Upload
doannga
View
220
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
SPECIAL CONTRIBUTION
Prevalence of Adverse Reactions in Nuclear MedicineEdward B. Silberstein, Janet Ryan and the Pharmacopeia Committee of the Society of Nuclear MedicineThe Eugene L. Saenger Radioisotope Laboratory, Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, University ofCincinnati Hospital, Cincinnati, Ohio
This investigation sought to determine the prevalence of adversereactions to radiopharmaceuticals and to nonradioactive drugs usedin interventional nuclear medicine. We also tabulated all adversereactions reported to manufacturers of radiopharmaceuticals commercially available in the United States. Methods: A prospective5-yr study was performed of 18 collaborating institutions using a
questionnaire which enumerated monthly the number of proceduresused and adverse reactions noted. An algorithm to determine thelevel of etiologic probability of an adverse reaction from an administered radiopharmaceutical was developed. We reviewed all available literature on adverse reactions in nuclear medicine. Results:During this period, 783,525 radiopharmaceutical and 67,835 nonradioactive drug administrations were analyzed. Ten of the 18 adversereactions to radiopharmaceuticals were rashes. No patient experiencing an adverse reaction to a radiopharmaceutical required hos-pitalization or had significant sequelae. Reproducibility of the adverse reactions algorithm was validated by independent evaluationof 30 adverse reaction reports from the U.S. Pharmacopeia-Societyof Nuclear Medicine adverse reaction reporting system. All adversereactions to 49 commercially available radiopharmaceuticals weretabulated and referenced. Conclusion: Radiopharmaceuticals havean excellent safety record. An algorithm to evaluate putative radio-pharmaceutical reactions is highly reproducible.
Key Words: adverse reactions;radiopharmaceuticalsJ NucÃMed 1996; 37:185-192
U nlike drugs given for therapeutic purposes, radiopharmaceuticals rarely cause adverse reactions. The explanation for thesafety of radiopharmaceuticals lies not only in the very smallmass of drug injected or ingested, usually in the microgramrange, but also because radiopharmaceuticals are typicallyadministered only once or a very limited number of times to anygiven patient. The use of a radiopharmaceutical is not basedupon its ability to produce a pharmacological effect, but ratheron differences in the distribution and pharmacokinetics of theagent between normal and abnormal physiological processes. Infact, the production of pharmacological or physiological effectsby a radiopharmaceutical is undesirable since the agent shouldnot modify the parameter it is attempting to measure. Unusual("idiosyncratic") sensitivity to a pharmacologie effect is vir
tually never seen.Estimates of adverse reaction prevalence are difficult to
assess, partly because of physician ignorance of availablereporting schemes. In a recent study of 3000 randomly selectedphysicians, only 57% were aware of any adverse reactionreporting system. Whereas 14% of the total had observed anadverse drug reaction in the prior year, only 21, or 0.7% of thetotal, had reported the occurrence. There are many reasons fornot filling out adverse reaction reporting forms. Physicians maybe too busy, be concerned about the time required, not have theform readily available, be anxious about potential liability or
Received Aug. 30, 1995; revision accepted Oct. 11, 1995.For correspondence or reprint contact: E.B. Silberstein, MD, Division of Nuclear
Medicine, University of Cincinnati Hospital, 234 Goodman Street, P.O. Box 670577,Cincinnati, OH 45267-0577.
believe that the reaction is common knowledge (7 ). A reactionmay also be missed if the patient leaves the nuclear medicineservice before its occurrence (2 ). Confusion may also exist overthe basic definition of adverse reaction. For example, thedefinition used by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) foradverse drug experiences precludes any consideration of causality and includes types of adverse reactions not relevant toradiopharmaceuticals.
The current reporting system for adverse reactions in nuclearmedicine has evolved over two decades in collaboration withthe United States Pharmacopeia (USP) and FDA (3-5). Since1986, the U.S.P. Drug Product Problem Reporting Program hasprovided, in cooperation with the Society of Nuclear Medicine(SNM), a form to be used for reporting both adverse reactionsand altered radiopharmaceutical biodistribution. A copy of eachcompleted report is sent to the FDA.
The prevalence of adverse reactions for radiopharmaceuticals, based on a variety of reporting systems and assumptions,has been estimated to range between 0.3 and 33/105 administrations (3,4,6-9). For comparison, the reaction frequency toradiographie contrast media ranges between 3.8%-12.7% (3.8-12.7/102) for ionic contrast and 0.6%-3.1% (0.6-3.1/102) for
nonionic contrast (10-13). Adverse drug reactions for all
administered drugs in the hospital setting have been measuredat 0.7%-1.5% or higher (14,15).
Estimation of the true frequency of adverse reactions isdifficult not only because of reporting problems but alsobecause the exact total number of doses administered is unknown. To obtain a more realistic estimate of the frequency ofadverse reactions to radiopharmaceuticals, the SNM's Pharma
copeia Committee undertook a 5-yr prospective study of theprevalence of adverse reactions to radiopharmaceuticals andinterventional drugs used in nuclear medicine beginning inSeptember 1989.
MATERIALS AND METHODSBy consensus, the Pharmacopeia Committee established the
following operational definition for an adverse reaction:
1. The reaction is a noxious and unintended clinical manifestation (symptoms, signs, laboratory data abnormalities) following the administration of a radiopharmaceutical or nonradioactive adjunct pharmaceutical.
2. The reaction is unanticipated from the known pharmacologieaction of the nonradioactive pharmaceutical.
3. The reaction is not the result of an overdose (which is amisadministration).
4. The reaction is not the result of injury caused by poorinjection technique.
5. The reaction is not caused by a vasovagal response (slowpulse and low blood pressure).
6. The reaction is not caused by deterministic effects of radiopharmaceuticals intended for therapeutic uses.
7. The definition excludes altered biodistribution which causesno symptoms, signs or laboratory abnormalities.
ADVERSEREACTIONSFROMRADIOPHARMACEUTICALS•Silberstein and Ryan 185
by on April 13, 2018. For personal use only. jnm.snmjournals.org Downloaded from
Significant adverse reactions to be reported included:
1. Untoward effects whether previously reported frequently orrarely.
2. Untoward effects never before seen or reported followingadministration of the radiopharmaceutical.
3. Only life-threatening (i.e., requiring hospitalization) or fatalreactions from nonradioactive drugs (i.e., drugs used forpharmacologie intervention).
4. Reactions unanticipated from the known pharmacologie action of a nonradioactive interventional drug.
5. Anaphylactoid or allergic reactions.
Reactions not to be reported included:
1. Overdosages (misadministration).2. Vasovagal responses (reported in European registries).3. Injury from poor injection technique.4. Deterministic effects from therapy with unsealed sources
(e.g., myelosuppression from a therapeutic agent).
The Pharmacopeia Committee also addressed the problem ofcausality, the likelihood that an administered radiopharmaceuticalcauses an observed subsequent adverse reaction, by devising analgorithm which attempted to define the likelihood of an administered radiopharmaceutical leading to an observed adverse effect.Previous efforts devised for this purpose have been fraught withmultiple problems:
1. It is difficult to be absolutely and unequivocally certain thatan adverse reaction is or is not related to an injectedradiopharmaceutical because there is always an underlyingdisease for which the test has been ordered.
2. The reaction rate is extremely low, so there is no vastexperience with specific adverse reactions to radiopharma-ceuticals being reported.
3. Literature references to radiopharmaceuticals are commonlybased on case reports with no proof of causality.
4. The clinical and laboratory features of most reactions toradiopharmaceuticals are not unique.
5. Every radiopharmaceutical experience involves dechallengeor discontinuation of the drug following a single dose.
6. Rechallenge may not reproduce the adverse event, is notalways feasible and, under some circumstances, could beunethical.
AlgorithmThe following algorithm is suggested to categorize probabilities
of causation.Not Related. This category is applicable to those adverse
experiences which, after careful medical consideration, are judgedto be not related to the test material. Neither painful local sensationfrom drug infiltration nor hematoma at the injection site is anadverse reaction. An adverse experience may be considered causally not related if or when:
1. Only a vasovagal response to a radiopharmaceutical isdocumented (hypotension and slow pulse).
or, any three of the following are found:
2. It does not follow a reasonable time sequence from administration of the test material.
3. It could readily have been produced by the patient's clinical
state, environmental effects or toxic factors of other materialsadministered to the patient.
4. It does not follow a known response pattern to the suspectedtest material.
5. It does not reappear or worsen if the test material isreadministered.
Conditional, Unlikely or Remote. This category applies to thoseadverse experiences which, after careful medical consideration,cannot be placed in either "possibly related" or "not related"
categories. This definition is to be used when exclusion of drugcausality of a clinical event seems plausible but the precise criteriain the "not related" category cannot be met. It can represent the
first reported true side effect of a radiopharmaceutical, but since ithas never been reported before it would be registered in this categoryand would be moved to the "probable" list at a later time if more
reports of the same reaction occurred. An adverse experience may beconsidered causally conditional, remote or unlikely if or when:
1. It follows a reasonable time sequence but does not follow aknown response pattern to the test material administered.
2. It does not follow a reasonable time sequence from administration of the test material but does follow a knownresponse pattern to the suspected test material.
Possible (Must Have All Three of the Following Criteria). Thiscategory applies to those adverse experiences for which, aftercareful medical consideration, the causality of the adverse reactionby the radiopharmaceutical appears possible if or when:
1. It follows a reasonable time sequence from administration ofthe test material.
2. It follows a known response pattern to the suspected testmaterial.
3. It could also have been produced by the patient's clinical
state, environmental or toxic factors, other diagnostic ortherapeutic interventions, including other medications, contrast media, etc. administered to the patient.
Probable (Must Have First Two Plus Numbers 3 or 4). Thiscategory applies to these adverse experiences which, after carefulmedical consideration, are thought, with a high degree of certainty,to be related to the test material. Causality of an adverse experiencemay be considered probable if or when:
1. It follows a reasonable time sequence from administration ofthe test material.
2. It follows a known pattern of response to the suspected testmaterial.
3. It could not be reasonably explained solely by the knowncharacteristics of the patient's clinical state, environmental or
toxic factors or other medications, contrast media, etc.administered to the patient.
4. If rechallenge is medically necessary, the reaction recurs.
We independently rated 30 case reports from the SNM ReportingProgram for the level of causality to test the reproducibility of thisalgorithm.
Participating InstitutionsOn a prospective basis, a total of 18 institutions (Appendix A)
that perform a high volume of nuclear medicine procedurescompleted and returned a form (Appendix B) indicating thenumber of radiopharmaceuticals and interventional pharmacologieadministrations each month. Reported adverse reactions to specificradiopharmaceuticals by these institutions were investigated using thecategories for causation described above. All reactions we have listedfulfilled the criteria for "possible" or "probable" adverse reactions.
In addition, we tabulated all adverse reactions reported for eachradiotracer commercially available in the United States in 1995 ina matrix format which references all reported reactions. We wereunable to classify the degree of association of these tabulatedreported reactions with the allegedly causative radiotracer becausethere was not always enough clinical information.
186 THEJOURNALOFNUCLEARMEDICINE•Vol. 37 •No. 1 •January 1996
by on April 13, 2018. For personal use only. jnm.snmjournals.org Downloaded from
TABLE 1Adverse Reactions to 783,525 Radiopharmaceutical Dosages in
the Study Population 1989-1994
TABLE 3Prevalence of Adverse Reactions in Nuclear Medicine
Radiopharmaceutical Adverse reactionNumberof cases
^Gajgallium citrate[131l]iobenguane(MIBG)
"Tc-macroaggregated
albumin (MAA)""Tc-medronate (MDP)
"Tc-oxidronate (HDP)
"Tc-pentetate (DTPA)"Tc-sestamibi
Stannous pyrophosphate(nonradioactive)*
""Tc-sulfur colloid
Total
RashChest discomfort,light headednessRash
RashNauseaMild anaphylaxisRashDiaphoresisRashRashMild anaphylaxis
Light headednessNausea, vomiting,rash, headache
21141112
11
18
'Administered intravenously to permit in vivo radiolabeling of erythrocytes
and considered part of the final radiophanmaceutical.
RESULTSWe found 100% agreement on the classifications of the 30
cases analyzed from the SNM-U.S.P. Drug Problem ReportingProgram using the described algorithm. Table 1 summarized 18adverse reactions to radiopharmaceuticals in the "possible" or"probable" categories based on 783,525 injections. None of
these was severe enough to cause hospitalization. The 95%confidence limits for the prevalence of such reactions is 1.2-3.4per 100,000 injections. For interventional drugs, we recordedonly adverse reactions leading to hospitalization (Table 2).There were no deaths. The 95% confidence limits for thesereactions are 0.1-11.7 per 100,000 injections. Table 3 lists theprevalence of adverse reactions to both radiopharmaceuticalsand nonradioactive Pharmaceuticals appear. None of these wassevere. In no case was hospitalization required and there wereno sequelae.
Table 4 lists all referenced adverse reactions to commerciallyavailable radiopharmaceuticals.
DISCUSSIONThe FDA uses the term adverse drug experience rather than
adverse reaction and defines this as "any adverse event asso
ciated with the use of a drug in humans, whether or notconsidered drug related, including the following: an adverseevent occurring in the course of the use of a drug product in
TABLE 2Severe Adverse Reactions to 67,835 Doses of Nonradioactive
Pharmaceuticals Used in Nuclear Medicine
DrugDipyridamoleGlucagon
TotalReactionProlonged
chest painSyncopeModerate anaphylaxisNumber
ofcases2
11
4
Total 95%adverse Total confidencereactions dosages Prevalence limits
RadiopharmaceuticalsNonradioactive drugs18 4773,52567,8352.3/1055.9/1 0s1.
2-3.4/1 050.1-11.7/1 0s
professional practice; an adverse event occurring from drugoverdose, whether accidental or intentional; an adverse eventoccurring from drug withdrawal; and any significant failure ofexpected pharmacologie action" (16). Radiopharmaceutical
manufacturers are bound by this definition. It precludes, however, any consideration of causality and includes types ofreactions not relevant to nuclear medicine. It was for thesereasons that we developed a definition for adverse reactions thatpermits one to obtain a true estimate of the frequency of patientadverse reactions to radiopharmaceuticals.
Use of the prospective study approach with the 18 collaborating institutions guaranteed a reliable numerator and denominator for the frequency of adverse reactions. Our results (Table3) are in the lower range of previous reported estimates. Noneof the observed reactions to radiopharmaceuticals were severe,requiring or prolonging hospitalization. There were no sequelaeof any adverse reactions. Adverse reactions to radiopharmaceuticals are quite uncommon, occurring with a prevalence of2.3/105 in our study (0.0023%). Interventional pharmaceuticals
(not tracers) used in nuclear medicine were also quite safe, withthe risk of hospitalization following administration to be only of5.9/105. No lethal reactions occurred.
Moreover, we agreed on the classification of all 30 adversereaction reports from the Society of Nuclear Medicine-U.S.P.Drug Problem Reporting Program, which further validates ouralgorithm.
The radiopharmaceuticals most commonly linked to adverse reactions over the past decade include 99mTc-sulfurcolloid, 99mTc-methylene and hydroxymethylene diphospho-
nates (bisphosphonates) and Tc-human albumin micro-spheres, which is no longer produced. Any adverse event notpreviously described must be registered if there is even aremote chance of a causal relationship. The probability ofcausation between radiopharmaceuticals and effect will increase as more examples of the reaction are reported.
CONCLUSIONA prospective 5-yr study of the incidence of adverse reactions
to radiopharmaceuticals and nonradioactive drugs used asadjuncts in nuclear medicine procedures was conducted by theSNM Pharmacopeia Committee. The total number of radiophar-maceutical and adjunct nonradioactive drug injections duringthis time period were 783,525 and 67,835, respectively. Thetotal number of adverse reactions for radiopharmaceuticals andadjunct nonradioactive drugs were 18 and 4, respectively. Theincidence rate for adverse reactions for radiopharmaceuticalsand adjunct nonradioactive drug injections were 0.0023% and0.0059%, respectively. These incident rates are 1000 timeslower than that reported for x-ray contrast media and for drugsadministered in a hospital setting.
Ten of the 18 adverse reactions reported in this study wererashes. None of the patients exhibiting an adverse reaction to aradiopharmaceutical required hospitalization; nor did any patient exhibit any lasting symptoms or sequelae. Interventional
ADVERSEREACTIONSFROMRADIOPHARMACEUTICALS•Silberstein and Ryan 187
by on April 13, 2018. For personal use only. jnm.snmjournals.org Downloaded from
co
i.C
1a
i
SUOIJOB3Jjamo 'sjuaujujoo
BUON
UJIS 'fill
B|6|BJL|HV
U|cd leuiuiopqv
6u|||dMS IBOBJ
S!XB|AL)dEUV
SISOUBÄO
ssauiurej jo adoouÕs
BIPJBOAIPBJ.
uoipeaj AjojB-ijdsay
uo|sua;odA(-|
uoisus^edAH
SS9U!AB8L| JO SS3UlL|ß!; 'UIBd }S3LJO
oasnBN
J8A9J
SHWO
¡2£ .2
InSi•ilSllfpallii
coo>C\l<N
cocoo>CM CM C\J
a
enCM
enCM
COCM
O) OOJ O4
cor-T- OJ
Å“
CO COT- CMO) CO O) -<ÃCM CM CM CM
CDr--T- CM
«oi^T- CM
coenCM CM
coCM
coCM
'
l ?
S
S
S3 S
§3 S CM
R
S
S
S00CM
00CM
co coCM T-
AS ££ Of
silillil if
.2 ti i
illIf-, cuS o.? -i
lÃ|llili eo
CD
00CM
mCM
00CM
00CM
CM
enCM
enCM
atCM
188 THEJOURNALOFNUCLEARMEDICINE•Vol. 37 •No. 1 •January 1996
by on April 13, 2018. For personal use only. jnm.snmjournals.org Downloaded from
s¡•*ïïgHSUOIPB9J
J9U.IO'S;U9LULUOO9UON9l!S
'fin JE6u!Uinq/U!Bd3}SE}
OI||B19[AjBlßjBJLJiJVuied
lEuiuiopqvCÃŽUJHOMS
IBOEJSIXB|ÂL|dBUVSjSOUBÕQSIS9.IOU.dBia9U.OBPE9H06|}J9A
'SS9UEZIQsssuiurejjoadoouAsB!PJBOÕL|OB1UOIOB9JAJOBJldS9uoisu9}odA|-|UOISU9iJ9dA|-jSS9U|AB9L|
JO SS9UIU.6!} 'U\edJS9U.31S9AIBOBIPJBOBUBOiyn/S9A!HsnjunjcLJSRJ
ssn^içßu^sni;
'BUjeL|v^3BU^LUOAB9SHB|\J9A9JSIINOÃ
hi=o> g ^%c^ S- ^52•V-o >- S ?
r-- c Cl %5CMCD * Ü)COG)
COSco*"co
•*l-CMÕM
?h-
00K£oCM00If)
CMS.CMSSssc
EgS -pic
.£| ? .SS^2§¿C E CO CO 3CO § C mD.i
If! gill.lïiÃŽi 1 §lililÃÃŽoEloIg ÃŒ5S5M15206 !ÃŽe 'ScüS'—^-pS'o'Sîlilîlïlîifll(j^1
— Ä i^"1 (3 ^' ^,^' OC_55 ^1^S-
S- S- S^ S^1
2§>
g .a|I
aI-&1CM
« P OCMco
coooCMCMCM00T-
CMCM00^"t»CMCO
COCOi-CMT-co
r^coT-CM^
co cn cor^CMCM CM CMCMco
coCMCMr--
cocoCMCM00CM
CM CM CMCM^
cocnCMCMCM^
oocnCMCMCMCMc~.
coco
cn coooCMCM i-CMCM
CM CM CM CMCM00CM5
S1S.co
to1
If1||||§t^"
— ~c.~Z.c- ^ Q- D nn*t-£ " 3- SSSc
„,hilfi
1 1 S § IQ-1ä>? —y ¿-¿~co-p* o o co QriCM— O CO 1— t«Ó)
t—?-CMCOb,'"O)^CDen^CM
2LO
r^ ooenCMCM T-1-cn
+ cooT-N. CMT-CJO)
1— 00C3Îi- CM i-^~CMOr».CMr-
coCMCMCD
00I--T-i-CMen
f*-T-CMco
encoCMCMi-co
en LO r--coCMCM CM CM t-1§
8I
1^-1
!litE| 1!1ë
S =§ S Ta E ra2 'S 6 'S ó 5¿>3?3r
& Fsr^^= Ä P ¿.¿5r2. is ^ ai ai
ADVERSEREACTIONSFROMRADIOPHARMACEUTICALS•Silberstein and Ryan 189
by on April 13, 2018. For personal use only. jnm.snmjournals.org Downloaded from
suoipeaj jamo'siuaiuwooauoNBits
lui ;e6uiujnq/u|L'dB|6|BJl|lJVuiBdiBUâ„¢S!XB|Ai|dBuvsisajoudBiQauoBpBaHoOiuaA'ssauizziassaujurej
joadoouAssajnzragBIpJEOApBJQBIpJBOAlJOB
1uojsuajodAHuoisuajjadAHssaujABau.
JOssauiu.6n 'uredisaijosniurudqsBj
asnjjia**™-™**&*BasnBNjaAe-jSIINOÉfjll
».iiHililIr!coT—aco5senCMSenCMen
ÃñCMCMS
5°SS
SCsjOî
CO O)CN CXJCNCDs
sssli
iJ1H E^~^— ¡S'CD r- 5§<
5<Dà -Q.« '£S^-OLilla»!lili'lts
o Ãj̄ * «2 s a|tti lililÃ-if fsr Jlos
ss]Si
I1
1coCDco?bSSco
enCMCMcoco
coi-CM•*
coCMCM§"Tc-gluceptate
Glucoscan,Techne-a
Gluceptate""Tc-lidofenin
Techne-scanHIDA
"Tc-macroaggregatec
co.
r^ co
^- coCM CM
28
S
t COCM CM
CM
h- CO
CD h-•i-CM
CD CO O) (•-T- i- i- CM
CMco co en
coCM
N.CM
co enCM CM
sst^. i- h- co eni- CM CM CM CM
CM CO T- t-~i- CM CM
co i- N- co enT- CM CM CM CM
co i—r—
CDh- co enT- CM CM CM
CDh- oo eni- CM CM CM
co co enr- CM CM
co co enT- CM CM
EM
>r>CM
CM
r--CM
00CM
¿ils
190 THE JOURNALOFNUCLEARMEDICINE•Vol. 37 •No. 1 •January 1996
by on April 13, 2018. For personal use only. jnm.snmjournals.org Downloaded from
suojpBai J9U.IO'siueiuoioo9UON9]|s
'[ill }BBujujnq/uiodBiusiusv9}SB}OI||B»91AJBlBlB^Wu|Bd
|BU|LuopqvßU!||9MS
|B¡OBJS!XB|AX|dBUVSISOUBÄQsis3Joi|dB!Q8MOBPB9HO6|JJ9A
'SS9U|ZZ!Qssauiurej
jo9doouAgS9JPZI9SB!PJBOAPBjgBIPJBOAHOBIUOipmjtapJKfeeuuoisueiodAHuoisuapadAHssgiMBeu;
jo ss9U}i|ß!i'urediS9i|0paueoepnoBUBOIUn/S9AIHsmunjdMSBJ9snjjja6iui(sn|j
'BiuainAjgßUHJLUOABasnBfvJ9A9JSIINOÕB
>Õliti
Ì1*"p 5 'o>'S §o^p1"e)~o~^^IS?"pilfl
? §îSSMh^
CO O)OJ CSJCNJN.
fcin
COCMCMOCMt^CMT-
CM T- CM CMC^8C\J
CO!**•"i=CMSScoCM
en o ^-coT-CM CMT-CM
^" en o ^ co coen^-CNJ CM T— CMCMCOo
oo enr^CMCM CMCMf
— oo en co r^- enf^CMCM CM T- CM CMCMen
f-cocncDcor-cnr^-oocnCMCMCMCMT-i-CMCMCMCMCvJi
— co r^ co en coenCMT- CM CM CM CMCMsr--cocMcn
cocoenioCMCM -t— T— CM CMT—co
ooeni-CMCMco
f- co coenT-CM T- CMCMz
e:§•<- è.¿.¿
g t < ^ c 2Zèi g fe È 1 S 8 <»e
cd co ¿3cd co ^ ®r^ ^ Q-^ ±¿eOü-g ^ -g ^^"äD."uoS-3n"nOü
t -^ f— Q| —ü;S^;22ü¡==0É"Q.ME~ÕQ-(Ã'ÃÃrE~Os
gisII
1tli;e ri. | e §"SÌ°'' ' § "->,"D
in E^â„¢
5 -CS¡I
1 i SCO
00CMCMoo
encoCMCMCM8co"'en
co coenCMt- CMCMco?
co15
0000Vj1—T—•y
coenT-CMCMoo
enooCMCM T-r--
coenCMCMCMs00co
enCMCMoo
en co coenCMCM CM CMCM°^
S*
SenCMS
SScoCDco en i-~ ooenï-ï- CM CM CM CMCMcoréen
tN-oocnCMi^oocni-CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMoo
œ en ÌDooi--CMCM CM T- ï-CMco
coeni-CMCMoos-co
encococncoT-CMCMCMT-CMCMCMen
oo encoCMCM CMT-r-
ooCMï-a
1-|
§ CO o -§. .»Il|§p5=-
fillilfiiiiìliloc
cj^^ò^yw oO =^ (pajr^iT'o ^"<i-^ir 52*^BB O S w N "i^i8"iSgt!I11fii=81IIg
a<D£<3QII1
ï6
5|2II1!¡im
5(D*•*lio
E£z«
w=
ADVERSEREACTIONSFROMRADIOPHARMACEUTICALS•Silberstein and Ryan 191
by on April 13, 2018. For personal use only. jnm.snmjournals.org Downloaded from
Pharmaceuticals used as an adjunct to the nuclear medicineprocedure can rarely lead to temporary hospitalization but at aprevalence of about 6 per 100,000 injections. None of thesepatients exhibited any sequelae.
APPENDIX A
Collaborating InstitutionsUniversity of Alabama, Birmingham, AL; M.D. Anderson
Cancer Center, Houston, TX; University Hospitals of Cleveland, Cleveland, OH; Cornell Medical Center, New York, NY;Dana Farber Cancer Center, Boston, MA; Duke UniversityMedical Center, Durham, NC; Cross Cancer Center, Edmonton,Alberta; Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN; University ofIowa, Iowa City, IA; University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY;Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, St. Louis, MO; MarshfieldClinic, Marshfield, WI; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; State University of NewYork, Syracuse, NY; Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia,PA; Univerity of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT; and Department ofVeterans Affairs Hospital, Bay Pines, FL.
APPENDIX B
Monthly Radiopharmaceutical and Adverse ReactionReporting Form
Society of Nuclear MedicinePharmacopeia Committee
Institution Month Year1.
2. Total radiopharmaceutical doses for month (include IND,NDA and all other radioactive drugs and biologies fordiagnosis and therapy)
3. Adverse reactions to radiopharmaceuticals:Yes No Date(If yes, describe with attached copy of U.S.P. DrugProduct Problem Reporting Program form, which detailsthe radiopharmaceutical, dose, route, reaction, etc.).
4. Total nonradioactive pharmaceutical doses for monthused for procedures (include dipyridamole, adenosine,etc.)
5. Total nonradioactive pharmaceutical reactions causinghospitalization or death
6. Person completing form
Please Print Phone Date
Definition of Adverse ReactionPatient adverse drug reaction is any response to a drug which isnoxious and unintended, occurring at doses used in man forprophylaxis, diagnosis, therapy of disease, or for modification ofphysiological function.
Significant adverse drug reactions which should be reportedinclude:
1. Untoward effects whether observed frequently or rarely.2. Untoward effects never before seen following administration
of the radiopharmaceutical.3. Only life-threatening (requiring hospitalization) or fatal reac
tions from nonradiopharmaceuticals (i.e., interventional drugs).4. Reactions unanticipated from the known pharmacologie ac
tion of a nonradioactive pharmaceutical.5. Anaphylactoid or allergic reactions.
Do not report reactions from:
1. Overdose (this is a misadministration).2. Vasovagal response.3. Injury from poor injection technique.4. Deterministic effects from therapy with unsealed sources
(e.g., myelosuppression from a therapeutic agent).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTSWe thank the many members of the Pharmacopeia Committee,
SNM for their assistance from 1989 to 1995, especially Henry H.Kramer, PhD, Dennis Swanson, DPh and Gopal Subramanian,PhD.
REFERENCES! Rogers AS. Israel E, Smith CR, et al. Physician knowledge, attitudes and behavior
related to reporting adverse drug events. Arch intern Med 1988;I48:1596-1600.
2. Sampson CB, Hesslewood SR. Adverse reactions to and drug incompatibilities withradiopharmaceuticals In: Theobold AE, ed. Radiopharmaceuticals: using radioactivecompounds in pharmaceutics and medicine. Chichester, U.K.: Ellis Horwood Co.;1989;132-151.
3. Atkins HL. Reported adverse reactions to radiopharmaceuticals remain low in 1984. JNucÃMed 1986;27:327.
4. Rhodes BA, Cordova MA. Adverse reactions to radiopharmaceuticals: incidence in1978 and associated symptoms. Report of the Adverse Reactions Subcommittee of theSociety of Nuclear Medicine. J NucÃMed 1980;21:1107-1110.
5. Ford L. Shroff A. Benson W. Atkins H. Rhodes BA. Society of Nuclear Medicine drugproblem reporting system. J NucÃMed 1978;19:l 16-117.
6. Cordova MA, Rhodes BA, Atkins HL, et al. Adverse reactions to radiopharmaceuticals. J NucÃMed 1982;23:550-55I.
7. Subcommittee of the Safety Issue for the Radiopharmaceuticals, Medical Science andPharmaceutics Committee. Japan Radioisotope Association. Survey of the adversereactions to radiopharmaceuticals in Japan. Nuclear Medicine 1979;16:511-517.
8. Keeling DH, Sampson CB. Adverse reactions to radiopharmaceuticals. United Kingdom 1977-1983. BrJ Radial 1984:57:1091-1096.
9. Williams ES. Adverse reactions to radiopharmaceuticals: a preliminary survey in theUnited Kingdom. Br J Radial 1974:47:54-59.
10. Bush WH. Swanson DP. Acute reactions to intravascular contrast media: type, riskfactors, recognition and specific treatment. Am J Roentgenol 1991; 157:1153-1161.
11. Wolf GL, Mishkir MM, Roux SG, et al. Comparison of the rates of adverse drugreactions: ionic contrast agents, ionic agents combined with steroids, and nonionicagents. Invest Radial I991;26:404-410.
12. Katayama H. Yamaguchi K. Kozuka T. et al: Adverse reactions to ionic and nonioniccontrast media: a report from the Japanese Committee on the Safety of Contrast Media.Radiolos.- l990;175:62l-628.
13. Gertsman BB. Epidemiologie critique of the report on adverse reactions to ionic andnonionic media by the Japanese Committee on the Safety of Contrast Media.Radiology 199I;178:787-790.
14. Savitsky ME. Recognizing hospital adverse drug reactions. J Pharmacy Practice1989; 11:203-208.
15. Leape LL, Brennan TA. Laird NM, et al. The nature of adverse events in hospitalizedpatients. N Engl J Med 1991:324:377-384.
16. Scott JR. Canadian adverse reaction reporting program for radiopharmaceuticalssummary, January 1989-January 1991. Society of Nuclear Medicine Canada, Bulletin
no. 7, Spring 1991.17. Dreis MW: Letter to Atkins, HL. Re: Line listing the adverse reactions reported to
FDA, Spontaneous Reporting System, 1987.18. Cordova MA, Hladik WB. Rhodes BA. Validation and characterization of adverse
reactions to radiopharmaceuticals. Noninvasive Medical Imaging 1984;!: 17-24.
19. Keeling DH. Adverse reactions and untoward events associated with the use ofradiopharmaceuticals. In: Sampson CB, ed. Textbook of radiopharmacy theory andpractice. London: Gordon and Beach Inc.; 1990:288-310.
20. Hurman DC, Critchley M, Shanahan CV. Adverse reaction to a radionuclide brainscanning agent. NucÃMed Commun 1982;3:373-376.
21. Spicer JA, Preston DF, Stephens RL. Adverse allergic reaction to technetium-99m-methylene diphosphonate. J NucÃMed 1985;26:373-374.
22. Giaffer MB, Tindale WB, Senior S, et al. Anaphylactoid reaction associated with theuse of "Te hexamethylpropylene amine oxime as a leukocyte labeling agent. Br J
Radial. 1991:64:625-626.
23. Swanson DP. Radiopharmaceuticals for endocrine imaging. In: Swanson D, Chillón H,Thrall J. eds. Pharmaceuticals in medical imaging, ed. New York: Macmillan;1990:363-368.
24. Rhodes BA, Cordova MA. Adverse reactions to radiopharmaceuticals. Incidence in1978, and associated symptoms [Letter]. J NucÃMed 1980:21:1107-1110.
25. Hesslewood SR. European Radiopharmacy Reported Problem Database. March 10,1993.
26. Silberstein EB. Letter to Michael J. Gelfand. Anaphylaxis to Tc-99m DTPA. 26August, 1987.
27. Society of Nuclear Medicine and USP Drug Product Problem Reporting Program forradiopharmaceuticals. January 1988 through August 1994.
28. Drug Information for the Health Care Professional, 15th ed. U.S. PharmacopeialConvention, Inc., Rockville, MD. 1995.
29. Manufacturer package inserts approved by the FDA.
192 THE JOURNALOFNUCLEARMEDICINE•Vol. 37 •No. 1 •January 1996
by on April 13, 2018. For personal use only. jnm.snmjournals.org Downloaded from
1996;37:185-192.J Nucl Med. Edward B. Silberstein, Janet Ryan and Pharmacopeia Committee of the Society of Nuclear Medicine Prevalence of Adverse Reactions in Nuclear Medicine
http://jnm.snmjournals.org/content/37/1/185This article and updated information are available at:
http://jnm.snmjournals.org/site/subscriptions/online.xhtml
Information about subscriptions to JNM can be found at:
http://jnm.snmjournals.org/site/misc/permission.xhtmlInformation about reproducing figures, tables, or other portions of this article can be found online at:
(Print ISSN: 0161-5505, Online ISSN: 2159-662X)1850 Samuel Morse Drive, Reston, VA 20190.SNMMI | Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
is published monthly.The Journal of Nuclear Medicine
© Copyright 1996 SNMMI; all rights reserved.
by on April 13, 2018. For personal use only. jnm.snmjournals.org Downloaded from