WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ABOUT THIS SUBJECT • Drug–drug interactions (DDIs) may lead to often preventable adverse drug events and health damage. • In Dutch community pharmacies approximately 6% of all prescriptions generate a DDI alert. • Hospitalized patients may be especially at risk, as they are more severely ill and multiple medications may be prescribed simultaneously; however, only limited data are available on the frequency and nature of DDIs during hospitalization. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS • In a Dutch university hospital 10% of all prescriptions generated a DDI alert; overall 25% of patients encountered at least one potential DDI. • Besides the risk of decreased effectiveness (25% of the DDIs), the most frequently occurring potential clinical consequence of the DDIs was an increased risk of side‐effects, such as an increased bleeding risk (22% of DDIs), hypotension (15%) and nephrotoxicity (13%). • Almost half of the DDIs could be managed by monitoring laboratory values. AIM Drug–drug interactions (DDIs) may lead to often preventable adverse drug events and health damage. Especially within hospitals, this might be an important factor, as patients are severely ill and multiple medications may be prescribed simultaneously. The objective of this study was to measure the frequency and nature of DDI alerts in a Dutch university hospital. METHODS All patients hospitalized in the University Medical Centre Utrecht in 2006 who were prescribed at least one medication were included. The frequency of DDIs was calculated as: (i) the percentage of patients experiencing at least one DDI, and (ii) the percentage of prescriptions generating a DDI alert. Based on the national professional guideline, DDIs were classified into categories of potential clinical outcome, management advice, clinical relevance (A–F) and available evidence (0–4). RESULTS Of the 21 277 admissions included, 5909 (27.8%) encountered at least one DDI. Overall, the prescribing physician received a DDI alert in 9.6% of all prescriptions. The most frequently occurring potential clinical consequence of the DDIs was an increased risk of side‐effects such as increased bleeding risk (22.0%), hypotension (14.9%), nephrotoxicity (12.6%) and electrolyte disturbances (10.5%). Almost half (48.6%) of the DDIs could be managed by monitoring laboratory values. CONCLUSIONS Computerized DDI alerts may be a useful tool to prevent adverse drug events within hospitals, but they may also result in ‘alert fatigue’. The specificity of alerts could significantly improve by the use of more sophisticated clinical decision support systems taking into account, for example, laboratory values.

No abstract

Potential drug-drug interactions occur in 54% of all ICU patients, which is two times more than the rate seen in patients on general wards. A limited set of 20 pDDI pairs is responsible for more than 90% of all pDDIs. Therefore, it is worthwhile to develop guidelines for the management of these specific pDDIs. As the vast majority of the interactions can be managed by monitoring, advanced clinical decision support systems linking laboratory data to prescription data may be an effective risk management strategy.

Infants and young children with RSV LRTD do not benefit from routine treatment with antibiotics (ISRCTN number 86554663).

Our finding that VPA, at a dose used in epilepsy, does not show a beneficial effect on survival or disease progression in patients with ALS has implications for future trials with histone deacetylase inhibitors in ALS and other neurodegenerative diseases. The use of a sequential trial design allowed inclusion of only half the number of patients required for a classic trial design and prevented patients from unnecessarily continuing potentially harmful study medication.

ObjectivesTo determine the safety and efficacy of lithium for the treatment of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) in a randomised, placebo controlled, double blind, sequential trial.MethodsBetween November 2008 and June 2011, 133 patients were randomised to receive lithium carbonate (target blood level 0.4–0.8 mEq/l) or placebo as add-on treatment with riluzole. The primary endpoint was survival, defined as death, tracheostomal ventilation or non-invasive ventilation for more than 16 h/day. Secondary outcome measures consisted of the revised ALS Functional Rating Scale and forced vital capacity. Analysis was by intention to treat and according to a sequential trial design.Results61 patients reached a primary endpoint, 33 of 66 in the lithium group and 28 of 67 patients in the placebo group. Lithium did not significantly affect survival (cumulative survival probability of 0.73 in the lithium group (95% CI 0.63 to 0.86) vs 0.75 in the placebo group (95% CI 0.65 to 0.87) at 12 months and 0.62 in the lithium group (95% CI 0.50 to 0.76) vs 0.67 in the placebo group (95% CI 0.56 to 0.81) at 16 months). Secondary outcome measures did not differ between treatment groups. No major safety concerns were encountered.ConclusionsThis trial, designed to detect a modest effect of lithium, did not demonstrate any beneficial effect on either survival or functional decline in patients with ALS.Trial registration numberNTR1448. Name of trial registry: Lithium trial in ALS.

No abstract

PurposeAlthough, drug–drug interactions (DDIs) between potassium-increasing drugs (PIDs) are known risk factors for developing hyperkalaemia, not much is known about their risk and management strategies during hospitalisation. This study examines the frequency of serum potassium measurements and hyperkalaemia in hospitalised patients, based on the use of one or more PIDs, and the determinants thereof.MethodsAdult patients hospitalised in the University Medical Centre Utrecht between 2006 and 2008 were included in this cross-sectional study. The frequency of serum potassium measurements and of hyperkalaemia were compared between patients using only one PID at a time (monotherapy group) and patients using two or more PIDs concomitantly (interaction group). The determinants studied were renal failure, diabetes mellitus, use of diuretics, type of DDI, start of the PIDs within the hospital versus continued home medication and medical speciality.ResultsSerum potassium was measured more frequently in the interaction group than in the monotherapy group [67 vs. 56%; relative risk (RR) 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.14–1.24] and the risk of hyperkalaemia was also increased in the interaction group (9.9 vs. 5.9%, RR 1.7, 95% CI 1.3–2.1). The combination of potassium-sparing diuretics plus a potassium supplement, start of the PID within the hospital and hospitalisation in non-internal medicine departments was associated with higher relative risk estimates for hyperkalaemia.ConclusionsAmong our patient cohort, even when physicians received a direct pop-up to monitor serum potassium levels when prescribing two PIDs concomitantly, serum potassium levels were not measured in 33% of patients, and 10% of patients developed hyperkalaemia. Improved management strategies and/or clinical decision-support systems are needed to decrease the frequency of hyperkalaemia following DDIs.