Dataset Information

Clinical Utility of Definitive Drug?Drug Interaction Testing in Primary Care.

ABSTRACT: Drug?drug interactions (DDIs) are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. New tools are needed to improve identification and treatment of DDIs. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to assess the clinical utility of a new test to identify DDIs and improve their management. Primary care physicians (PCPs) cared for simulated patients presenting with DDI symptoms from commonly prescribed medications and other ingestants. All physicians, in either control or one of two intervention groups, cared for six patients over two rounds of assessment. Intervention physicians were educated on the DDI test and given access to these test reports when caring for their patients in the second round. At baseline, we saw no significant differences in making the DDI diagnosis (p = 0.071) or DDI-related treatment (p = 0.640) between control and intervention arms. By round two, providers who accessed the DDI test performed significantly better in making the DDI diagnosis (+41.6%) and performing DDI-specific treatment (+12.2%) than in the previous round, and were 9.8 and 20.4 times more likely to diagnose and identify the DDI (p < 0.001 for all). The introduction of a definitive DDI test significantly increased identification, appropriate management, and counseling of DDIs among PCPs, which has the potential to improve clinical care.

SUBMITTER: Peabody J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6262337 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Clinical Utility of Definitive Drug⁻Drug Interaction Testing in Primary Care.

Peabody John J Tran Mary M Paculdo David D Schrecker Joshua J Valdenor Czarlota C Jeter Elaine E

Journal of clinical medicine 20181025 11

Drug⁻drug interactions (DDIs) are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. New tools are needed to improve identification and treatment of DDIs. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to assess the clinical utility of a new test to identify DDIs and improve their management. Primary care physicians (PCPs) cared for simulated patients presenting with DDI symptoms from commonly prescribed medications and other ingestants. All physicians, in either control or one of two intervention groups, ...[more]

PMID: 30366371

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and objectiveAegis Sciences Corporation developed a test (InterACT Rx™) that objectively and definitively identifies substances known to interact with drug-drug interaction-prone medications commonly prescribed in the treatment of chronic pain and behavioral health disorders. The objective of this study was to assess the severity of identified drug-drug interactions, the reduction in the frequency and severity of identified drug-drug interactions, and the impact of the test on healthcare utilization.MethodsPatients with chronic pain, behavioral health disorders, or both who had one or more drug-drug interaction tests and one or more drug-drug interactions identified in the study period were included. Drug-drug interaction test results described the number and severity of interactions and detected substances involved in drug-drug interactions. Patients' electronic medical records were obtained to analyze outpatient visits and prescription medications. The cost of outpatient visits was based on the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule. Outcomes were compared between the pre- and post-study index periods to determine the impact of the drug-drug interaction test on patient care.ResultsA total of 262 patients were included. The majority of drug-drug interactions detected (77.9%) at index were of moderate severity. The number of monthly all-cause and pain-related outpatient visits was reduced in the post-index period compared with the pre-index period (0.74-0.54 and 0.69-0.49, respectively). Associated costs were reduced from US$64.92 to US$51.20, and from US$62.42 to US$47.62, (p < 0.0001 for both) for all-cause and pain-related outpatient visits, respectively. Follow-up drug-drug interaction testing for 43 patients revealed that previously reported drug-drug interactions at the index test were no longer identified in the subsequent test for 39.5% of patients.ConclusionsEmploying a definitive test to detect substances whose interactions may cause adverse drug events can enhance a provider's insights, drive clinical decision making, and improve patient outcomes.

Project description:Drug-drug interactions (DDIs) are a serious problem in the healthcare system, leading to excess healthcare utilization and costs. We conducted a second prospective randomized, controlled trial to further establish the real-world clinical utility of a novel assay that objectively identifies potentially serious DDIs in real-world patients. Re-recruiting primary care physicians (PCPs) from our first randomized, controlled, simulated-patients study on DDIs, we experimentally introduced a definitive, urine-based mass spectrometry test intervention that the physicians could use when caring for their eligible patients. Patients were eligible if taking four or more prescription medications or suspected of taking other non-prescribed substances with potential medication interactions. The primary outcome was whether DDI testing changed clinical care. We explored a secondary outcome to see if the change in practice improved symptoms in patients with potential DDIs. A total of 169 control and 162 intervention patients were enrolled in the study, and their medical records were abstracted. In real-world patients, intervention physicians identified and/or treated a DDI at 3.0x the rate in their patient population compared to controls (21.6% vs. 7.1%, p < 0.001). Intervention physicians were more likely to discontinue or adjust the interacting agent compared to controls (62.9% vs. 8.3%, p = 0.001), and patient-reported symptoms also significantly declined (29.6% vs. 20.1%, p = 0.045). These results were nearly identical to concurrent measurements that used simulated patients, wherein intervention was more likely to both make a DDI diagnosis (56.3% vs. 21.6%, p < 0.001) and stop the interacting medications (58.3% versus 26.6%, p < 0.001). Bringing a new diagnostic test to market, particularly for an under-recognized clinical problem, requires robust data on both clinical validity and clinical utility. The results of this follow-up study showed that the use of DDI testing in real-world patients significantly improved (1) primary care patient management of drug interactions and (2) patient outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundUrine drug testing (UDT) is an essential tool to monitor opioid misuse among patients on chronic opioid therapy. Inaccurate interpretation of UDT can have deleterious consequences. Providers' ability to accurately interpret and document UDT, particularly definitive liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) results, has not been widely studied.ObjectiveTo examine whether providers correctly interpret, document, and communicate LC-MS/MS UDT results.DesignThis is a retrospective chart review of 160 UDT results (80 aberrant; 80 non-aberrant) between August 2017 and February 2018 from 5 ambulatory clinics (3 primary care, 1 oncology, 1 pain management). Aberrant results were classified into one or more of the following categories: illicit drug use, simulated compliance, not taking prescribed medication, and taking a medication not prescribed. Accurate result interpretation was defined as concordance between the provider's documented interpretation and an expert laboratory toxicologist's interpretation. Outcome measures were concordance between provider and laboratory interpretation of UDT results, documentation of UDT results, results acknowledgement in the electronic health record, communication of results to the patient, and rate of prescription refills.Key resultsAberrant results were most frequently due to illicit drug use. Overall, only 88 of the 160 (55%) had any documented provider interpretations of which 25/88 (28%) were discordant with the laboratory toxicologist's interpretation. Thirty-six of the 160 (23%) documented communication of the results to the patient. Communicating results was more likely to be documented if the results were aberrant compared with non-aberrant (33/80 [41%] vs. 3/80 [4%], p?<?0.001). In all cases where provider interpretations were discordant with the laboratory interpretation, prescriptions were refilled.ConclusionsErroneous provider interpretation of UDT results, infrequent documentation of interpretation, lack of communication of results to patients, and prescription refills despite inaccurate interpretations are common. Expert assistance with urine toxicology interpretations may be needed to improve provider accuracy when interpreting toxicology results.

Dataset Information

Clinical Utility of Definitive Drug?Drug Interaction Testing in Primary Care.

Publications

Clinical Utility of Definitive Drug⁻Drug Interaction Testing in Primary Care.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure