BACKGROUND: Healthcare organizations, compendia, and drug knowledgebase vendors use varying methods to evaluate and synthesize evidence on drug-drug interactions (DDIs). This situation has a negative effect on electronic prescribing and medication information systems that warn clinicians of potentially harmful medication combinations. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to provide recommendations for systematic evaluation of evidence for DDIs from the scientific literature, drug product labeling, and regulatory documents. METHODS: A conference series was conducted to develop a structured process to improve the quality of DDI alerting systems. Three expert workgroups were assembled to address the goals of the conference. The Evidence Workgroup consisted of 18 individuals with expertise in pharmacology, drug information, biomedical informatics, and clinical decision support. Workgroup members met via webinar 12 times from January 2013 to February 2014. Two in-person meetings were conducted in May and September 2013 to reach consensus on recommendations. RESULTS: We developed expert consensus answers to the following three key questions. (i) What is the best approach to evaluate DDI evidence? (ii) What evidence is required for a DDI to be applicable to an entire class of drugs? (iii) How should a structured evaluation process be vetted and validated? CONCLUSION: Evidence-based decision support for DDIs requires consistent application of transparent and systematic methods to evaluate the evidence. Drug compendia and clinical decision support systems in which these recommendations are implemented should be able to provide higher-quality information about DDIs.
BACKGROUND: Healthcare organizations, compendia, and drug knowledgebase vendors use varying methods to evaluate and synthesize evidence on drug-drug interactions (DDIs). This situation has a negative effect on electronic prescribing and medication information systems that warn clinicians of potentially harmful medication combinations. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to provide recommendations for systematic evaluation of evidence for DDIs from the scientific literature, drug product labeling, and regulatory documents. METHODS: A conference series was conducted to develop a structured process to improve the quality of DDI alerting systems. Three expert workgroups were assembled to address the goals of the conference. The Evidence Workgroup consisted of 18 individuals with expertise in pharmacology, drug information, biomedical informatics, and clinical decision support. Workgroup members met via webinar 12 times from January 2013 to February 2014. Two in-person meetings were conducted in May and September 2013 to reach consensus on recommendations. RESULTS: We developed expert consensus answers to the following three key questions. (i) What is the best approach to evaluate DDI evidence? (ii) What evidence is required for a DDI to be applicable to an entire class of drugs? (iii) How should a structured evaluation process be vetted and validated? CONCLUSION: Evidence-based decision support for DDIs requires consistent application of transparent and systematic methods to evaluate the evidence. Drug compendia and clinical decision support systems in which these recommendations are implemented should be able to provide higher-quality information about DDIs.
Authors: David Atkins; Dana Best; Peter A Briss; Martin Eccles; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Signe Flottorp; Gordon H Guyatt; Robin T Harbour; Margaret C Haugh; David Henry; Suzanne Hill; Roman Jaeschke; Gillian Leng; Alessandro Liberati; Nicola Magrini; James Mason; Philippa Middleton; Jacek Mrukowicz; Dianne O'Connell; Andrew D Oxman; Bob Phillips; Holger J Schünemann; Tessa Tan-Torres Edejer; Helena Varonen; Gunn E Vist; John W Williams; Stephanie Zaza Journal: BMJ Date: 2004-06-19
Authors: C A Naranjo; U Busto; E M Sellers; P Sandor; I Ruiz; E A Roberts; E Janecek; C Domecq; D J Greenblatt Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 1981-08 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Hanna M Seidling; Ulrike Klein; Matthias Schaier; David Czock; Dirk Theile; Markus G Pruszydlo; Jens Kaltschmidt; Gerd Mikus; Walter E Haefeli Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2014-01-13 Impact factor: 4.046
Authors: Katsiaryna Bykov; Sebastian Schneeweiss; Robert J Glynn; Murray A Mittleman; David W Bates; Joshua J Gagne Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2017-10 Impact factor: 5.606
Authors: Julia Amkreutz; Alexander Koch; Lukas Buendgens; Anja Muehlfeld; Christian Trautwein; Albrecht Eisert Journal: Int J Clin Pharm Date: 2017-08-19
Authors: Serkan Ayvaz; John Horn; Oktie Hassanzadeh; Qian Zhu; Johann Stan; Nicholas P Tatonetti; Santiago Vilar; Mathias Brochhausen; Matthias Samwald; Majid Rastegar-Mojarad; Michel Dumontier; Richard D Boyce Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2015-04-24 Impact factor: 6.317