Skip to main content
Log in

Clinical Relevance of Drug-Drug Interactions

A Structured Assessment Procedure

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
Drug Safety Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction: Computerised drug interaction surveillance systems (CIS) may be helpful in detecting clinically significant drug interactions. Experience with CIS reveals that they often yield alerts with questionable clinical significance, fail to provide relevant information on risk factors for the adverse reaction of the interaction and fail to detect all significant drug interactions. These problems highlight the importance of transparency and selectivity in choosing the drug interactions to be included in CIS. In The Netherlands, the Working Group on Pharmacotherapy and Drug Information is responsible for maintenance of the CIS of the Royal Dutch Association for the Advancement of Pharmacy (KNMP).

Methods: The Working Group developed an evidence-based procedure for structured assessment of drug-drug interactions and revised all drug interactions in the CIS accordingly.

Results: For every drug interaction four core parameters were assessed: (i) evidence on the interaction; (ii) clinical relevance of the potential adverse reaction resulting from the interaction; (iii) risk factors identifying patient, medication or disease characteristics for which the interaction is of special importance; and (iv) the incidence of the adverse reaction. On the basis of this assessment the drug-drug interactions for inclusion in the CIS were selected. After revision of the drug combinations in the KNMP-CIS, the Working Group judged 22% of the combinations to be not interacting and another 12% to be interacting but not requiring action.

On the basis of this assessment the subset of drug combinations for which interaction alerts are generated and the information on management of a drug interaction alert for users of the CIS were adapted. When an alert is generated by the CIS, the user of the system is supplied with comprehensive information on the four core parameters, the mechanism of the interaction and critical information for management of the interaction for the individual patient.

Discussion: This structured procedure offers the possibility for transparent and reproducible assessment of the clinical relevance of drug interactions.

Conclusion: A CIS selectively generating interaction alerts based on this assessment may help in realising the goal of good clinical practice and may offer a methodology to further increase drug safety.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Table I
Table II

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. A complete overview of the outcomes of the drug combinations assessment in the CIS is available as supplementary material from URL: http://www.adisonline.com/drs(table III, table IV and table V).

References

  1. Doucet J, Chassagne P, Trivalle C, et al. Drug-drug interactions related to hospital admissions in older adults: a prospective study of 1000 patients. J Am Geriatr Soc 1996 Aug; 44: 944–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Hamilton RA, Briceland LL, Andritz MH. Frequency of hospitalization after exposure to known drug-drug interactions in a Medicaid population. Pharmacotherapy 1998 Sep-Oct; 18: 1112–20

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. McDonnell PJ, Jacobs MR. Hospital admissions resulting from preventable adverse drug reactions. Ann Pharmacother 2002 Sep; 36: 1331–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Juurlink DN, Mamdani M, Kopp A, et al. Drug-drug interactions among elderly patients hospitalized for drug toxicity. JAMA 2003 Apr; 289: 1652–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Bjerrum L, Andersen M, Petersen G, et al. Exposure to potential drug interactions in primary health care. Scand J Prim Health Care 2003 Sep; 21: 153–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Jankel CA, Speedie SM. Detecting drug interactions: a review of the literature. Ann Pharmacother 1990 Oct; 24: 982–9

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Björkman IK, Fastbom J, Schmidt IK, et al. The Pharmaceutical Care of the Elderly in Europe Research (PEER) Group. Drug-drug interactions in the elderly. Ann Pharmacother 2002 Nov; 36: 1675–81

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bergendal L, Friberg A, Schaffrath A. Potential drug-drug interactions in 5125 mostly elderly out-patients in Gothenburg, Sweden. Pharm World Sci 1995 Sep; 17: 152–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Costa AJ. Potential drug interactions in an ambulatory geriatric population. Fam Pract 1991 Sep; 8: 234–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Rosholm JU, Bjerrum L, Hallas J, et al. Polypharmacy and the risk of drug-drug interactions among Danish elderly. Dan Med Bull 1998 Apr; 45: 210–3

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Guédon-Moreau L, Ducrocq D, Duc MF, et al. Absolute contraindications in relation to potential drug interactions in outpatient prescriptions: analysis of the first five million prescriptions in 1999. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2003 Oct; 59: 689–95

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Köhler GI, Böde-Boger SM, Busse R, et al. Drug-drug interactions in medical patients: effects of in-hospital treatment and relation to multiple drug use. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 2000 Nov; 38: 504–13

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Grönroos PE, Irjala KM, Huupponen RK, et al. A medication database: a tool for detecting drug interactions in hospital. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1997; 53: 13–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hansten PD, Horn JR. Drug interactions analysis and management. St Louis (MO): Facts & Comparisons, 2002

    Google Scholar 

  15. Stockley IH. Drug interactions: a source book of adverse interactions, their mechanisms, clinical importance and management. Oxford: Pharmaceutical Press, 2002

    Google Scholar 

  16. Klasko RK, editor. DRUGDEX system. 1st ed. Greenwood Village (CO): Thomson MICROMEDEX, 2003

    Google Scholar 

  17. Weideman RA, Bernstein IH, McKinney WP. Pharmacist recognition of potential drug interactions. Am J Health Syst Pharm 1999 Aug; 56: 1524–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Glassman PA, Simon B, Belperio P, et al. Improving recognition of drug interactions: benefits and barriers to using automated drug alerts. Med Care 2002 Dec; 40: 1161–71

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Bergk V, Gasse C, Rothenbacher D, et al. Drug interactions in primary care: impact of a new algorithm on risk determination. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2004 Jul; 76: 85–96

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Hansten PD. Drug interaction management. Pharm World Sci 2003 Jun; 25: 94–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Halkin H, Katzir I, Kurman I, et al. Preventing drug interactions by online prescription screening in community pharmacies and medical practices. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2001 Apr; 69: 260–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Barrons R. Evaluation of personal digital assistant software for drug interactions. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2004 Feb; 61: 380–5

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Magnus D, Rodgers S, Avery AJ. GPs’ views on computerized drug interaction alerts: questionnaire survey. J Clin Pharm Ther 2002 Oct; 27: 377–82

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Hazlet TK, Lee TA, Hansten PD, et al. Performance of community pharmacy drug interaction software. J Am Pharm Assoc 2001 Mar; 41: 200–4

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Chrischilles EA, Fulda TR, Byrns PJ, et al. The role of pharmacy computer systems in preventing medication errors. J Am Pharm Assoc 2002 May; 42: 439–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Roberts JS, Watrous ML, Schulz RM, et al. Quantifying the clinical significance of drug-drug interactions: scaling pharmacists’ perceptions of a common interaction classification scheme. Ann Pharmacother 1996 Sep; 30: 926–34

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Note for guidance on the investigation of drug interactions. London: EMEA/CPMP, 1997

  28. PubMed. Bethesda (MD): National Library of Medicine [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi [Accessed 2005 Aug 1]

  29. EMBASE: Drugs&pharmacology. New York: Elsevier Science BV, 2000

  30. Iowa Drug Information Service. Iowa City (IA): University of Iowa, 2004

  31. European Public Assessment Reports. London: European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal products [online]. Available from URL: http://www.emea.eu,int/pdfs/human/ewp/056095en.pdf [Accessed 2004 Jul 20]

  32. Sjöqvist F. FASS 2000: interaktion mellan läkemedel. Stockholm: LINFO Drug information Ltd, 2000: 1481–6

    Google Scholar 

  33. National Cancer Institute. Common toxicity criteria, v2.0 [online]. Available from URL: http://ctep.cancer.gov/reporting/ctc.html [Accessed 1999 Apr 30]

  34. Drug Information Center of the Scientific Institute Dutch Pharmacists. Informatorium Medicamentorum. The Hague: The Netherlands, 2004

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors have received no sources of funding that were used to assist in conducting this study. The authors have no potential conflicts of interest that may be directly relevant to the contents of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eric N. van Roon.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

van Roon, E.N., Flikweert, S., le Comte, M. et al. Clinical Relevance of Drug-Drug Interactions. Drug-Safety 28, 1131–1139 (2005). https://doi.org/10.2165/00002018-200528120-00007

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00002018-200528120-00007

Keywords

Navigation