Comparison of potential drug-drug interactions with metabolic syndrome medications detected by two databases

English version

Autoři: Bovornpat Suriyapakorn ^aff001; Pun Chairat ^aff002; Suwanan Boonyoprakarn ^aff003; Pimonwan Rojanarattanangkul ^aff003; Wassana Pisetcheep ^aff003; Natthaphon Hunsakunachai ^aff003; Pornpun Vivithanaporn ^aff004; Supakit Wongwiwatthananukit ^aff006; Phisit Khemawoot ^aff007
Působiště autorů: Department of Pharmacy Practice, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand ^aff001; Osotsala the Community Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand ^aff002; Department of Pharmacology and Physiology, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand ^aff003; Department of Pharmacology, Faculty of Science, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand ^aff004; Chakri Naruebodindra Medical Institute, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodhi Hospital, Mahidol University, Samutprakarn, Thailand ^aff005; Department of Pharmacy Practice, Daniel K. Inouye College of Pharmacy, University of Hawai’i, Hilo, Hawaii, United States of America ^aff006; Department of Biochemistry and Microbiology, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand ^aff007; Preclinical Pharmacokinetics and Interspecies Scaling for Drug Development Research Unit, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand ^aff008
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(11)
Kategorie: Research Article
prolekare.web.journal.doi_sk: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225239

Souhrn

Background

Drug-drug interactions (DDIs) are one of the most common drug-related problems. Recently, electronic databases have drug interaction tools to search for potential DDIs, for example, Micromedex and Drugs.com. However, Micromedex and Drugs.com have different abilities in detecting potential DDIs, and this might cause misinformation to occur between patients and health care providers.

Methods and findings

The aim of this study was to compare the ability of Micromedex and Drugs.com to detect potential DDIs with metabolic syndrome medications using the drug list from the U-central database, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital in April 2019. There were 90 available drugs for the treatment of the metabolic syndrome and its associated complications, but six were not found in the Micromedex and Drugs.com databases; therefore, only 84 items were used in the present study. There were 1,285 potential DDI pairs found by the two databases. Micromedex reported DDIs of 724 pairs, while, Drugs.com reported 1,122 pairs. For the severity of the potential DDI reports, the same severity occurred between the two databases of 481 pairs (37.43%) and a different severity for 804 pairs (62.57%).

Conclusion

Drugs.com had a higher sensitivity to detect potential DDIs by approximately 1.5-fold, but Micromedex supplied more informative documentation for the severity classification. Therefore, pharmacists should use at least two databases to evaluate potential DDIs and determine the appropriate drug regimens for physician communications and patient consultations.

Klíčová slova:

Health care providers – Drug therapy – Drugs – Diuretics – Metabolic syndrome – Drug-drug interactions – Drug interactions – Pharmacodynamics

Zdroje

1. Saklayen MG. The Global Epidemic of the Metabolic Syndrome. Curr Hypertens Rep. 2018;20(2):12. doi: 10.1007/s11906-018-0812-z 29480368

2. O'Neill S, O'Driscoll L. Metabolic syndrome: a closer look at the growing epidemic and its associated pathologies. Obes Rev. 2015;16(1):1–12. doi: 10.1111/obr.12229 25407540

3. Bundhamcharoen K, Odton P, Phulkerd S, Tangcharoensathien V. Burden of disease in Thailand: changes in health gap between 1999 and 2004. BMC Public Health. 2011;11:53. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-53 21266087

4. National Cholesterol Education Program Expert Panel on Detection E, Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in A. Third Report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III) final report. Circulation. 2002;106(25):3143–421. 12485966

5. Grundy SM, Brewer HB Jr., Cleeman JI, Smith SC Jr., Lenfant C, American Heart A, et al. Definition of metabolic syndrome: Report of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute/American Heart Association conference on scientific issues related to definition. Circulation. 2004;109(3):433–8. doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000111245.75752.C6 14744958

6. Grundy SM. Metabolic syndrome: connecting and reconciling cardiovascular and diabetes worlds. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;47(6):1093–100. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2005.11.046 16545636

7. Alberti KG, Eckel RH, Grundy SM, Zimmet PZ, Cleeman JI, Donato KA, et al. Harmonizing the metabolic syndrome: a joint interim statement of the International Diabetes Federation Task Force on Epidemiology and Prevention; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; American Heart Association; World Heart Federation; International Atherosclerosis Society; and International Association for the Study of Obesity. Circulation. 2009;120(16):1640–5. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.192644 19805654

8. Ersoy S, Engin VS. Risk factors for polypharmacy in older adults in a primary care setting: a cross-sectional study. Clin Interv Aging. 2018;13:2003–11. doi: 10.2147/CIA.S176329 30410317

9. Menditto E, Gimeno Miguel A, Moreno Juste A, Poblador Plou B, Aza Pascual-Salcedo M, Orlando V, et al. Patterns of multimorbidity and polypharmacy in young and adult population: Systematic associations among chronic diseases and drugs using factor analysis. PLoS One. 2019;14(2):e0210701. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0210701 30726245

10. Dechanont S, Maphanta S, Butthum B, Kongkaew C. Hospital admissions/visits associated with drug-drug interactions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2014;23(5):489–97. doi: 10.1002/pds.3592 24616171

11. Reimche L, Forster AJ, van Walraven C. Incidence and contributors to potential drug-drug interactions in hospitalized patients. J Clin Pharmacol. 2011;51(7):1043–50. doi: 10.1177/0091270010378858 20926752

12. Micromedex.com. http://micromedex.com/about-micromedex. Accessed January 9, 2017.

13. Drugs.com. https://www.drugs.com/support/about.html. Accessed January 9, 2017.

14. Kheshti R, Aalipour M, Namazi S. A comparison of five common drug-drug interaction software programs regarding accuracy and comprehensiveness. J Res Pharm Pract. 2016;5(4):257–63. doi: 10.4103/2279-042X.192461 27843962

15. Patel RI, Beckett RD. Evaluation of resources for analyzing drug interactions. J Med Libr Assoc. 2016;104(4):290–5. doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.104.4.007 27822150

16. Clauson KA, Marsh WA, Polen HH, Seamon MJ, Ortiz BI. Clinical decision support tools: analysis of online drug information databases. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2007;7:7. doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-7-7 17346336

17. Ramos GV, Guaraldo L, Japiassu AM, Bozza FA. Comparison of two databases to detect potential drug-drug interactions between prescriptions of HIV/AIDS patients in critical care. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2015;40(1):63–7. doi: 10.1111/jcpt.12222 25329640

18. Bossaer JB, Thomas CM. Drug Interaction Database Sensitivity With Oral Antineoplastics: An Exploratory Analysis. J Oncol Pract. 2017;13(3):e217–e22. doi: 10.1200/JOP.2016.016212 28095171

19. Unbound Medicine, Inc. MDCU-KCMH Hospital Formulary [Mobile application software]. (Version 1.22) Charlottesville: Unbound Medicine, Inc. https://www.unboundmedicine.com/ucentral/index/KCMH%20-%20Formulary/Generic_TRADE_NAME_Index/A. Accessed January 9, 2017.