Background: Off-label use is frequent in paediatrics but that does not necessarily mean that the risk-benefit ratio is negative. Nevertheless, evidence-based data is essential for safe drug therapy. In Germany, there is no publicly available compendium providing transparent, evidence-based information for paediatric pharmacotherapy to date. This work describes the development of a web-based paediatric drug information system (PDIS) for Germany and its evaluation by health care professionals (HCP). Methods: Since 2012, a PDIS is being developed by the authors and is supported by the Federal Ministry of Health since 2016. Dosing recommendations were established based on systematic literature reviews and subsequent evaluation by clinical experts. The prototype was evaluated by HCP. Based on the results, the further development was concluded. Results: 92% of HCP believed that the PDIS could improve the quality of prescribing, as currently available information is deficient. Besides the license and formulations, dosing recommendations were the most relevant modules. A dosage calculator was the most wanted improvement. To facilitate sustainability of future development, a collaboration with the Dutch Kinderformularium was established. As of 2021, the database will be available to German HCP. Conclusion: The fundamentals for a German PDIS were established, and vital steps were taken towards successful continuation.

Background: Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in the pediatric population may differ in types and frequencies compared to other populations. Respective studies analyzing ADR reports referring to children have already been performed for certain countries. However, differences in drug prescriptions, among others, complicate the transferability of the results from other countries to Germany or were rarely considered. Hence, the first aim of our study was to analyze the drugs and ADRs reported most frequently in ADR reports from Germany referring to children contained in the European ADR database (EudraVigilance). The second aim was to set the number of ADR reports in relation to the number of drug prescriptions. These were provided by the Research Institute for Ambulatory Health Care in Germany. Methods: For patients aged 0–17 years 20,854 spontaneous ADR reports were received between 01/01/2000–28/2/2019. The drugs and ADRs reported most frequently were identified. Stratified analyses with regard to age, sex and drugs used “off-label” were performed. Reporting rates (number of ADR reports/number of drug prescriptions) were calculated. Results: Methylphenidate (5.5%), ibuprofen (2.3%), and palivizumab (2.0%) were most frequently reported as suspected. If related to the number of drug prescriptions, the ranking changed (palivizumab, methylphenidate, ibuprofen). Irrespective of the applied drugs, vomiting (5.4%), urticaria (4.6%) and dyspnea (4.2%) were the ADRs reported most frequently. For children aged 0–1 year, drugs for the treatment of nervous system disorders and foetal exposure during pregnancy were most commonly reported. In contrast, methylphenidate ranked first in children older than 6 years and referred 3.5 times more often to males compared to females. If age- and sex-specific exposure was considered, more ADR reports for methylphenidate referred to children 4–6 years and females 13–17 years. Drugs for the treatment of nervous system disorders ranked first among “off-label” ADR reports. Conclusions: Our analysis underlines the importance of putting the number of ADR reports of a drug in context with its prescriptions. Additionally, differences in age- and sex-stratified analysis were observed which may be associated with age- and sex-specific diseases and, thus, drug exposure. The drugs most frequently included in “off-label” ADR reports differed from those most often used according to literature.

The objective of this study was to analyse reports on adverse drug reactions (ADRs) from Germany in the particularly vulnerable patient group of children and adolescents. Reporting characteristics, demographic parameters and off-label use were examined among others. The ratio of ADR reports per number of German inhabitants and the ratio of ADR reports per number of German inhabitants exposed to drugs were calculated and compared. These parameters were examined to derive trends in reporting of ADRs. 20,854 spontaneous ADR reports for the age group 0–17 years were identified in the European ADR database EudraVigilance for the time period 01.01.2000–28.02.2019 and analysed with regard to the aforementioned criteria. 86.5% (18,036/20,854) of the ADR reports originated from Healthcare Professionals and 12.2% (2,546/20,854) from non-Healthcare Professionals. 74.4% (15,522/20,854) of the ADR reports were classified as serious. The proportion of ADR reports per age group was 11.8% (0–1 month), 11.0% (2 months—1 year), 7.4% (2–3 years), 9.3% (4–6 years), 25.8% (7–12 years), and 34.8% (13–17 years) years, respectively. Male sex slightly dominated (51.2% vs. 44.8% females). Only 3.5% of the ADR reports reported off-label use. The annual number of ADR reports increased since 2000, even if set in context with the number of inhabitants and assumed drug-exposed inhabitants. The pediatric population declined in the study period which argues against its prominent role for the increase in the total number of ADR reports. Instead, among others, changes in reporting obligations may apply. The high proportion of serious ADR reports underlines the importance of pediatric drug safety.

Background: One of the most critical steps in the medication process on pediatric wards is the medical prescription. This study aims to investigate the impact of a computerized physician order entry (CPOE) system on Adverse Drug Events (ADEs) and potentially harmful ADEs (pot ADEs) in comparison with paper‐based documentation in a general pediatric ward at a German University hospital.Methods: A prospective pre–post study was conducted. All patients aged 17 years or younger were observed during the study periods (5 months pre‐ and postimplementation). Issues Regarding Medication (IRM) were identified by intensive chart review. Events were assessed regarding causality (WHO), severity (WHO; Dean & Barber for MEs), and preventability (Shumock) and classified into (pot) ADEs, (pot) Medication errors (ME), Adverse drug Reactions (ADR), and Other incidents (OI) accordingly.Results: Total of 333 patients with medication were included in the paper‐based prescribing cohort (phase I) and 320 patients with medication in the electronic prescribing cohort (phase II). In each cohort, patients received a median number of four different drugs (IQR 5 and IQR 4). A total of 3966 IRM was observed. During the hospitalization, 2.7% (n = 9) patients in phase I and 2.8% (n = 9) in phase II experienced an ADE. Potentially harmful MEs were less often observed in the cohort with electronic prescribing (n = 228 vs. n = 562). The mean number per patient significantly decreased from 1.69 to 0.71 (p < .01).Conclusion: The implementation of a CPOE system resulted in a reduction of issues regarding medication, particularly MEs with the potential to harm patients decreased significantly.

Background Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and medication errors in children may result from a lack of appropriate drugs, dosages, and pharmaceutical forms. In addition, children may respond differently to drugs than adults. Reporting of ADRs in the pediatric population is therefore of importance in order to increase the amount of safety data. However, different methodological approaches are used to collect ADRs. Objective The aim of the present study was to analyze whether there were differences in the ADRs collected in the KiDSafe project (845 ADR reports) compared with the spontaneous ADR reports sent to EudraVigilance (697 reports) in the same time period. The strengths and limitations of these two different approaches should be discussed. Methods The same inclusion criteria were applied for the systematically collected ADRs in the KiDSafe project and the spontaneous reports from EudraVigilance, and only reports of ADRs coded with hospitalization were considered. In both datasets, the number of reports (related to number of hospitals), their documentation quality (VigiGrade), causal relationship (World Health Organization-Uppsala Monitoring Centre [WHO-UMC] criteria), most frequently reported drugs and ADRs, demographical parameters of the patients, reported medical histories, and the seriousness of ADR reports were analyzed descriptively. The results of the two analyses were compared. Results There was considerable underreporting of ADRs via the spontaneous reports (0.4 reports per hospital; 697/1902) compared with 70.4 reports per hospital (845/12) in the systematically collected KiDSafe reports. Documentation quality assessment yielded similar results in both datasets. Among the 10 most frequently reported drugs, anticonvulsants such as levetiracetam (6.6%), valproic acid (5.6%), oxcarbazepine (3.6%), and lamotrigine (3.4%) were mainly reported in the KiDSafe reports, while in the EudraVigilance reports, mite allergen extract (4.4%) and allergens (3.6%) were preferentially reported. Seizures were the most frequently reported clinically specific ADRs in the KiDSafe reports, whereas anaphylactic reactions and urticaria were prominent in the spontaneous reports from EudraVigilance. Notably, the proportion of reports referring to medication errors and other medication safety related issues were more prominent in KiDSafe than in the spontaneous reports (27.8% vs. 12.6% and 46.0% vs. 29.0%, respectively). Conclusion In general, reports from both data sources contributed to the identification of ADRs and dedicated issues related to drug therapy. However, these differed by nature and strength of the signal, likely due to the characteristics of the individual method. A combined approach could likely compensate for limitations inherent to the single approaches, but will most likely only be applied to dedicated pharmacovigilance topics or research objectives.

Aim Although not approved, the α‐adrenoceptor agonist clonidine is considered an option for long‐term sedation protocols in paediatric intensive care. We reviewed adverse effects of clonidine occurring in this indication. Methods Relevant literature was systematically identified from PubMed and Embase. We included interventional and observational studies on paediatric patients admitted to intensive care units and systemically long‐term sedated with clonidine‐containing regimes. In duplicates, we conducted standardised and independent full‐text assessment and extraction of safety data. Results Data from 11 studies with 909 patients were analysed. The studies were heterogeneous regarding patient characteristics (age groups, comorbidity, or comedication) and sedation regimes (dosage, route, duration, or concomitant sedatives). Just four randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and one observational study had comparison groups, using placebo or midazolam. For safety outcomes, our validity evaluation showed low risk of bias only in three studies. All studies focused on haemodynamic problems, particularly bradycardia and hypotension. Observed incidences or subsequent interventions never caused concerns. However, only two RCTs allowed meaningful comparisons with control groups. Odds ratios showed no significant difference between the groups, but small sample sizes (50 and 125 patients) must be considered; pooled analyses were not reasonable. Conclusion All evaluated studies concluded that the use of clonidine in paediatric intensive care units is safe. However, a valid characterisation of the safety profile remains challenging due to limited, biased and heterogeneous data and missing investigation of long‐term effects. This evaluation demonstrates the lack of data, which prevents reliable conclusions on the safety of clonidine for long‐term sedation in critically ill children. For an evidence‐based use, further studies are needed.