Dataset Information

Evaluation of resources for analyzing drug interactions.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

The research sought to evaluate seven drug information resources, specifically designed for analyzing drug interactions for scope, completeness, and ease of use, and determine the consistency of content among the seven resources.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted where 100 drug-drug and drug-dietary supplement interactions were analyzed using 7 drug information resources: Lexicomp Interactions module, Micromedex Drug Interactions, Clinical Pharmacology Drug Interaction Report, Facts & Comparisons eAnswers, Stockley's Drug Interactions (10th edition), Drug Interactions Analysis and Management (2014), and Drug Interaction Facts (2015). The interaction sample was developed based on published resources and peer input. Two independent reviewers gathered data for each interaction from each of the 7 resources using a common form.

Results

Eighty-two drug-drug and 18 drug-dietary supplement interactions were analyzed. Scope scores were higher for Lexicomp Interactions (97.0%), Clinical Pharmacology Drug Interaction Report (97.0%), and Micromedex Drug Interactions (93.0%) compared to all other resources (p<0.05 for each comparison). Overall completeness scores were higher for Micromedex Drug Interactions (median 5, interquartile range [IQR] 4 to 5) compared to all other resources (p<0.01 for each comparison) and were higher for Lexicomp Interactions (median 4, IQR 4 to 5), Facts & Comparisons eAnswers (median 4, IQR 4 to 5), and Drug Interaction Facts (4, IQR 4 to 5) compared to all other resources, except Micromedex (p<0.05 for each comparison). Ease of use, in terms of time to locate information and time to gather information, was similar among resources. Consistency score was higher for Micromedex (69.9%) compared to all other resources (p<0.05 for each comparison).

Conclusions

Clinical Pharmacology Drug Interaction Report, Lexicomp Interactions, and Micromedex Drug Interactions scored highest in scope. Micromedex Drug Interactions and Lexicomp Interactions scored highest in completeness. Consistency scores were overall low, but Micromedex Drug Interactions was the highest.

SUBMITTER: Patel RI

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5079490 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evaluation of resources for analyzing drug interactions.

Patel Risha I RI Beckett Robert D RD

Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA 20161001 4

<h4>Objective</h4>The research sought to evaluate seven drug information resources, specifically designed for analyzing drug interactions for scope, completeness, and ease of use, and determine the consistency of content among the seven resources.<h4>Methods</h4>A cross-sectional study was conducted where 100 drug-drug and drug-dietary supplement interactions were analyzed using 7 drug information resources: Lexicomp Interactions module, Micromedex Drug Interactions, Clinical Pharmacology Drug I ...[more]

PMID: 27822150

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWarnings about drug-drug interactions (DDIs) between warfarin and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) within electronic health records indicate potential harm but fail to account for contextual factors and preferences. We developed a tool called DDInteract to enhance and support shared decision-making (SDM) between patients and physicians when both warfarin and NSAIDs are used concurrently. DDInteract was designed to be integrated into electronic health records using interoperability standards.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to conduct a formative evaluation of a DDInteract that incorporates patient and product contextual factors to estimate the risk of bleeding.MethodsA randomized formative evaluation was conducted to compare DDInteract to usual care (UC) using physician-patient dyads. Using case vignettes, physicians and patients on warfarin participated in simulated virtual clinical encounters where they discussed the use of taking ibuprofen and warfarin concurrently and determined an appropriate therapeutic plan based on the patient's individualized risk. Dyads were randomized to either DDInteract or UC. Participants completed a postsession interview and survey of the SDM process. This included the 9-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9), tool usability and workload National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Task Load Index, Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT), Perceived Behavioral Control (PBC) scale, System Usability Scale (SUS), and Decision Conflict Scale (DCS). They also were interviewed after the session to obtain perceptions on DDInteract and UC resources for DDIs.ResultsTwelve dyad encounters were performed using virtual software. Most (n=11, 91.7%) patients were over 50 years of age, and 9 (75%) had been taking warfarin for more than 2 years (75%). Regarding scores on the SDM-Q-9, participants rated DDInteract higher than UC for questions pertaining to helping patients clarify the decision (P=.03), involving patients in the decision (P=.01), displaying treatment options (P<.001), identifying advantages and disadvantages (P=.01), and facilitating patient understanding (P=.01) and discussion of preferences (P=.01). Five of the 8 UTAUT constructs showed differences between the 2 groups, favoring DDInteract (P<.05). Usability ratings from the SUS were significantly higher (P<.05) for physicians using DDInteract compared to those in the UC group but showed no differences from the patient's perspective. No differences in patient responses were observed between groups using the DCS. During the session debrief, physicians indicated little concern for the additional time or workload entailed by DDInteract use. Both clinicians and patients indicated that the tool was beneficial in simulated encounters to understand and mitigate the risk of harm from this DDI.ConclusionsOverall, DDInteract may improve encounters where there is a risk of bleeding due to a potential drug-drug interaction involving anticoagulants. Participants rated DDInteract as logical and useful for enhancing SDM. They reported that they would be willing to use the tool for an interaction involving warfarin and NSAIDs.

Project description:Background and objectiveTucatinib is approved for treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive metastatic breast cancer. Understanding potential drug-drug interactions (DDIs) informs proper dosing when co-administering tucatinib with other therapies. The aim of this study was to evaluate DDIs between tucatinib and metabolizing enzymes and transporters in healthy volunteers.MethodsParts A-C assessed the impact of itraconazole (cytochrome P450 [CYP] 3A4 inhibitor), rifampin (CYP3A4/CYP2C8 inducer), or gemfibrozil (CYP2C8 inhibitor) on the pharmacokinetics of a single 300 mg dose of tucatinib administered orally and its primary metabolite, ONT-993. Parts D and E assessed the effect of steady-state tucatinib on the pharmacokinetics of repaglinide (CYP2C8 substrate), tolbutamide (CYP2C9 substrate), midazolam (CYP3A4 substrate), and digoxin (P-glycoprotein substrate).ResultsTucatinib area under the concentration-time curve from time 0 extrapolated to infinity (AUC0-inf) increased by ~ 1.3- and 3.0-fold with itraconazole and gemfibrozil, respectively, and decreased by 48% with rifampin, indicating that tucatinib is metabolized primarily by CYP2C8, and to a lesser extent via CYP3A. Tucatinib was a strong inhibitor of CYP3A (midazolam AUC0-inf increased 5.7-fold), a weak inhibitor of CYP2C8 and P-glycoprotein, and had no impact on CYP2C9-mediated metabolism in humans. Tucatinib was well tolerated, alone and with co-administered drugs.ConclusionThe potential DDIs identified here may be mitigated by avoiding concomitant use of tucatinib with strong CYP3A inducers, moderate CYP2C8 inducers, CYP3A substrates with a narrow therapeutic window (modifying substrate dose where concomitant use is unavoidable), and strong CYP2C8 inhibitors (decreasing tucatinib dose where concomitant use is unavoidable), or by reducing the dose of P-glycoprotein substrates with a narrow therapeutic window.Trial registrationThis trial (NCT03723395) was registered on October 29, 2018.

Dataset Information

Evaluation of resources for analyzing drug interactions.

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Evaluation of resources for analyzing drug interactions.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets