Mary Grace Fitzmaurice1, Adrian Wong1,2, Hannah Akerberg1, Simona Avramovska1, Pamela L Smithburger1,3, Mitchell S Buckley4, Sandra L Kane-Gill5,6. 1. Department of Pharmacy and Therapeutics, University of Pittsburgh, 303 Baum, 4B- 4, 5607, Baum Boulevard, Pittsburgh, PA, 15206, USA. 2. Department of Pharmacy and Therapeutics, MCPHS University, 179 Longwood Avenue, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Department of Pharmacy, UPMC Presbyterian, 200 Lothrop Street, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 4. Department of Pharmacy, Banner-University Medical Center Phoenix, 1111 E. McDowell Road, Phoenix, AZ, USA. 5. Department of Pharmacy, UPMC Presbyterian, 200 Lothrop Street, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. kane-gill@pitt.edu. 6. Department of Pharmacy and Therapeutics, Critical Care Medicine, Biomedical Informatics and Clinical Translational Science Institute, University of Pittsburgh, 638 Salk Hall, 3501 Terrace Street, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA. kane-gill@pitt.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There is an increased risk of potential drug-drug interactions (pDDIs) in critically ill patients based on the number of drugs received. The occurrence of pDDIs and clinical significance is not well described. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to provide insight into important clinical issues and offer guidance on drug-drug interaction (DDI) surveillance through the performance of a systematic review. METHODS: Five targeted objectives were developed, a priori, which guided study selection and data abstraction. Two independent reviewers extracted the definition, frequency, type, and clinical significance of pDDIs. A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the proportion of patients exposed to a pDDI. Three data sources (PubMed, Embase, and Scopus) were utilized for the search to include studies that evaluated pDDIs in adult critically ill patients. Included studies in the systematic review and meta-analysis were required to be full text. RESULTS: A total of 39 studies met inclusion criteria. Definitions of pDDIs were diverse. Frequency of pDDIs varied by study, but was most commonly between one and five pDDIs per patient. Fifty-eight percent of patients were exposed to at least one pDDI during their intensive care unit admission. Types of pDDIs identified were numerous, with aspirin being the most common drug involved. As expected, not all pDDIs were clinically significant. Clinical significance was determined by varied definitions and sources. CONCLUSIONS: Improving the understanding of clinically significant pDDIs and alerts that clinicians encounter may guide better development of surveillance through clinical decision support and decrease alert fatigue.
INTRODUCTION: There is an increased risk of potential drug-drug interactions (pDDIs) in critically illpatients based on the number of drugs received. The occurrence of pDDIs and clinical significance is not well described. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to provide insight into important clinical issues and offer guidance on drug-drug interaction (DDI) surveillance through the performance of a systematic review. METHODS: Five targeted objectives were developed, a priori, which guided study selection and data abstraction. Two independent reviewers extracted the definition, frequency, type, and clinical significance of pDDIs. A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the proportion of patients exposed to a pDDI. Three data sources (PubMed, Embase, and Scopus) were utilized for the search to include studies that evaluated pDDIs in adult critically illpatients. Included studies in the systematic review and meta-analysis were required to be full text. RESULTS: A total of 39 studies met inclusion criteria. Definitions of pDDIs were diverse. Frequency of pDDIs varied by study, but was most commonly between one and five pDDIs per patient. Fifty-eight percent of patients were exposed to at least one pDDI during their intensive care unit admission. Types of pDDIs identified were numerous, with aspirin being the most common drug involved. As expected, not all pDDIs were clinically significant. Clinical significance was determined by varied definitions and sources. CONCLUSIONS: Improving the understanding of clinically significant pDDIs and alerts that clinicians encounter may guide better development of surveillance through clinical decision support and decrease alert fatigue.
Authors: Marjan Askari; Saied Eslami; Mathijs Louws; Dave Dongelmans; Peter Wierenga; Rob Kuiper; Ameen Abu-Hanna Journal: Stud Health Technol Inform Date: 2012
Authors: Thilo Bertsche; Johannes Pfaff; Petra Schiller; Jens Kaltschmidt; Markus G Pruszydlo; Wolfgang Stremmel; Ingeborg Walter-Sack; Walter E Haefeli; Jens Encke Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2010-02-09 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Eun Kyoung Ahn; Hye Jin Kam; Dong Kyun Park; Eun Young Jung; Youngho Lee; Rae Woong Park Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2014-02-21 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: R Scott Evans; James F Lloyd; Gregory J Stoddard; Jonathan R Nebeker; Matthew H Samore Journal: Ann Pharmacother Date: 2005-05-16 Impact factor: 3.154
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
Authors: Yu Ko; Daniel C Malone; Grant H Skrepnek; Edward P Armstrong; John E Murphy; Jacob Abarca; Rick A Rehfeld; Sally J Reel; Raymond L Woosley Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2008 Impact factor: 5.606
Authors: Adrian Wong; Mary Grace Fitzmaurice; Pamela L Smithburger; Mitchell S Buckley; Sandra L Kane-Gill Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 5.606
Authors: Elisangela da Costa Lima; Barbara Dias Camarinha; Nathalia Cristina Ferreira Bezerra; Anderson Gonçalves Panisset; Raquel Belmino de Souza; Marcus Tolentino Silva; Luciane Cruz Lopes Journal: Front Pharmacol Date: 2020-12-03 Impact factor: 5.810
Authors: Tinka Bakker; Dave A Dongelmans; Ehsan Nabovati; Saeid Eslami; Nicolette F de Keizer; Ameen Abu-Hanna; Joanna E Klopotowska Journal: J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2022-02-21 Impact factor: 2.860