Adverse drug events caused by three high-risk drug–drug interactions in patients admitted to intensive care units:A multicentre retrospective observational study

Aims: Knowledge about adverse drug events caused by drug–drug interactions (DDI-ADEs) is limited. We aimed to provide detailed insights about DDI-ADEs related to three frequent, high-risk potential DDIs (pDDIs) in the critical care setting: pDDIs with international normalized ratio increase (INR+) potential, pDDIs with acute kidney injury (AKI) potential, and pDDIs with QTc prolongation potential. Methods: We extracted routinely collected retrospective data from electronic health records of intensive care units (ICUs) patients (≥18 years), admitted to ten hospitals in the Netherlands between January 2010 and September 2019. We used computerized triggers (e-triggers) to preselect patients with potential DDI-ADEs. Between September 2020 and October 2021, clinical experts conducted a retrospective manual patient chart review on a subset of preselected patients, and assessed causality, severity, preventability, and contribution to ICU length of stay of DDI-ADEs using internationally prevailing standards. Results: In total 85 422 patients with ≥1 pDDI were included. Of these patients, 32 820 (38.4%) have been exposed to one of the three pDDIs. In the exposed group, 1141 (3.5%) patients were preselected using e-triggers. Of 237 patients (21%) assessed, 155 (65.4%) experienced an actual DDI-ADE; 52.9% had severity level of serious or higher, 75.5% were preventable, and 19.3% contributed to a longer ICU length of stay. The positive predictive value was the highest for DDI-INR+ e-trigger (0.76), followed by DDI-AKI e-trigger (0.57). Conclusion: The highly preventable nature and severity of DDI-ADEs, calls for action to optimize ICU patient safety. Use of e-triggers proved to be a promising preselection strategy.</p

Adverse drug events caused by three high-risk drug–drug interactions in patients admitted to intensive care units:A multicentre retrospective observational study

Aims: Knowledge about adverse drug events caused by drug–drug interactions (DDI-ADEs) is limited. We aimed to provide detailed insights about DDI-ADEs related to three frequent, high-risk potential DDIs (pDDIs) in the critical care setting: pDDIs with international normalized ratio increase (INR+) potential, pDDIs with acute kidney injury (AKI) potential, and pDDIs with QTc prolongation potential. Methods: We extracted routinely collected retrospective data from electronic health records of intensive care units (ICUs) patients (≥18 years), admitted to ten hospitals in the Netherlands between January 2010 and September 2019. We used computerized triggers (e-triggers) to preselect patients with potential DDI-ADEs. Between September 2020 and October 2021, clinical experts conducted a retrospective manual patient chart review on a subset of preselected patients, and assessed causality, severity, preventability, and contribution to ICU length of stay of DDI-ADEs using internationally prevailing standards. Results: In total 85 422 patients with ≥1 pDDI were included. Of these patients, 32 820 (38.4%) have been exposed to one of the three pDDIs. In the exposed group, 1141 (3.5%) patients were preselected using e-triggers. Of 237 patients (21%) assessed, 155 (65.4%) experienced an actual DDI-ADE; 52.9% had severity level of serious or higher, 75.5% were preventable, and 19.3% contributed to a longer ICU length of stay. The positive predictive value was the highest for DDI-INR+ e-trigger (0.76), followed by DDI-AKI e-trigger (0.57). Conclusion: The highly preventable nature and severity of DDI-ADEs, calls for action to optimize ICU patient safety. Use of e-triggers proved to be a promising preselection strategy.</p

Adverse drug events caused by three high-risk drug–drug interactions in patients admitted to intensive care units:A multicentre retrospective observational study

Aims: Knowledge about adverse drug events caused by drug–drug interactions (DDI-ADEs) is limited. We aimed to provide detailed insights about DDI-ADEs related to three frequent, high-risk potential DDIs (pDDIs) in the critical care setting: pDDIs with international normalized ratio increase (INR+) potential, pDDIs with acute kidney injury (AKI) potential, and pDDIs with QTc prolongation potential. Methods: We extracted routinely collected retrospective data from electronic health records of intensive care units (ICUs) patients (≥18 years), admitted to ten hospitals in the Netherlands between January 2010 and September 2019. We used computerized triggers (e-triggers) to preselect patients with potential DDI-ADEs. Between September 2020 and October 2021, clinical experts conducted a retrospective manual patient chart review on a subset of preselected patients, and assessed causality, severity, preventability, and contribution to ICU length of stay of DDI-ADEs using internationally prevailing standards. Results: In total 85 422 patients with ≥1 pDDI were included. Of these patients, 32 820 (38.4%) have been exposed to one of the three pDDIs. In the exposed group, 1141 (3.5%) patients were preselected using e-triggers. Of 237 patients (21%) assessed, 155 (65.4%) experienced an actual DDI-ADE; 52.9% had severity level of serious or higher, 75.5% were preventable, and 19.3% contributed to a longer ICU length of stay. The positive predictive value was the highest for DDI-INR+ e-trigger (0.76), followed by DDI-AKI e-trigger (0.57). Conclusion: The highly preventable nature and severity of DDI-ADEs, calls for action to optimize ICU patient safety. Use of e-triggers proved to be a promising preselection strategy.</p

Adverse drug events caused by three high-risk drug–drug interactions in patients admitted to intensive care units:A multicentre retrospective observational study

Aims: Knowledge about adverse drug events caused by drug–drug interactions (DDI-ADEs) is limited. We aimed to provide detailed insights about DDI-ADEs related to three frequent, high-risk potential DDIs (pDDIs) in the critical care setting: pDDIs with international normalized ratio increase (INR+) potential, pDDIs with acute kidney injury (AKI) potential, and pDDIs with QTc prolongation potential. Methods: We extracted routinely collected retrospective data from electronic health records of intensive care units (ICUs) patients (≥18 years), admitted to ten hospitals in the Netherlands between January 2010 and September 2019. We used computerized triggers (e-triggers) to preselect patients with potential DDI-ADEs. Between September 2020 and October 2021, clinical experts conducted a retrospective manual patient chart review on a subset of preselected patients, and assessed causality, severity, preventability, and contribution to ICU length of stay of DDI-ADEs using internationally prevailing standards. Results: In total 85 422 patients with ≥1 pDDI were included. Of these patients, 32 820 (38.4%) have been exposed to one of the three pDDIs. In the exposed group, 1141 (3.5%) patients were preselected using e-triggers. Of 237 patients (21%) assessed, 155 (65.4%) experienced an actual DDI-ADE; 52.9% had severity level of serious or higher, 75.5% were preventable, and 19.3% contributed to a longer ICU length of stay. The positive predictive value was the highest for DDI-INR+ e-trigger (0.76), followed by DDI-AKI e-trigger (0.57). Conclusion: The highly preventable nature and severity of DDI-ADEs, calls for action to optimize ICU patient safety. Use of e-triggers proved to be a promising preselection strategy.</p

Adverse drug events caused by three high-risk drug–drug interactions in patients admitted to intensive care units:A multicentre retrospective observational study

Aims: Knowledge about adverse drug events caused by drug–drug interactions (DDI-ADEs) is limited. We aimed to provide detailed insights about DDI-ADEs related to three frequent, high-risk potential DDIs (pDDIs) in the critical care setting: pDDIs with international normalized ratio increase (INR+) potential, pDDIs with acute kidney injury (AKI) potential, and pDDIs with QTc prolongation potential. Methods: We extracted routinely collected retrospective data from electronic health records of intensive care units (ICUs) patients (≥18 years), admitted to ten hospitals in the Netherlands between January 2010 and September 2019. We used computerized triggers (e-triggers) to preselect patients with potential DDI-ADEs. Between September 2020 and October 2021, clinical experts conducted a retrospective manual patient chart review on a subset of preselected patients, and assessed causality, severity, preventability, and contribution to ICU length of stay of DDI-ADEs using internationally prevailing standards. Results: In total 85 422 patients with ≥1 pDDI were included. Of these patients, 32 820 (38.4%) have been exposed to one of the three pDDIs. In the exposed group, 1141 (3.5%) patients were preselected using e-triggers. Of 237 patients (21%) assessed, 155 (65.4%) experienced an actual DDI-ADE; 52.9% had severity level of serious or higher, 75.5% were preventable, and 19.3% contributed to a longer ICU length of stay. The positive predictive value was the highest for DDI-INR+ e-trigger (0.76), followed by DDI-AKI e-trigger (0.57). Conclusion: The highly preventable nature and severity of DDI-ADEs, calls for action to optimize ICU patient safety. Use of e-triggers proved to be a promising preselection strategy.</p

Individual common variants exert weak effects on the risk for autism spectrum disorders.

While it is apparent that rare variation can play an important role in the genetic architecture of autism spectrum disorders (ASDs), the contribution of common variation to the risk of developing ASD is less clear. To produce a more comprehensive picture, we report Stage 2 of the Autism Genome Project genome-wide association study, adding 1301 ASD families and bringing the total to 2705 families analysed (Stages 1 and 2). In addition to evaluating the association of individual single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), we also sought evidence that common variants, en masse, might affect the risk. Despite genotyping over a million SNPs covering the genome, no single SNP shows significant association with ASD or selected phenotypes at a genome-wide level. The SNP that achieves the smallest P-value from secondary analyses is rs1718101. It falls in CNTNAP2, a gene previously implicated in susceptibility for ASD. This SNP also shows modest association with age of word/phrase acquisition in ASD subjects, of interest because features of language development are also associated with other variation in CNTNAP2. In contrast, allele scores derived from the transmission of common alleles to Stage 1 cases significantly predict case status in the independent Stage 2 sample. Despite being significant, the variance explained by these allele scores was small (Vm&lt; 1%). Based on results from individual SNPs and their en masse effect on risk, as inferred from the allele score results, it is reasonable to conclude that common variants affect the risk for ASD but their individual effects are modest

Farmer seed networks make a limited contribution to agriculture? Four common misconceptions

The importance of seed provisioning in food security and nutrition, agricultural development and rural livelihoods, and agrobiodiversity and germplasm conservation is well accepted by policy makers, practitioners and researchers. The role of farmer seed networks is less well understood and yet is central to debates on current issues ranging from seed sovereignty and rights for farmers to GMOs and the conservation of crop germplasm. In this paper we identify four common misconceptions regarding the nature and importance of farmer seed networks today. (1) Farmer seed networks are inefficient for seed dissemination. (2) Farmer seed networks are closed, conservative systems. (3) Farmer seed networks provide ready, egalitarian access to seed. (4) Farmer seed networks are destined to weaken and disappear. We challenge these misconceptions by drawing upon recent research findings and the authors’ collective field experience in studying farmer seed systems in Africa, Europe, Latin America and Oceania. Priorities for future research are suggested that would advance our understanding of seed networks and better inform agricultural and food policy

More Evidence that Depressive Symptoms Predict Mortality in COPD Patients: Is Type D Personality an Alternative Explanation?

The present study attempted to replicate our previous finding that depressive symptoms are a risk factor for mortality in stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but in a different population with a different measure of depressive symptoms. We further investigated whether type D personality is associated with mortality in patients with COPD and whether it explains any relationship observed between depressive symptoms and mortality. In 122 COPD patients, mean age 60.8 +/- 10.3 years, 52% female, and mean forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV(1)) 41.1 +/- 17.6%pred, we assessed body mass index, post bronchodilator FEV(1), exercise capacity, depressive symptoms with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and type D with the Type D Scale. In the 7 years follow-up, 48 (39%) deaths occurred. The median survival time was 5.3 years. Depressive symptoms (hazard ratio = 1.07, 95% confidence intervals = 1.00-1.14) were an independent risk factor for mortality. Type D was not associated with mortality. We can rule out type D as an explanation for the relationship between depressive symptoms and mortality observed in this sample. However, ambiguity remains as to the interpretation of the value of depressive symptoms in predicting death