003, 60, 253–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Suh, D.-C.; Woodall, B.S.; Shin, S.-K.; Santis, E.R.H.-D. Clinical and economic impact of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients. Ann. Pharmacother. 2000, 34, 1373–1379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Chan, A.L.; Lee, H.Y.; Ho, C.-H.; Cham, T.-M.; Lin, S.J. Cost evaluation of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients in Taiwan: A prospective, descriptive, observational study. Curr. Ther. Res. 2008, 69, 118–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Rajakannan, T.; Mallayasamy, S.; Guddattu, V.; Kamath, A.; Vilakkthala, R.; Rao, P.G.; Bairy, L.K. Cost of adverse drug reactions in a South Indian tertiary care teaching hospital. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2012, 52, 559–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Edwards, I.R.; Aronson, J.K. Adverse drug reactions: Definitions, diagnosis, and management. Lancet 2000, 356, 1255–1259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Rawlins, M.D.; Thompson, J.W. Mechanisms of adverse drug reaction. In Textbook of Adverse Drug Reactions; Davies, D.M., Ed.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1991; pp. 18–45. [Google Scholar]
  43. IMF. International Monetary Fund: World Economic Outlook Database; IMF: Bretton Woods, NH, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  44. Hartwig, S.C.; Siegel, J.; Schneider, P.J. Preventability and severity assessment in reporting adverse drug reactions. Am. J. Health-Syst. Pharm. 1992, 49, 2229–2232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Bowling, A. Mode of questionnaire administration can have serious effects on data quality. J. Public Health 2005, 27, 281–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Ridyard, C.H.; Hughes, D.A. Methods for the collection of resource use data within clinical trials: A systematic review of studies funded by the UK Health Technology Assessment program. Value Health 2010, 13, 867–872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. World Health Organization. Public Spending on Health: A Closer Look at Global Trends; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018.
  48. Chevat, C.; Peña, B.M.; Al, M.J.; Rutten, F.F. Healthcare resource utilisation and costs of treating NSAID-associated gastrointestinal toxicity. Pharmacoeconomics 2001, 19, 17–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Natanaelsson, J.; Hakkarainen, K.M.; Hägg, S.; Sundell, K.A.; Petzold, M.; Rehnberg, C.; Jönsson, A.K.; Gyllensten, H. Direct and indirect costs for adverse drug events identified in medical records across care levels, and their distribution among payers. Res. Soc. Adm. Pharm. 2017, 13, 1151–1158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Foley, K.; Wang, P.; Barber, B.; Long, S.; Bagalman, J.; Wagner, V.; Song, X.; Zhao, Z. Clinical and economic impact of infusion reactions in patients with colorectal cancer treated with cetuximab. Ann. Oncol. 2010, 21, 1455–1461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Lundkvist, J.; Jönsson, B. Pharmacoeconomics of adverse drug reactions. Fundam. Clin. Pharmacol. 2004, 18, 275–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Thürmann, P.A. Methods and systems to detect adverse drug reactions in hospitals. Drug Saf. 2001, 24, 961–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Macedo, A.F.; Marques, F.B.; Ribeiro, C.F. Can decisional algorithms replace global introspection in the individual causality assessment of spontaneously reported ADRs? Drug Saf. 2006, 29, 697–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Briggs, A.H.; Levy, A.R. Pharmacoeconomics and pharmacoepidemiology. Pharmacoeconomics 2006, 24, 1079–1086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Rozich, J.; Haraden, C.; Resar, R. Adverse drug event trigger tool: A practical methodology for measuring medication related harm. BMJ Qual. Saf. 2003, 12, 194–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. World Health Organization. WHO Guide to Identifying the Economic Consequences of Disease and Injury; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2009.
  57. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Ann. Intern. Med. 2009, 151, 264–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Atiqi, R.; Cleophas, T.; Van, E.B.; Zwinderman, A. Meta-analysis of recent studies on patients admitted to hospital due to adverse drug effects. Int. J. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 2009, 47, 549–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. National Institutes of Health. Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies. 2014. Available online: https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/study-quality-assessment-tools (accessed on 1 July 2018).
Figure 1. Flow diagram of selection of studies.
Figure 1. Flow diagram of selection of studies.
Pharmacoepidemiology 02 00012 g001
Figure 2. Summary of assessment for methodological quality of the selected studies.
Figure 2. Summary of assessment for methodological quality of the selected studies.
Pharmacoepidemiology 02 00012 g002
Table 1. Characteristics of included studies.
Table 1. Characteristics of included studies.
Author
(Publication Date)
Suh et al. (2000) [38]Bordet et al. (2001) [10]Wasserfallen et al. (2001) [33]Wu and Pantaleo (2003) [37]Yee et al. (2005) [34]Patel et al. (2007) [31]Chan et al. (2008) [39]Pattanaik et al. (2009) [32]Carrasco-Garrido et al. (2010) [35]Rottenkolber et al. (2011) [36]Rajakannan et al. (2012) [40]Geer et al. (2016) [30]
CountryUSAFranceSwitzerlandUSAUSAIndiaTaiwanIndiaSpainGermanyIndiaIndia
Type of study designProspective ProspectiveProspectiveRetro-spective Retro-spective ProspectiveProspectiveProspectiveRetro-spective Retro-spectiveProspectiveProspective
Single/Multi centreSingle centreSingle centreSingle centreSingle centreSingle centreSingle centreSingle centreSingle centreMulticentreMulticentreSingle centreSingle centre
Study duration (months)51852431.5364722469
No. Patients included931116,916319519122252046142,295183320,712,39957,00014385483
Age rangeMean 56.6
(SD 20.3)
Mean 66.0
(SD 2.0)
Mean 61.4
(Range 16–93)
Mean/median age (NR)Mean 60.2
(SD 14.2)
Mean 40.0
(NR)
Mean 66.0
(SD 2.0)
Mean or median age (NR)Mean or median age (NR)Mean 71.0 (14.7)
Median 74 (17–103)
Mean 45.9
(SD 15.8)
Mean 62.0
(SD 2.3)
GenderMale: 50.4%
Female: 49.6%
Male: 55.3%
Female: 44.7%
Male: 47.0%
Female: 53.0%
Male: 44.0%
Female: 56.0%
Male: 92.3%
Female: 7.3%
NRMale: 54.0%
Female: 46.0%
Male: 57.7%
Female: 42.3%
Male: 50.5%
Female: 49.5%
Male: 41.8%
Female: 58.2%
Male: 42.3%
Female: 57.7%
Male: 38.6%
Female: 61.4%
Setting (medical specialty)General medicalMedical, surgical, paediatrics, and ICUEmergency Emergency Emergency Emergency General medicalMedical emergencyGeneral hospital admissionInternal medicineMedical wardsInternal medicine and emergency
Table 2. ADR characteristics and methods used for ADR detection in included studies.
Table 2. ADR characteristics and methods used for ADR detection in included studies.
Author
(Publication Date)
Suh et al. (2000) [38]Bordet et al. (2001) [10]Wasserfallen et al. (2001) [33]Wu and Pantaleo (2003) [37]
ADR definition and type classificationWHOWHO WHO WHO
Method of ADR detection
(ADR defined by WHO)
Assessed by healthcare providers (pharmacists, nurses) from ADR reporting system and medical records.Assessed by healthcare professionals (physicians and nurses) upon admission at all units and reviewing medical records.Assessed by healthcare providers (research investigators) from hospital admission book.Assessed by healthcare providers from ADR-related hospital admissions and patient’s medication profiles.
Method of ADR severityNo reference
Mild: 30.0%
Moderate: 53.0%
Severe: 17.0%
WHO
Mild: 53%
Moderate: 34%
Severe: 10%
No reference
Evaluated using 5-point scale
NR
Causality assessment of ADRNaranjo probability scale
Definite: 8.0%
Probable: 69.0%
Possible: 21.0%
Doubtful: 2.0%
French method
Very likely: 1.0%
Likely: 21.0%
Possible: 25.0%
Doubtful: 53.0%
WHO algorithm for imputability
Certain: 18.0%
Likely: 26.0%
Possible: 56.0%
NR
Admission due to ADR (%)2.12.27.1NR
Preventable ADR (%)NRNR20.0
(10-item Qs, Livio 1998)
NR
Length of hospitalization due to ADR (days)1–3 ADR: 10.3 (10.7) [mean]
>4 ADR: 12.8 (6.8) [mean]
11 (NR) [mean]9.0 (0.6) [mean]8.0 (3.0) [mean]
5.0 (NR) [median]
(Range 0 to 99 days)
Top five causative agents of ADR (therapeutic group)Anti-infectives (17.1%)
CVS drugs (16.5%)
Antineoplastic (14.6%)
NSAIDs (14.6%)
Psychotropics (5.5%)
CVS Agents (36.0%)
Contrast media (20.0%)
Anti-infectives (14.0%)
Anticoagulant (13.0%)
Diuretics (6.0%)
Antineoplastic (22.7%)
Anticoagulant (8.4%)
NSAIDs (8.1%)
Analgesics (8.1%)
Antihypertensive (7.3%)
Antidiabetics (27.8%)
CVS drugs (26.2%)
Anticoagulant (15.2%)
Psychotropics (11.5%)
Analgesics (10.0%)
Top five ADRsGastrointestinal (24.4%)
Dermatology (18.6%)
Immunology (14.5%)
CNS (13.2%)
Hematological (9.9%)
Cutaneous (24.0%)
CVS condition (21.0%)
Metabolic cond. (12.0%)
Coagulation (10.0%)
CNS (10.0%)
GI bleeding (22.2%)
Febrile neutropenia (14.4%)
Hypotension (7.9%)
Enterocolitis (5.7%)
Hypoglycemia (4.6%)
Endocrine (28.3%)
CVS condition (24.1%)
Hematological (15.2%)
Neurologic (14.1%)
Renal (14.1%)
Author
(Publication Date)
Yee et al. (2005) [34]Patel et al. (2007) [31]Chan et al. (2008) [39]Pattanaik et al. (2009) [32]
ADR definition and type classificationWHOWHOWHO WHO
Method of ADR detection
(ADR defined by WHO)
Assessed by healthcare professionals upon admission at ED and reviewing electronic medical record system.Assessed by healthcare professionals (senior lecturers and authors) upon admission at ED.Assessed by healthcare providers from hospital admission cases.Assessed by healthcare professionals (doctors, pharmacists, nurses) upon admission at medical ED.
Method of ADR severityNRModified Hartwig and Siegel Scale.
Mild: 18.5%
Moderate: 74.7%
Severe: 6.8%
WHO
Mild: 34.4%
Moderate: 58.5%
Severe: 7.1%
NR
Causality assessment of ADRNaranjo probability scale
Definite:1.0%
Probable: 31.0%
Possible: 68.0%
Naranjo probability scale
Definite:3.8%
Probable: 85.9%
Possible: 10.3%
Naranjo probability scale
Definite: 4.1%
Probable: 73.2%
Possible: 22.3%
Doubtful: 0.4%
Naranjo probability scale
Definite: 86.0%
Probable: 6.0%
Possible: 8.0%
Admission due to ADR (%)1.16.90.031.4
Preventability of ADR (%)NR59.6
(Hallas 1990)
NRNR
Length of hospitalization due to ADR (days)6.3 (NR) [mean]5 (NR) [median]
(95% CI 5.37 to 7.11)
NR3 (NR) [median]
Top five drugs causing ADR (therapeutic group)Anticoagulant (22.1%)
Anti-infectives (13.2%)
Antineoplastic (13.2%)
Antidiabetics (10.3%)
Diuretics (8.8%)
Anti-TB agents (19.6%)
Antiepileptic (13.6%
Antimalarials (11.3%)
Anticoagulants (9.4%)
OHA (6.0%)
Anti-infectives (38.8%)
Analgesics (11.0%)
CVS drugs (9.9%)
NSAIDs (5.7%)
Antiepileptic (5.1%)
NR
Top five nature of ADR occurredDermatologic allergic reaction (75.6%)Hepatitis (10.6%)
GI bleeding (9.1%)
Gastritis (8.3%)
Cutaneous (52.5%)
Hematological (10.8%)
CVS condition (9.6%)
Hepatic (5.9%)
GI effects (5.0%)
NR
Author
(Publication Date)
Carrasco-Garrido et al. (2010) [35]Rottenkolber et al. (2011) [36]Rajakannan et al. (2012) [40]Geer et al. (2016) [30]
ADR definition and type classificationWHOWHO
Edwards and Aronson (2000) classification
WHOWHO
Rawlins and Thomson classification
Method of ADR detection
(ADR defined by WHO)
Assessed by healthcare professionals (physicians) from hospital admission database.Identified by evaluators from pharmacovigilance database and reviewing medical history.Identified by investigator based on indicator list developed during manual screening of patients.Assessed by healthcare professionals (multidisciplinary medical team) through hospital admission cases.
Method of ADR severityNRHartwig severity scale
Hosp: 89.3%
Intensive: 9.1%
Harm: 0.7%
Fatal: 0.9%
Hartwig severity scale
Mild: 36.6%
Moderate: 61.5%
Severe: 1.9%
Modified Hartwig and Siegel Scale.
Mild: 41.5%
Moderate: 48.8%
Severe: 9.7%
Causality assessment of ADRNRBegaud et al. (1985) algorithm
Predictable: 91.1%
Unpredictable: 7.8%
Naranjo scale
Definite: 1.0%
Probable: 61.2%
Possible: 37.8%
Naranjo scale
Definite: 5.3%
Probable: 78.6%
Possible: 16.1%
Admission due to ADR (%)1.69
(1.65, 1.73)
3.2517.111.24
Preventability of ADR (%)NR20.1
(Schumock and Thornton 1992)
NR81.6
(Hallas 1990)
Length of hospitalization due to ADR (days)8.0 (10) [median]9.3 (7.1) [mean]5.0 (Range 5–28) [median]7 (NR) [median]
Top five drugs causing ADR (therapeutic group)Antineoplastic (21.5%)
Steroids (13.5%)
Anticoagulant (7.5%)
CVS drugs (7.0%)
Anti-infectives (6.3%)
Anticoagulant (18.3%)
Antidiabetics (15.9%)
Diuretics (10.0%)
Anti-infectives (27.6%)Anti-infectives (40.9%)
Anti-TB agents (13.2%)
Steroids (14.0%)
Anticoagulant (8.8%)
NSAIDs (7.9%)
Top five nature of ADR occurredNeutropenia (5.0%)
Chronic bronchitis (4.9%)
CVS condition (3.1%)
Neoplastic (3.0%)
Pneumonia (2.9%)
GI bleeding (16.5%)
Hypoglycemic (13.3%)
Bradycardia (5.5%)
Colitis (3.9%)
Gastric ulcer (3.8%)
GI effects (19.5%)
CNS condition (18.6%)
Dermatology (15.4%)
Metabolic cond. (15.1%)
Hepatic (12.0%)
GI effects (23.7%)
Dermatology (12.6%)
CNS condition (11.7%)
Hematological (10.0%)
Metabolic cond. (9.6%)
Note: WHO = World Health Organization, NR = not reported, CVS = cardiovascular, NSAIDs = non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents, CNS = central nervous system, Anti-TB = antituberculosis; OHA = oral hypoglycemic agent, GI = gastrointestinal.
Table 3. Risk of bias analysis and level of clinical evidence and potential hierarchies of data sources for economic analysis.
Table 3. Risk of bias analysis and level of clinical evidence and potential hierarchies of data sources for economic analysis.
StudyAuthorYear PublishedQuality Assessment
(Risk of Bias) 1
Baseline Clinical Data 2Resource Use 2Costs 2
1Suh et al.2000High1++1++1++
2Bordet et al.2001High1++1++1++
3Wasserfallen et al.2001High1++1+1+
4Wu and Pantaleo2003Moderate1+1++1++
5Yee et al.2005Moderate1+1++1++
6Patel et al.2007Moderate1++1++1++
7Chan et al.2008High1++1++1++
8Pattanaik et al.2009Moderate1++1++1++
9Carrasco-Garrido et al.2010High1+1++1++
10Rottenkolber et al.2011High1+1+1+
11Rajakannan et al.2012High1++1++1++
12Geer et al.2016Moderate1++1++1++
1 National Institutes of Health (2017). Quality assessment tool for observational cohort and cross-sectional studies. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. 2 Coyle D, Lee MK (2002). Evidence-based economic evaluation: how the use of different data sources can impact results.
Table 4. Method of cost calculation and estimated cost per ADR case.
Table 4. Method of cost calculation and estimated cost per ADR case.
Authors (Date Published)Type of Study DesignNo. of Pat. (Cost Analysis)Data Extraction (Database Used)Cost Analysis PerspectiveCost CalculationLOS DefinitionSensitivity AnalysisTotal Cost ADR (Duration)Cost/Case (As Reported, Mean (SD))Cost/Case, USD (Adjusted 2016)
Micro-costing or unit cost (component of resource use estimated and unit cost derived)
Wasserfallen et al. (2001) [33]Prospective229Admission database and medical recordsProvider
(health sector)
Hospital marginal costs divided by no. of patients in ward and computed according to no. of staysNumber of days spent in different wardsImputability and avoidability figures (10–100%)NRCHF 3586.00 (342.00) 2908.77
Yee et al. (2005) [34]Retrospective 274Admission database (ED) and medical records (electronic) and VAD systemProvider
(health sector)
Costs from activity-based costing system implementedNANRUSD 333,433.00
(12 wk)
USD 3704.00 (NR)4463.59
Patel et al. (2007) [31]Prospective141Hospital admissions reports and patients’ profilesProvider
(health sector)
Products of total admission days for all patients admitted with ADRNumber of days admitted to hospital due to ADRNRINR 1.12 million
(6 wk)
INR 6197.00 (NR)581.74
Chan et al. (2008 [39])Prospective564ADR reporting system and patients’ profilesProvider
(health sector)
Hospital cost for services related to ADR treatment based on hospital’s claim data systemNANRUSD 150,027.14
(36 mo)
USD 3489.00 (NR)3896.97
Pattanaik et al. (2009) [32]Prospective92Admissions reports (ED) and patients’ profilesProvider and patients (health and societal)Cost for healthcare (direct) and non-healthcare (indirect) in ADR treatmentNAFor variability in components of the indirect costEUR 5556.00 (4 mo)EUR 214.00 (NR)346.25
Rajakannan et al. (2012) [40]Prospective246Patients’ medical records in wards (patient notes)Payer
(health sector)
Hospital cost for services related to ADR treatment based on hosp patient admin systemNumber of days in ward due to ADRNRUSD 36,451.00
(6 mo)
USD 115.00 (NR)327.38
Geer et al. (2016) [30]Prospective342Hospital admissions reports and patients’ profilesProvider
(health sector)
Products of total admission days for all patients admitted with ADRMeasured by excess days: difference duration of hosp stays of ADR patient and mean duration of hosp stays for non-ADR patientsNRUSD 22,469.00
(9 mo)
USD 65.00 (NR)65
Case-mix group costing (gives cost by case or patient category, e.g., DRG)
Suh et al. (2000) [38]Prospective 131Institutional databaseProvider and payer
(health sector)
DRG-based estimates (using hospital-specific cost/charge ratio)NANRUSD 22,775 (SD 21,088.00)
(5 mo)
USD 20,745.00 (20,040.00)
(1–3 ADR)
USD 34,445.00 (24,025.00)
(>4 ADR)
(Values were based on ADR cost per patient)
28,082.65
(1–3 ADR)
46,628.44
(>4 ADR)
(Values were based on ADR cost per patient)
Carrasco-Garrido et al. (2010) [35]Retrospective 350,835Admission database (minimum basic data set, MBDS) and patients’ profilesPayer
(health sector)
DRG-based estimates (reimbursement)NANREUR 272 million
(12 mo)
EUR 4382.00 (NR)6668.84
Rottenkolber et al. (2011) [36]Retrospective1834Regional regulatory database and admissions reportsPayer
(health sector)
DRG-based estimates (reimbursement)NANREUR 434 million
(12 mo)
EUR 2250.00 (1321.00)3102.71
Average per diem (or daily cost)
Bordet et al. (2001) [10]Prospective371Admission database and medical recordsProvider
(health sector)
Hospital charges converted using hospital-specific cost/charge ratioNANREUR 1815 million
(18 mo)
EUR 4150.00 (NR)6222.52
Wu and Pantaleo (2003) [37]Retrospective 191Pharmacy depart. reports and medication profilesProvider
(health sector)
Hospital charges converted using hospital-specific cost/charge ratioNANRNRUSD 9491.00 (12,843.00) 12,129.90
Table 5. Search concepts and examples of phrases used.
Table 5. Search concepts and examples of phrases used.
ConceptExamples of Similar Phrases
Population “adult”, “children”, or “pediatric”
ADR“adverse drug reactions”, “drug toxicity”, “hospitalized adverse drug reactions”, “hospitalized side effect”, “hospitalized adverse effect”, “hospital acquired ADRs (MeSH)”, “hospital induced ADRs (MeSH)”, “ADRs occurred during hospitalization (MeSH)”
Surveillance“drug monitoring (MeSH)”, “drug surveillance program”, “pharmacovigilance”
Cost“ADR economic burden”, “direct cost”, “cost of illness”, “cost”, and “economic”
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Abu, S.F.; Shafie, A.A.; Chandriah, H. Cost Estimations of Managing Adverse Drug Reactions in Hospitalized Patients: A Systematic Review of Study Methods and Their Influences. Pharmacoepidemiology 2023, 2, 120-139. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharma2020012

AMA Style

Abu SF, Shafie AA, Chandriah H. Cost Estimations of Managing Adverse Drug Reactions in Hospitalized Patients: A Systematic Review of Study Methods and Their Influences. Pharmacoepidemiology. 2023; 2(2):120-139. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharma2020012

Chicago/Turabian Style

Abu, Siti Fauziah, Asrul Akmal Shafie, and Haarathi Chandriah. 2023. "Cost Estimations of Managing Adverse Drug Reactions in Hospitalized Patients: A Systematic Review of Study Methods and Their Influences" Pharmacoepidemiology 2, no. 2: 120-139. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharma2020012

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop