OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to develop a strategy to identify adverse drug events associated with drug-drug interactions by analyzing the prescriptions of critically ill patients. METHODS: This retrospective study included HIV/AIDS patients who were admitted to an intensive care unit between November 2006 and September 2008. Data were collected in two stages. In the first stage, three prescriptions administered throughout the entire duration of these patients’ hospitalization were reviewed, with the Micromedex database used to search for potential drug-drug interactions. In the second stage, a search for adverse drug events in all available medical, nursing and laboratory records was performed. The probability that a drug-drug interaction caused each adverse drug events was assessed using the Naranjo algorithm. RESULTS: A total of 186 drug prescriptions of 62 HIV/AIDS patients were analyzed. There were 331 potential drug-drug interactions, and 9% of these potential interactions resulted in adverse drug events in 16 patients; these adverse drug events included treatment failure (16.7%) and adverse reactions (83.3%). Most of the adverse drug reactions were classified as possible based on the Naranjo algorithm. CONCLUSIONS: The approach used in this study allowed for the detection of adverse drug events related to 9% of the potential drug-drug interactions that were identified; these adverse drug events affected 26% of the study population. With the monitoring of adverse drug events based on prescriptions, a combination of the evaluation of potential drug-drug interactions by clinical pharmacy services and the monitoring of critically ill patients is an effective strategy that can be used as a complementary tool for safety assessments and the prevention of adverse drug events.

A vaccination campaign against pandemic influenza A (H1N1)pdm09 was held in Brazil in March 2010, using two types of monovalent split virus vaccines: an AS03-adjuvanted vaccine and a non-adjuvanted vaccine. We compared the reactogenicity of the vaccines in health professionals from a Clinical Research Institute in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil and there were no serious adverse events following immunization (AEFI) among the 494 subjects evaluated. The prevalence of any AEFI was higher in the AS03-adjuvanted vaccine at 2 h and 24 h post-vaccination [preva-lence ratio (PR): 2.05, confidence interval (CI) 95%: 1.55-2.71, PR: 3.42, CI 95%: 2.62-4.48, respectively]; however, there was no difference between the vaccines in the assessments conducted at seven and 21 days post-vaccination. The group receiving the AS03 post-adjuvanted vaccine had a higher frequency of local reactions at 2 h (PR: 3.01, CI 95%: 2.12-4.29), 24 h (PR: 4.57, CI 95%: 3.29-6.37) and seven days (PR: 6.05, CI 95%: 2.98-12.28) post-vaccination. We concluded that the two types of vaccines caused no serious AEFI in the studied population and the adjuvanted vaccine was more reactogenic, particularly in the 24 h following vaccination. This behaviour must be confirmed and better characterised by longitudinal studies in the general population.