Skip to main content
Top
Published in: International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy 4/2008

01-08-2008 | Research Article

Evaluation of frequently used drug interaction screening programs

Authors: Priska Vonbach, André Dubied, Stephan Krähenbühl, Jürg H. Beer

Published in: International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy | Issue 4/2008

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective Drug-drug interaction (DDI) screening programs are an important tool to check prescriptions of multiple drugs. The objective of the current study was to critically appraise several DDI screening programs. Methods A DDI screening program had to fulfil minimal requirements (information on effect, severity rating, clinical management, mechanism and literature) to be included into the final evaluation. The 100 most frequently used drugs in the State Hospital of Baden, Switzerland, were used to test the comprehensiveness of the programs. Qualitative criteria were used for the assessment of the DDI monographs. In a precision analysis, 30 drugs with and 30 drugs without DDIs of clinical importance were tested. In addition, 16 medical patient profiles were checked for DDIs, using Stockley’s Drug Interactions as a reference. Main outcome measure Suitability of DDI screening program (quality of monographs, comprehensiveness of drug list, statistical evaluation). Results Out of nine programs included, the following four fulfilled the above mentioned criteria: Drug Interaction Facts, Drug-Reax, Lexi-Interact and Pharmavista. Drug Interaction Facts contained the smallest number of drugs and was therefore the least qualified program. Lexi-Interact condenses many DDIs into one group, resulting in less specific information. Pharmavista and Drug-Reax offer excellent DDI monographs. In the precision analysis, Lexi-Interact showed the best sensitivity (1.00), followed by Drug-Reax and Pharmavista (0.83 each) and Drug Interaction Facts (0.63). The analysis of patient profiles revealed that out of 157 DDIs found by all programs, only 18 (11%) were detected by all of them. No program found more than 50% of the total number of DDIs. A further evaluation using Stockley’s Drug interactions as the gold standard revealed that Pharmavista achieved a sensitivity of 0.86 (vs Drug Interaction Facts, Lexi-Interact and Drug-Reax with a sensitivity of 0.71 each) and a positive predictive value of 0.67. Conclusion None of the four DDI screening programs tested is ideal, every program has its strengths and weaknesses, which are important to know. Pharmavista offers the highest sensitivity of the programs evaluated with a specificity and positive predictive value in an acceptable range.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Einarson TR. Drug-related hospital admissions. Ann Pharmacother 1993;27(7–8):832–40 Jul–Aug.PubMed Einarson TR. Drug-related hospital admissions. Ann Pharmacother 1993;27(7–8):832–40 Jul–Aug.PubMed
2.
go back to reference Lazarou J, Pomeranz BH, Corey PN. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. Jama 1998;279(15):1200–5 Apr 15.PubMedCrossRef Lazarou J, Pomeranz BH, Corey PN. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. Jama 1998;279(15):1200–5 Apr 15.PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Pirmohamed M, James S, Meakin S, et al. Adverse drug reactions as cause of admission to hospital: prospective analysis of 18 820 patients. BMJ 2004;329(7456):15–9 Jul 3.PubMedCrossRef Pirmohamed M, James S, Meakin S, et al. Adverse drug reactions as cause of admission to hospital: prospective analysis of 18 820 patients. BMJ 2004;329(7456):15–9 Jul 3.PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Jankel CA, Fitterman LK. Epidemiology of drug-drug interactions as a cause of hospital admissions. Drug Saf 1993;9(1):51–9 Jul.PubMedCrossRef Jankel CA, Fitterman LK. Epidemiology of drug-drug interactions as a cause of hospital admissions. Drug Saf 1993;9(1):51–9 Jul.PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Jankel CA, Martin BC. Evaluation of six computerized drug interaction screening programs. Am J Hosp Pharm 1992;49(6):1430–5 Jun.PubMed Jankel CA, Martin BC. Evaluation of six computerized drug interaction screening programs. Am J Hosp Pharm 1992;49(6):1430–5 Jun.PubMed
6.
go back to reference Barla C, Mignot G, Chichmanian RM. Comparative study of data banks on drug interactions [in French]. Therapie 1992;47(5):449–53 Sep–Oct.PubMed Barla C, Mignot G, Chichmanian RM. Comparative study of data banks on drug interactions [in French]. Therapie 1992;47(5):449–53 Sep–Oct.PubMed
7.
go back to reference Hazlet TK, Lee TA, Hansten PD, et al. Performance of community pharmacy drug interaction software. J Am Pharm Assoc (Wash) 2001;41(2):200–4 Mar–Apr. Hazlet TK, Lee TA, Hansten PD, et al. Performance of community pharmacy drug interaction software. J Am Pharm Assoc (Wash) 2001;41(2):200–4 Mar–Apr.
8.
go back to reference Barrons R. Evaluation of personal digital assistant software for drug interactions. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2004;61(4):380–5 Feb 15.PubMed Barrons R. Evaluation of personal digital assistant software for drug interactions. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2004;61(4):380–5 Feb 15.PubMed
9.
go back to reference Perrin Y, Buclin T, Biollaz J. Drug interaction computer programs: which choice? [in French]. Schweiz Rundsch Med Prax 2004;93(23):991–6 Jun 2. Perrin Y, Buclin T, Biollaz J. Drug interaction computer programs: which choice? [in French]. Schweiz Rundsch Med Prax 2004;93(23):991–6 Jun 2.
10.
go back to reference WHO collaborating centre for drug statistics methodology, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo. WHO ATC/DDD applications (online). Available from URL: http://www.whocc.no/atcddd/. Accessed 2004 May–July. WHO collaborating centre for drug statistics methodology, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo. WHO ATC/DDD applications (online). Available from URL: http://​www.​whocc.​no/​atcddd/​. Accessed 2004 May–July.
11.
go back to reference Sweetman SC. Martindale—The complete drug reference. 33rd ed. London: The Pharmaceutical Press; 2002. Sweetman SC. Martindale—The complete drug reference. 33rd ed. London: The Pharmaceutical Press; 2002.
12.
go back to reference Hulley SB, Cummings SR, Browner WS, et al. Designing clinical research: an epidemiologic approach. 2nd ed. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins; 2001. Hulley SB, Cummings SR, Browner WS, et al. Designing clinical research: an epidemiologic approach. 2nd ed. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins; 2001.
13.
go back to reference Stockley IH (editor). Stockley’s drug interactions. 6th ed. London, Chicago: The Pharmaceutical Press; 2002. Stockley IH (editor). Stockley’s drug interactions. 6th ed. London, Chicago: The Pharmaceutical Press; 2002.
14.
go back to reference Hansten PD, Horn JR, Hazlet TK. ORCA: Operational classification of drug interactions. J Am Pharm Assoc (Wash) 2001;41(2):161–5 Mar–Apr. Hansten PD, Horn JR, Hazlet TK. ORCA: Operational classification of drug interactions. J Am Pharm Assoc (Wash) 2001;41(2):161–5 Mar–Apr.
16.
go back to reference Payne TH, Nichol WP, Hoey P, et al. Characteristics and override rates of order checks in a practitioner order entry system. Proc AMIA Symp 2002:602–6. Payne TH, Nichol WP, Hoey P, et al. Characteristics and override rates of order checks in a practitioner order entry system. Proc AMIA Symp 2002:602–6.
17.
go back to reference Magnus D, Rodgers S, Avery AJ. GPs’ views on computerized drug interaction alerts: questionnaire survey. J Clin Pharm Ther 2002;27(5):377–82 Oct.PubMedCrossRef Magnus D, Rodgers S, Avery AJ. GPs’ views on computerized drug interaction alerts: questionnaire survey. J Clin Pharm Ther 2002;27(5):377–82 Oct.PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Weingart SN, Toth M, Sands DZ, et al. Physicians’ decisions to override computerized drug alerts in primary care. Arch Intern Med 2003;163(21):2625–31 Nov 24.PubMedCrossRef Weingart SN, Toth M, Sands DZ, et al. Physicians’ decisions to override computerized drug alerts in primary care. Arch Intern Med 2003;163(21):2625–31 Nov 24.PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Abarca J, Malone DC, Armstrong EP, et al. Concordance of severity ratings provided in four drug interaction compendia. J Am Pharm Assoc (Wash DC) 2004;44(2):136–41 Mar–Apr. Abarca J, Malone DC, Armstrong EP, et al. Concordance of severity ratings provided in four drug interaction compendia. J Am Pharm Assoc (Wash DC) 2004;44(2):136–41 Mar–Apr.
Metadata
Title
Evaluation of frequently used drug interaction screening programs
Authors
Priska Vonbach
André Dubied
Stephan Krähenbühl
Jürg H. Beer
Publication date
01-08-2008
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy / Issue 4/2008
Print ISSN: 2210-7703
Electronic ISSN: 2210-7711
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-008-9191-x

Other articles of this Issue 4/2008

International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy 4/2008 Go to the issue
Live Webinar | 27-06-2024 | 18:00 (CEST)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

WHO estimates that half of all patients worldwide are non-adherent to their prescribed medication. The consequences of poor adherence can be catastrophic, on both the individual and population level.

Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.

Prof. Kevin Dolgin
Prof. Florian Limbourg
Prof. Anoop Chauhan
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Obesity Clinical Trial Summary

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.

Developed by: Springer Medicine