Shariff Atiqulla, Belagodu Sridhar Sathvik, Abdullah Basha Neelu Farhath, Bin Taleth Alshemeil Shamma Sulaiman Hasan, Ahmed Aljallaf Alzaabi Noora Adel
Department of Clinical Pharmacy & Pharmacology, Ras Al Khaimah College of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Ras Al Khaimah Medical and Health Sciences University, Ras Al Khaimah, ARE.
Cureus. 2021 Mar 8;13(3):e13766. doi: 10.7759/cureus.13766.
Background Information related to drug-drug interactions (DDIs) varies significantly from one drug information (DI) resource to another. These variations pose challenges for healthcare professionals in making the right decisions regarding using some of the drug combinations in needy patients. The objective of this study was to review eight different DI resources for scope, completeness, and consistency of information related to DDIs. Methodology A total of eight DI resources, namely, Micromedex, Portable Electronic Physician Information Database, UpToDate, Medscape.com drug interaction checker, Drugs.com drug interaction checker, Stockley's Drug Interactions (ninth edition, 2010), Drug Interactions Analysis & Management: Facts and Comparisons 2014 (ninth edition, 2014), and the drug interaction appendix of the British National Formulary-76, were compared. Each DI resource was scored for scope by calculating the percentage of interactions that had an entry in each resource. A completeness score was calculated for each resource describing severity, clinical effects, mechanism, and DDI management. The consistency of the information was assessed using Fleiss Kappa (k) score estimated using ReCal3 0.1 (alpha) web service and Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 24. Results The scope score was the highest (100%) for UpToDate and Portable Electronic Physician Information Database, whereas the completeness score was the highest (100%) for Drug Interaction Analysis & Management: Facts and comparisons 2014. The inter-source reliability scores among the eight different DI sources were poor (k < 0.20, < 0.05) for documentation of information related to severity, clinical effects, mechanism, and management of DDIs. Conclusions Variations in the information cause uncertainty among healthcare professionals concerning interacting drug pairs in clinical practice. This may also increase the possibility of adverse drug outcomes when interacting drug pairs are used in at-risk patients. We recommend comprehensive preventive and management strategies for DDIs depending on a uniform scale of severity and clinical effects across various DI resources.
背景 与药物相互作用(DDIs)相关的信息在不同的药物信息(DI)资源中差异很大。这些差异给医疗保健专业人员在为有需要的患者使用某些药物组合做出正确决策时带来了挑战。本研究的目的是审查八种不同的DI资源,以了解与DDIs相关信息的范围、完整性和一致性。方法 总共比较了八种DI资源,即Micromedex、便携式电子医师信息数据库、UpToDate、Medscape.com药物相互作用检查器、Drugs.com药物相互作用检查器、《斯托克利药物相互作用》(第九版,2010年)、《药物相互作用分析与管理:事实与比较2014》(第九版,2014年)以及英国国家处方集 - 76的药物相互作用附录。通过计算每种资源中具有条目的相互作用的百分比来对每个DI资源的范围进行评分。为每个资源计算一个完整性分数,描述严重程度、临床效果、机制和DDI管理。使用通过ReCal3 0.1(alpha)网络服务和社会科学统计软件包第24版估计的Fleiss Kappa(k)分数来评估信息的一致性。结果 UpToDate和便携式电子医师信息数据库的范围分数最高(100%),而《药物相互作用分析与管理:事实与比较2014》的完整性分数最高(100%)。对于与DDIs的严重程度、临床效果、机制和管理相关信息的记录,八种不同DI来源之间的源间可靠性分数较差(k < 0.20,P < 0.05)。结论 信息的差异导致医疗保健专业人员在临床实践中对相互作用的药物对存在不确定性。当在高危患者中使用相互作用的药物对时,这也可能增加药物不良后果的可能性。我们建议根据各种DI资源统一的严重程度和临床效果量表制定全面的DDIs预防和管理策略。