Wu Yi Zheng1, L C Richardson2, L Li2, R O Day3,4, J I Westbrook2, M T Baysari2,4. 1. Centre for Health Systems and Safety Research, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Macquarie University, Level 6, 75 Talavera Road, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia. wuyi.zheng@mq.edu.au. 2. Centre for Health Systems and Safety Research, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Macquarie University, Level 6, 75 Talavera Road, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia. 3. Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, St Vincent's Hospital, Darlinghurst, Australia. 4. St Vincent's Clinical School, UNSW, Darlinghurst, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Drug-drug interactions (DDIs) are often avoidable and, if undetected, can lead to patient harm. This review aimed to determine the prevalence of potential DDIs (pDDIs), clinically relevant DDIs (DDIs that could lead to measurable patient harm, taking into account the patient's individual clinical profile) and DDIs that resulted in actual patient harm during hospitalisation. METHOD: Four databases were scanned for English papers published from 2000 to 2016. Papers that reported prevalence of DDIs in the outpatient setting, at admission or discharge, involving only specific drugs, or in specific disease populations or age groups were excluded. RESULTS: Twenty-seven papers met the inclusion criteria and were graded for quality using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) cohort study checklist. Ten papers were rated as 'poor', 14 as 'fair' and only three papers as 'good'. Overall, the meta-analysis revealed that 33% of general patients and 67% of intensive care patients experienced a pDDI during their hospital stay. It was not possible to determine the prevalence of clinically relevant DDIs or DDIs that resulted in actual patient harm as data on these categories were limited. Of the very few studies that reported on harm, only a small proportion of DDIs were found to have resulted in actual patient harm. CONCLUSIONS: Standardisation of DDI definitions and research methods are required to allow meaningful prevalence rates to be obtained and compared. Studies that go further than measuring pDDIs are critically needed to determine the impact of DDIs on patient safety.
PURPOSE: Drug-drug interactions (DDIs) are often avoidable and, if undetected, can lead to patient harm. This review aimed to determine the prevalence of potential DDIs (pDDIs), clinically relevant DDIs (DDIs that could lead to measurable patient harm, taking into account the patient's individual clinical profile) and DDIs that resulted in actual patient harm during hospitalisation. METHOD: Four databases were scanned for English papers published from 2000 to 2016. Papers that reported prevalence of DDIs in the outpatient setting, at admission or discharge, involving only specific drugs, or in specific disease populations or age groups were excluded. RESULTS: Twenty-seven papers met the inclusion criteria and were graded for quality using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) cohort study checklist. Ten papers were rated as 'poor', 14 as 'fair' and only three papers as 'good'. Overall, the meta-analysis revealed that 33% of general patients and 67% of intensive care patients experienced a pDDI during their hospital stay. It was not possible to determine the prevalence of clinically relevant DDIs or DDIs that resulted in actual patient harm as data on these categories were limited. Of the very few studies that reported on harm, only a small proportion of DDIs were found to have resulted in actual patient harm. CONCLUSIONS: Standardisation of DDI definitions and research methods are required to allow meaningful prevalence rates to be obtained and compared. Studies that go further than measuring pDDIs are critically needed to determine the impact of DDIs on patient safety.
Authors: Adam Wright; Joshua Feblowitz; Shobha Phansalkar; Jialin Liu; Allison Wilcox; Carol A Keohane; Diane L Seger; Meryl Bloomrosen; Gilad J Kuperman; David W Bates Journal: Am J Health Syst Pharm Date: 2012-02-01 Impact factor: 2.637
Authors: Carlos Chiatti; Silvia Bustacchini; Gianluca Furneri; Lorenzo Mantovani; Marco Cristiani; Clementina Misuraca; Fabrizia Lattanzio Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 5.606
Authors: David C Radley; Melanie R Wasserman; Lauren Ew Olsho; Sarah J Shoemaker; Mark D Spranca; Bethany Bradshaw Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2013-02-20 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Alfredo Jose Pardo-Cabello; Victoria Manzano-Gamero; Esperanza Del Pozo; Francisco Javier Gómez Jiménez; Juan de Dios Luna; Emilio Puche Cañas Journal: Intern Emerg Med Date: 2018-10-24 Impact factor: 3.397
Authors: Mary Grace Fitzmaurice; Adrian Wong; Hannah Akerberg; Simona Avramovska; Pamela L Smithburger; Mitchell S Buckley; Sandra L Kane-Gill Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2019-09 Impact factor: 5.606