Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Checklist for standardized reporting of drug–drug interaction management guidelines

  • Pharmacoepidemiology and Prescription
  • Published:
European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Inconsistencies and omissions in drug–drug interaction (DDI) management guidelines may lead to harm and suboptimal therapy. The purpose of this study was to define a checklist for DDI management guidelines to help developers produce high-quality guidelines that will support healthcare providers in clinical practice.

Methods

We carried out a two-round Delphi process with an international panel of healthcare providers, most of whom are pharmacists involved in providing DDI information, in order to select those items that should be addressed in DDI management guidelines (including grading systems that could be used).

Results

Twenty-three panellists reached consensus on 19 items in two main domains. These were consolidated into a checklist of 15 elements for standardized reporting in management guidelines. For each element a description is provided to specify what information should be documented in that specific element.

Conclusions

It was possible to reach a broad consensus on which relevant items should be included in a checklist for the development of DDI management guidelines.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Grol R, Grimshaw J (2003) From best evidence to best practice: effective implementation of change in patients' care. Lancet 362:1225–1230

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Shiffman RN, Shekelle P, Overhage JM et al (2003) Standardized reporting of clinical practice guidelines: a proposal from the Conference on Guideline Standardization. Ann Intern Med 139:493–498

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. The AGREE Collaboration (2003) Development and validation of an international appraisal instrument for assessing the quality of clinical practice guidelines: the AGREE project. Qual Saf Health Care 12:18–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Cluzeau FA, Littlejohns P, Grimshaw JM et al (1999) Development and application of a generic methodology to assess the quality of clinical guidelines. Int J Qual Health Care 11:21–28

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE et al (2008) GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 336:924–926. doi:10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. van Roon EN, Flikweert S, le Comte M et al (2005) Clinical relevance of drug–drug interactions : a structured assessment procedure. Drug Saf 28:1131–1139

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Indermitte J, Erba L, Beutler M et al (2007) Management of potential drug interactions in community pharmacies: a questionnaire-based survey in Switzerland. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 63:297–305

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Sweidan M, Reeve JF, Brien JA et al (2009) Quality of drug interaction alerts in prescribing and dispensing software. Med J Aust 190:251–254

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Malone DC, Abarca J, Hansten PD et al (2004) Identification of serious drug–drug interactions: results of the partnership to prevent drug–drug interactions. J Am Pharm Assoc 44:142–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Floor-Schreudering A, De Smet PA, Buurma H et al (2011) Clarity and applicability of drug–drug interaction management guidelines: a systematic appraisal by general practitioners and community pharmacists in the Netherlands. Drug Saf 34:683–690. doi:10.2165/11587270-000000000-00000

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bottiger Y, Laine K, Andersson ML et al (2009) SFINX-a drug–drug interaction database designed for clinical decision support systems. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 65:627–633. doi:10.1007/s00228-008-0612-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ferner RE, Coleman J, Pirmohamed M et al (2005) The quality of information on monitoring for haematological adverse drug reactions. Br J Clin Pharmacol 60:448–451

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Vitry AI (2007) Comparative assessment of four drug interaction compendia. Br J Clin Pharmacol 63:709–714

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hansten PD (2003) Drug interaction management. Pharm World Sci 25:94–97

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Wong CM, Ko Y, Chan A (2008) Clinically significant drug–drug interactions between oral anticancer agents and nonanticancer agents: profiling and comparison of two drug compendia. Ann Pharmacother 42:1737–1748. doi:10.1345/aph.1L255

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bergk V, Gasse C, Schnell R et al (2004) Requirements for a successful implementation of drug interaction information systems in general practice: results of a questionnaire survey in Germany. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 60:595–602

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Fulda TR (2000) Disagreement among drug compendia on inclusion and ratings of drug–drug Interactions. Curr Ther Res 61:540–548

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Buurma H, Schalekamp T, Egberts AC et al (2007) Compliance with national guidelines for the management of drug–drug interactions in Dutch community pharmacies. Ann Pharmacother 41:2024–2031

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Campbell SM, Cantrill JA, Roberts D (2000) Prescribing indicators for UK general practice: Delphi consultation study. BMJ 321:425–428

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Dalkey NC (1969) The Delphi method: an experimental study of group opinion. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica

    Google Scholar 

  21. Shaneyfelt TM, Mayo-Smith MF, Rothwangl J (1999) Are guidelines following guidelines? The methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines in the peer-reviewed medical literature. JAMA 281:1900–1905

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Grilli R, Magrini N, Penna A et al (2000) Practice guidelines developed by specialty societies: the need for a critical appraisal. Lancet 355:103–106

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. National Guideline Clearinghouse (2012) NGC template of guideline attributes. Available at: http://guideline.gov/about/template-of-attributes.aspx. Accessed 11 June 2012

  24. Atkins D, Eccles M, Flottorp S et al (2004) Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations I: critical appraisal of existing approaches The GRADE Working Group. BMC Health Serv Res 4:38

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Brook R (1995) The RAND/UCLA appropriateness method. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica

    Google Scholar 

  26. Deshpande AM, Shiffman RN, Nadkarni PM (2005) Metadata-driven Delphi rating on the Internet. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 77:49–56

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Fitch K, Bernstein SJ, Aguilar MD et al (2001) The RAND/UCLA appropriateness method user’s manual. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica

    Google Scholar 

  28. Powell C (2003) The Delphi technique: myths and realities. J Adv Nurs 41:376–382

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Hines LE, Malone DC, Murphy JE (2012) Recommendations for generating, evaluating, and implementing drug–drug interaction evidence. Pharmacotherapy 32:304–313

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Geerts AF, De Koning FH, De Smet PA et al (2009) Laboratory tests in the clinical risk management of potential drug–drug interactions: a cross-sectional study using drug-dispensing data from 100 Dutch community pharmacies. Drug Saf 32:1189–1197

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Zwart-van Rijkom JE, Uijtendaal EV, ten Berg MJ et al (2009) Frequency and nature of drug–drug interactions in a Dutch university hospital. Br J Clin Pharmacol 68:187–193. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2125.2009.03443.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Jansman FG, Reyners AK, van Roon EN et al (2011) Consensus-based evaluation of clinical significance and management of anticancer drug interactions. Clin Ther 33:305–314. doi:10.1016/j.clinthera.2011.01.022

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The following persons took part in the Delphi process:

J.K. Aronson (UK), K. Baxter (UK), M.L. Becker (The Netherlands), J.J. Coleman (UK), I.M. Costa (Portugal), P.A. Glassman (USA), N. Griese (Germany), M. Guerreiro (Portugal), P.D. Hansten (USA), P. Hartvig (Denmark), K.E. Hersberger (Switzerland), J.R. Horn (USA), D.C. Malone (USA), J.E. Murphy (USA), A. Nobili (Italy), L. Pasina (Italy), P. Polidori (Italy), T. Schalekamp (The Netherlands), J. Strandell (Sweden), M. Sweidan (Australia), E.N. van Roon (The Netherlands), P. Zagermann-Muncke (Germany), S. Zimner-Rapuch (France).

Special thanks also to A.R. Cox (UK), M. Heringa (The Netherlands), M. Le Comte (The Netherlands), A.F.A.M. Schobben (The Netherlands), and S.K. Thomas (UK) for their comments during the pilot of the Delphi process, and to Henk Buurma (The Netherlands) for his advice during the whole project.

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. SIR Institute for Pharmacy Practice and Policy, Theda Mansholtstraat 5B, 2331 JE, Leiden, The Netherlands

    Annemieke Floor-Schreudering & Marcel L. Bouvy

  2. Departments of Clinical Pharmacy and IQ Healthcare, University Medical Centre St Radboud, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Annemieke Floor-Schreudering & Peter A. G. M. De Smet

  3. Division Pharmacoepidemiology & Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences (UIPS), Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Arjen F. J. Geerts & Marcel L. Bouvy

  4. Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    Jeffrey K. Aronson

  5. West Midlands Centre for Adverse Drug Reactions City Hospital, Birmingham, UK

    Robin E. Ferner

  6. Scientific Institute of Dutch Pharmacists (WINAp), The Hague, The Netherlands

    Peter A. G. M. De Smet

Authors
  1. Annemieke Floor-Schreudering
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Arjen F. J. Geerts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jeffrey K. Aronson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marcel L. Bouvy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Robin E. Ferner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Peter A. G. M. De Smet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Annemieke Floor-Schreudering.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(DOCX 69 kb)

ESM 2

(DOCX 43 kb)

ESM 3

(DOC 619 kb)

ESM 4

(DOCX 83.1 kb)

ESM 5

(DOCX 43 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Floor-Schreudering, A., Geerts, A.F.J., Aronson, J.K. et al. Checklist for standardized reporting of drug–drug interaction management guidelines. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 70, 313–318 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-013-1612-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-013-1612-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation