Validation of a transparent decision model to rate drug interactions

BMC Clinical Pharmacology

Marco Egbring¹  Gerd-A Kullak-Ublick¹  Wilhelm Kirch²  Michael Dietrich³  Isabelle Egloff¹  Malgorzata Roos⁴  Kelly Byrne¹  Ivanka Curkovic¹  Elmira Far¹ 

[1]Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, University Hospital Zurich, Rämistrasse 100, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland

[2]Institute of Clinical Pharmacology, Medical Faculty Technical University of Dresden, Fiedlerstrasse 27, D - 01307, Dresden, Germany

[3]Department of Orthopaedic, Balgrist University Hospital, Forchstrasse 340, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland

[4]Division of Biostatistics, ISPM, University Zurich, Hirschengraben 8, 8001, Zurich, Switzerland

关键词: Epha.ch;    Mmx;    Model;    Decision;    Interaction;    Drug;    Validation;    Severity;    Algorithm;   

Others  :  860742
DOI  :  10.1186/2050-6511-13-7

 received in 2012-01-30, accepted in 2012-07-30,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

Multiple databases provide ratings of drug-drug interactions. The ratings are often based on different criteria and lack background information on the decision making process. User acceptance of rating systems could be improved by providing a transparent decision path for each category.

Methods

We rated 200 randomly selected potential drug-drug interactions by a transparent decision model developed by our team. The cases were generated from ward round observations and physicians’ queries from an outpatient setting. We compared our ratings to those assigned by a senior clinical pharmacologist and by a standard interaction database, and thus validated the model.

Results

The decision model rated consistently with the standard database and the pharmacologist in 94 and 156 cases, respectively. In two cases the model decision required correction. Following removal of systematic model construction differences, the DM was fully consistent with other rating systems.

Conclusion

The decision model reproducibly rates interactions and elucidates systematic differences. We propose to supply validated decision paths alongside the interaction rating to improve comprehensibility and to enable physicians to interpret the ratings in a clinical context.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Far et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Bates DW, Spell N, Cullen DJ, Burdick E, Laird N, Petersen LA, Small SD, Sweitzer BJ, Leape LL: The costs of adverse drug events in hospitalized patients. Adverse Drug Events Prevention Study Group. JAMA 1997, 277(4):307-311.
• [2]Juurlink D, Mamdani M, Iazzetta J, Etchells E: Avoiding drug interactions in hospitalized patients. Healthc Q 2004, 7(2):27-28.
• [3]Krahenbuhl-Melcher A, Schlienger R, Lampert M, Haschke M, Drewe J, Krahenbuhl S: Drug-related problems in hospitals: a review of the recent literature. Drug safety: an international journal of medical toxicology and drug experience 2007, 30(5):379-407.
• [4]Zwart-van Rijkom JE, Uijtendaal EV, ten Berg MJ, van Solinge WW, Egberts AC: Frequency and nature of drug-drug interactions in a Dutch university hospital. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2009, 68(2):187-193.
• [5]Bates DW, Leape LL, Cullen DJ, Laird N, Petersen LA, Teich JM, Burdick E, Hickey M, Kleefield S, Shea B, et al.: Effect of computerized physician order entry and a team intervention on prevention of serious medication errors. JAMA 1998, 280(15):1311-1316.
• [6]Garg AX, Adhikari NK, McDonald H, Rosas-Arellano MP, Devereaux PJ, Beyene J, Sam J, Haynes RB: Effects of computerized clinical decision support systems on practitioner performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review. JAMA 2005, 293(10):1223-1238.
• [7]Hansten PD, Horn JR, Hazlet TK: ORCA: Operational Classification of drug interactions. J Am Pharm Assoc (Wash) 2001, 41(2):161-165.
• [8]Bergk V, Gasse C, Rothenbacher D, Loew M, Brenner H, Haefeli WE: Drug interactions in primary care: impact of a new algorithm on risk determination. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2004, 76(1):85-96.
• [9]Guzek MZO, Semmler A, Gonzenbach R, Huber M, Kullak-Ublick GA, Weller M, Russmann S: Evaluation of Drug Interactions and Dosing in 484 Neurological Inpatients Using Clinical Decision Support Software and an Extended Operational Interactions Classification System (ZHIAS). Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2011. in press
• [10]Frolich T, Zorina O, Fontana AO, Kullak-Ublick GA, Vollenweider A, Russmann S: Evaluation of medication safety in the discharge medication of 509 surgical inpatients using electronic prescription support software and an extended operational interaction classification. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2011, 67(12):1273-1282.
• [11]Vitry AI: Comparative assessment of four drug interaction compendia. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2007, 63(6):709-714.
• [12]Chan A, Tan SH, Wong CM, Yap KY, Ko Y: Clinically significant drug-drug interactions between oral anticancer agents and nonanticancer agents: a Delphi survey of oncology pharmacists. Clin Ther 2009, 31(Pt 2):2379-2386.
• [13]Olvey EL, Clauschee S, Malone DC: Comparison of critical drug-drug interaction listings: the Department of Veterans Affairs medical system and standard reference compendia. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2010, 87(1):48-51.
• [14]Fulda TR: Disagreement among drug compendia on inclusion and ratings of drug-drug interactions. Curr Ther Res 2000, 61(8):540-548.
• [15]Horn JR: Reducing Drug Interactions Alerts: Not So Easy. Available at http://www.hanstenandhorn.com/hh-article06-07.pdf webcite
• [16]Drug-Reax System: Micromedex Healthcare Series (database on CD-ROM) Version 5.1. Thomson Reuters (Healthcare) Inc, Greenwood Village, Colorado; 2007.
• [17]Pharmavista Interactions 2010. Available at: http://www.pharmavista.ch webcite
• [18]Hansten PD, Horn JR (Eds): Drug Interactions Analysis and Management. Facts & Comparisons, St.Louis, MO; 2011.
• [19]Baxter K (Ed): Stockley’s drug interactions. 8th edition. Pharmaceutical Press, London; 2009.
• [20]Tollefson G, Lesar T, Grothe D, Garvey M: Alprazolam-related digoxin toxicity. Am J Psychiatry 1984, 141(12):1612-1613.
• [21]Ochs HR, Greenblatt DJ, Verburg-Ochs B: Effect of alprazolam on digoxin kinetics and creatinine clearance. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1985, 38(5):595-598.
• [22]Hansten PD: Drug interaction management. Pharm World Sci 2003, 25(3):94-97.
• [23]Isaac T, Weissman JS, Davis RB, Massagli M, Cyrulik A, Sands DZ, Weingart SN: Overrides of medication alerts in ambulatory care. Arch Intern Med 2009, 169(3):305-311.
• [24]Smithburger PL, Buckley MS, Bejian S, Burenheide K, Kane-Gill SL: A critical evaluation of clinical decision support for the detection of drug-drug interactions. Expert Opin Drug Saf 2011, 10(6):871-882.
• [25]van Roon EN, Flikweert S, le Comte M, Langendijk PN, Kwee-Zuiderwijk WJ, Smits P, Brouwers JR: Clinical relevance of drug-drug interactions: a structured assessment procedure. Drug safety: an international journal of medical toxicology and drug experience 2005, 28(12):1131-1139.
• [26]Altman D: Practical statistics for medical research. Chapman & Hall, London; 1991.
• [27]Wilson EB: Probable inference, the law of succession, and statistical inference. JASA 1927, 22:209-212.
• [28]Larkin JH, Simon HA: Why a Diagram is (Sometimes) Worth Ten Thousand Words. Cogn Sci 1987, 11(1):65-100.
• [29]Weingart SN, Seger AC, Feola N, Heffernan J, Schiff G, Isaac T: Electronic drug interaction alerts in ambulatory care: the value and acceptance of high-value alerts in US medical practices as assessed by an expert clinical panel. Drug safety: an international journal of medical toxicology and drug experience 2011, 34(7):587-593.
• [30]Seidling HM, Phansalkar S, Seger DL, Paterno MD, Shaykevich S, Haefeli WE, Bates DW: Factors influencing alert acceptance: a novel approach for predicting the success of clinical decision support. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association: JAMIA 2011, 18(4):479-484.