The Trigger Tool Method for Routine Pharmacovigilance: A Retrospective Cohort Study of the Medical Records of Hospitalized Geriatric Patients

Application of trigger tools for detecting adverse drug events in older people: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To identify trigger tools applied to detect adverse drug events (ADEs) in older people and describe their utility and performance.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted in the PubMed, Lilacs, and Scopus databases (January 2024). Studies that developed, applied, or validated trigger tools and evaluated their utility and/or performance for detecting ADEs in older people were considered. Direct proportion meta-analyses using the inverse-variance method were performed for prevalence of ADEs and positive predictive value (PPV).

RESULTS

Twenty-four studies (25 publications) were included. Twelve trigger tools were identified, of which six were developed for detecting ADEs in older population, four developed for general population and modified for older people, and two developed for general population. No tools for detecting ADEs in older people receiving palliative care or hospitalized in intensive or surgical care units were found. The performance of triggers was presented through PPV (11.5-71%), negative predictive values (83.3%), and sensitivity (30-94.8%). The overall PPV was 33.3% (95%CI: 32.5-34.2%). Triggers with good performance were changes in plasma levels of digoxin, glucose, and potassium; changes in international normalized ratio; abrupt medication stop; hypotension; and constipation. The prevalence of ADEs ranged from 2.8 to 66%, with overall prevalence of ADEs of 20% (95%CI: 19.3-20.8%). Preventability ranged from 8.4 to 94.4%. Metabolic or electrolyte disturbances induced by diuretics, constipation induced by opioids, and falls and delirium induced by benzodiazepines were the most prevalent ADEs.

CONCLUSION

The trigger tools are flexible and easy to apply, and they can contribute to the detection of ADEs, their associated risk factors, the level of harm, and preventability in different health settings. However, there is no consensus on good or poor values of PPV, which indicate the performance of triggers. Furthermore, there is limited evidence regarding the evaluation of performance through negative predictive value, sensitivity, and specificity.

PROSPERO

CRD42022379893.

Performance of a trigger tool for detecting adverse drug reactions in patients with polypharmacy acutely admitted to the geriatric ward

Aim

To investigate the performance of an adverse drug reaction (ADR) trigger tool in patients with polypharmacy acutely admitted to our geriatric ward.

Findings

The ADR trigger tool had a positive predictive value (PPV) of 41.8%. Usual care recognised 83.5% of ADRs considered as possible, probable or certain, increasing to 97.1% when restricted to probable and certain ADRs.

Message

It is unlikely that implementation of the ADR trigger tool will improve detection of unrecognised ADRs in older patients acutely admitted to our geriatric ward.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s41999-022-00649-x.

Purpose

Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) account for 10% of acute hospital admissions in older people, often under-recognised by physicians. The Dutch geriatric guideline recommends screening all acutely admitted older patients with polypharmacy with an ADR trigger tool comprising ten triggers and associated drugs frequently causing ADRs. This study investigated the performance of this tool and the recognition by usual care of ADRs detected with the tool.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was performed in patients ≥ 70 years with polypharmacy acutely admitted to the geriatric ward of the University Medical Centre Utrecht. Electronic health records (EHRs) were screened for trigger–drug combinations listed in the ADR trigger tool. Two independent appraisers assessed causal probability with the WHO-UMC algorithm and screened EHRs for recognition of ADRs by attending physicians. Performance of the tool was defined as the positive predictive value (PPV) for ADRs with a possible, probable or certain causal relation.

Results

In total, 941 trigger–drug combinations were present in 73% (n = 253/345) of the patients. The triggers fall, delirium, renal insufficiency and hyponatraemia covered 86% (n = 810/941) of all trigger–drug combinations. The overall PPV was 41.8% (n = 393/941), but the PPV for individual triggers was highly variable ranging from 0 to 100%. Usual care recognised the majority of ADRs (83.5%), increasing to 97.1% when restricted to possible and certain ADRs.

Conclusion

The ADR trigger tool has predictive value; however, its implementation is unlikely to improve the detection of unrecognised ADRs in older patients acutely admitted to our geriatric ward. Future research is needed to investigate the tool’s clinical value when applied to older patients acutely admitted to non-geriatric wards.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s41999-022-00649-x.