Dataset Information

Comparison of three commercial knowledge bases for detection of drug-drug interactions in clinical decision support.

ABSTRACT: Objective:To compare 3 commercial knowledge bases (KBs) used for detection and avoidance of potential drug-drug interactions (DDIs) in clinical practice. Methods:Drugs in the DDI tables from First DataBank (FDB), Micromedex, and Multum were mapped to RxNorm. The KBs were compared at the clinical drug, ingredient, and DDI rule levels. The KBs were evaluated against a reference list of highly significant DDIs from the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC). The KBs and the ONC list were applied to a prescription data set to simulate their use in clinical decision support. Results:The KBs contained 1.6 million (FDB), 4.5 million (Micromedex), and 4.8 million (Multum) clinical drug pairs. Altogether, there were 8.6 million unique pairs, of which 79% were found only in 1 KB and 5% in all 3 KBs. However, there was generally more agreement than disagreement in the severity rankings, especially in the contraindicated category. The KBs covered 99.8-99.9% of the alerts of the ONC list and would have generated 25 (FDB), 145 (Micromedex), and 84 (Multum) alerts per 1000 prescriptions. Conclusion:The commercial KBs differ considerably in size and quantity of alerts generated. There is less variability in severity ranking of DDIs than suggested by previous studies. All KBs provide very good coverage of the ONC list. More work is needed to standardize the editorial policies and evidence for inclusion of DDIs to reduce variation among knowledge sources and improve relevance. Some DDIs considered contraindicated in all 3 KBs might be possible candidates to add to the ONC list.

SUBMITTER: Fung KW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6080681 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of three commercial knowledge bases for detection of drug-drug interactions in clinical decision support.

Fung Kin Wah KW Kapusnik-Uner Joan J Cunningham Jean J Higby-Baker Stefanie S Bodenreider Olivier O

Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA 20170701 4

<h4>Objective</h4>To compare 3 commercial knowledge bases (KBs) used for detection and avoidance of potential drug-drug interactions (DDIs) in clinical practice.<h4>Methods</h4>Drugs in the DDI tables from First DataBank (FDB), Micromedex, and Multum were mapped to RxNorm. The KBs were compared at the clinical drug, ingredient, and DDI rule levels. The KBs were evaluated against a reference list of highly significant DDIs from the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technol ...[more]

PMID: 28339701

Similar Datasets

Project description:Purpose: In oncology, precision medicine centers on tailoring the most appropriate therapy to a patient according to their tumor molecular profile. We addressed the question whether there is a consensus in the classification of actionability of somatic variants and their alignment to treatment recommendations. To this end, we evaluated three commercial clinical decision support tools to assess their variant classification and drug matching strategies.Methods: In this two centers study 48 patients with metastatic breast (n=12), colorectal (n=17) or non-small cell lung cancer (n=19) were recruited based on circulating tumor DNA levels in peripheral blood. In individual patientsÃ¢Â€Â™ plasma samples, we established somatic copy number alterations and somatic mutations across a 77 cancer-associated gene panel and exposed the obtained molecular profiles to the decision support packages NAVIFY Mutation Profiler (NMP; Roche), Qiagen Clinical Insight (QCI) Interpret (Qiagen) and CureMatch Bionov (CureMatch).Results: In the plasma samples, altogether 492 somatic alterations were assessed. Each decision support platform varied in their format of data input, mode of variant classification and strategies for identifying druggable targets and clinical trials, which resulted in discrepancies in tier classification as well as designations of actionability. The frequency of concordant actionable events for tier I-A or tier I-B classifications, i.e. those with the strongest clinical evidence, was only 4.3%, 9.5% and 28.4% when comparing NMP with QCI, NMP with CureMatch, and CureMatch with QCI, respectively. As a consequence, the obtained treatment recommendations differed drastically, and alignment of treatment recommendations was limited to established predictive markers.Conclusions: The lack of standards for the extraction of treatment recommendations from comprehensive tumor molecular profiling data challenge the promising concepts of precision oncology.

Project description:BACKGROUND:We introduce the decision support system for Protein (Structure) Comparison, Knowledge, Similarity and Information (ProCKSI). ProCKSI integrates various protein similarity measures through an easy to use interface that allows the comparison of multiple proteins simultaneously. It employs the Universal Similarity Metric (USM), the Maximum Contact Map Overlap (MaxCMO) of protein structures and other external methods such as the DaliLite and the TM-align methods, the Combinatorial Extension (CE) of the optimal path, and the FAST Align and Search Tool (FAST). Additionally, ProCKSI allows the user to upload a user-defined similarity matrix supplementing the methods mentioned, and computes a similarity consensus in order to provide a rich, integrated, multicriteria view of large datasets of protein structures. RESULTS:We present ProCKSI's architecture and workflow describing its intuitive user interface, and show its potential on three distinct test-cases. In the first case, ProCKSI is used to evaluate the results of a previous CASP competition, assessing the similarity of proposed models for given targets where the structures could have a large deviation from one another. To perform this type of comparison reliably, we introduce a new consensus method. The second study deals with the verification of a classification scheme for protein kinases, originally derived by sequence comparison by Hanks and Hunter, but here we use a consensus similarity measure based on structures. In the third experiment using the Rost and Sander dataset (RS126), we investigate how a combination of different sets of similarity measures influences the quality and performance of ProCKSI's new consensus measure. ProCKSI performs well with all three datasets, showing its potential for complex, simultaneous multi-method assessment of structural similarity in large protein datasets. Furthermore, combining different similarity measures is usually more robust than relying on one single, unique measure. CONCLUSION:Based on a diverse set of similarity measures, ProCKSI computes a consensus similarity profile for the entire protein set. All results can be clustered, visualised, analysed and easily compared with each other through a simple and intuitive interface.ProCKSI is publicly available at http://www.procksi.net for academic and non-commercial use.

Project description:Background: Patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) often undergo complex treatment regimens, resulting in an increased risk of polypharmacy and potential drug-drug interactions (pDDIs). Drug interaction databases are useful for identifying pDDIs to support safer medication use. Objective: To compare three different screening tools regarding the detection and classification of pDDIs in a cohort of MS patients. Furthermore, we aimed at ascertaining sociodemographic and clinical factors that are associated with the occurrence of severe pDDIs. Methods: The databases Stockley's, Drugs.com and MediQ were used to identify pDDIs by screening the medication schedules of 627 patients. We determined the overlap of the identified pDDIs and the level of agreement in pDDI severity ratings between the three databases. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to determine patient risk factors of having a severe pDDI. Results: The most different pDDIs were identified using MediQ (n = 1,161), followed by Drugs.com (n = 923) and Stockley's (n = 706). The proportion of pDDIs classified as severe was much higher for Stockley's (37.4%) than for Drugs.com (14.4%) and MediQ (0.9%). Overall, 1,684 different pDDIs were identified by at least one database, of which 318 pDDIs (18.9%) were detected with all three databases. Only 55 pDDIs (3.3%) have been reported with the same severity level across all databases. A total of 336 pDDIs were classified as severe (271 pDDIs by one database, 59 by two databases and 6 by three databases). Stockley's and Drugs.com revealed 47 and 23 severe pDDIs, respectively, that were not included in the other databases. At least one severe pDDI was found for 35.2% of the patients. The most common severe pDDI was the combination of acetylsalicylic acid with enoxaparin, and citalopram was the drug most frequently involved in different severe pDDIs. The strongest predictors of having a severe pDDI were a greater number of drugs taken, an older age, living alone, a higher number of comorbidities and a lower educational level. Conclusions: The information on pDDIs are heterogeneous between the databases examined. More than one resource should be used in clinical practice to evaluate pDDIs. Regular medication reviews and exchange of information between treating physicians can help avoid severe pDDIs.

Project description:IntroductionThe handling of drug-drug interactions regarding QTc-prolongation (QT-DDIs) is not well defined. A clinical decision support (CDS) tool will support risk management of QT-DDIs. Therefore, we studied the effect of a CDS tool on the proportion of QT-DDIs for which an intervention was considered by pharmacists.MethodsAn intervention study was performed using a pre- and post-design in 20 community pharmacies in The Netherlands. All QT-DDIs that occurred during a before- and after-period of three months were included. The impact of the use of a CDS tool to support the handling of QT-DDIs was studied. For each QT-DDI, handling of the QT-DDI and patient characteristics were extracted from the pharmacy information system. Primary outcome was the proportion of QT-DDIs with an intervention. Secondary outcomes were the type of interventions and the time associated with handling QT-DDIs. Logistic regression analysis was used to analyse the primary outcome.ResultsTwo hundred and forty-four QT-DDIs pre-CDS tool and 157 QT-DDIs post-CDS tool were included. Pharmacists intervened in 43.0% and 35.7% of the QT-DDIs pre- and post-CDS tool respectively (odds ratio 0.74; 95% confidence interval 0.49-1.11). Substitution of interacting agents was the most frequent intervention. Pharmacists spent 20.8 ± 3.5 min (mean ± SD) on handling QT-DDIs pre-CDS tool, which was reduced to 14.9 ± 2.4 min (mean ± SD) post-CDS tool. Of these, 4.5 ± 0.7 min (mean ± SD) were spent on the CDS tool.ConclusionThe CDS tool might be a first step to developing a tool to manage QT-DDIs via a structured approach. Improvement of the tool is needed in order to increase its diagnostic value and reduce redundant QT-DDI alerts.Plain language summaryThe use of a tool to support the handling of QTc-prolonging drug interactions in community pharmacies Introduction: Several drugs have the ability to cause heart rhythm disturbances as a rare side effect. This rhythm disturbance is called QTc-interval prolongation. It may result in cardiac arrest. For health care professionals, such as physicians and pharmacists, it is difficult to decide whether or not it is safe to proceed treating a patient with combinations of two or more of these QT-prolonging drugs. Recently, a tool was developed that supports the risk management of these QT drug-drug interactions (QT-DDIs).Methods: In this study, we studied the effect of this tool on the proportion of QT-DDIs for which an intervention was considered by pharmacists. An intervention study was performed using a pre- and post-design in 20 community pharmacies in The Netherlands. All QT-DDIs that occurred during a before- and after-period of 3 months were included.Results: Two hundred and forty-four QT-DDIs pre-implementation of the tool and 157 QT-DDIs post-implementation of the tool were included. Pharmacists intervened in 43.0% of the QT-DDIs before the tool was implemented and in 35.7% after implementation of the tool. Substitution of one of the interacting agents was the most frequent intervention. Pharmacists spent less time on handling QT-DDIs when the tool was used.Conclusion: The clinical decision support tool might be a first step to developing a tool to manage QT-DDIs via a structured approach.

Project description:The HENVINET Health and Environment Network aimed to enhance the use of scientific knowledge in environmental health for policy making. One of the goals was to identify and evaluate Decision Support Tools (DST) in current use. Special attention was paid to four "priority" health issues: asthma and allergies, cancer, neurodevelopment disorders, and endocrine disruptors.We identified a variety of tools that are used for decision making at various levels and by various stakeholders. We developed a common framework for information acquisition about DSTs, translated this to a database structure and collected the information in an online Metadata Base (MDB).The primary product is an open access web-based MDB currently filled with 67 DSTs, accessible through the HENVINET networking portal http://www.henvinet.eu and http://henvinet.nilu.no. Quality assurance and control of the entries and evaluation of requirements to use the DSTs were also a focus of the work. The HENVINET DST MDB is an open product that enables the public to get basic information about the DSTs, and to search the DSTs using pre-designed attributes or free text. Registered users are able to 1) review and comment on existing DSTs; 2) evaluate each DST's functionalities, and 3) add new DSTs, or change the entry for their own DSTs. Assessment of the available 67 DSTs showed: 1) more than 25% of the DSTs address only one pollution source; 2) 25% of the DSTs address only one environmental stressor; 3) almost 50% of the DSTs are only applied to one disease; 4) 41% of the DSTs can only be applied to one decision making area; 5) 60% of the DSTs' results are used only by national authority and/or municipality/urban level administration; 6) almost half of the DSTs are used only by environmental professionals and researchers. This indicates that there is a need to develop DSTs covering an increasing number of pollution sources, environmental stressors and health end points, and considering links to other 'Driving forces-Pressures-State-Exposure-Effects-Actions' (DPSEEA) elements. Of interest to both researchers and decision makers should be the standardization of the way DSTs are described for easier access to the knowledge, and the identification of coverage gaps.

Dataset Information

Comparison of three commercial knowledge bases for detection of drug-drug interactions in clinical decision support.

Publications

Comparison of three commercial knowledge bases for detection of drug-drug interactions in clinical decision support.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets