Evaluation of resources for analyzing drug interactions

Patel, Risha I.; Beckett, Robert D.

doi:10.3163/1536-5050.104.4.007

Cited by 71 publications

(87 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although electronic platforms and tools for DDI assessment have been validated in several studies, we have not found any studies focusing specifically on ADIs [4,5]. Our aim is to compare the performance of several drug-drug interaction software platforms to detect and characterize ADIs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance Assessment of Software to Detect and Assist Prescribers with Antimicrobial Drug Interactions: Are all of them Created Equal?

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Detecting and managing antimicrobial drug interactions (ADIs) is one of the facets of prudent antimicrobial prescribing. Our aim is to compare the capability of several electronic drug-drug interaction (DDI) checkers to detect and report ADIs. Methods: Six electronic DDI checking platforms were evaluated: Drugs.com ® , Medscape ® , Epocrates ® , Medimecum ® , iDoctus ® , and Guía IF ® . Lexicomp ® Drug Interactions was selected as the gold standard. Ten ADIs addressing different mechanisms were evaluated with every electronic DDI checker. For each ADI, we assessed five dimensions and calculated an overall performance score (maximum possible score: 10 points). The explored dimensions were sensitivity (capability to detect ADI), clinical effect (type and severity), mechanism of interaction, recommended action(s), and documentation (quality of evidence and availability of references). Results: The electronic DDI checkers did not detect a significant proportion of the ADI assessed. The overall performance score ranged between 4.4 (Medimecum) and 8.8 (Drugs.com). Drugs.com was the highest ranked platform in four out of five dimensions (sensitivity, effect, mechanism, and recommended action). Conclusions: There is significant variability in the performance of the available platforms in detecting and assessing ADI. Although some ADI checkers have proven to be very accurate, others missed almost half of the explored interactions.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance Assessment of Software to Detect and Assist Prescribers with Antimicrobial Drug Interactions: Are all of them Created Equal?

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Recently, attention has shifted to developing online databases for detecting potential DDIs. Online DDI databases have two major types: open-access resources and subscription databases [9][10][11]. In general, patients usually select open-access databases, for example, Drugs.com, to access potential DDI identi cation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing potential drug-drug interactions in veterinary medications using two electronic databases

Boonyarattanasoonthorn

Khemawoot

Kijtawornrat

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: One of the most common global health issues in humans and animals is drug-drug interactions (DDIs). This issue increases the risks associated with healthcare in both human and veterinary medicine, as animals live long lives and receive many medicines to treat their illnesses. Currently, many electronic databases are being used as tools for potential DDI prediction, for example, Micromedex and Drugs.com. The purpose of this study was to examine the different abilities for the identification of potential DDIs in veterinary medicines by Micromedex and Drugs.com. Results: A list of 140 drugs, mainly used for the treatment of disease in animal hospitals, was complied, but the Micromedex and Drugs.com databases could recognise only 96 of these drugs. After inputting the recognised drug list into the databases, Micromedex showed 429 pairs of potential DDIs, whilst Drugs.com showed 842 pairs of potential DDIs. The analysis comparing results between the two databases showed 139 pairs (12.28%) with the same severity and 993 pairs (87.72%) with different severities. Major mechanisms of contraindicated and major potential DDIs were cytochrome P450 induction-inhibition and QT interval prolongation.Conclusion: Although Micromedex had a lower sensitivity to identify potential DDIs than Drugs.com, Micromedex provided more informative documentation. Veterinary pharmacists should evaluate potential DDIs from several databases and communicate with both the veterinarian and animal owner to ensure an appropriate drug prescription.

show abstract

“…The development of ADEs due to DDIs can also prolong hospital stay and worsen patient outcomes, both in hospital and outpatient settings. According to World Health Organization estimates, at least 60% of ADEs are preventable …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inhibitory effect of isavuconazole, ketoconazole, and voriconazole on the pharmacokinetics of methadone in vivo and in vitro

Shen

Wang

et al. 2018

Drug Testing and Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to investigate the possible effect of orally administered isavuconazole, ketoconazole, or voriconazole on the pharmacokinetics of methadone in rats. Twenty Sprague–Dawley (SD) rats were divided randomly into four groups: Group A (control), group B (5 mg/kg isavuconazole), group C (5 mg/kg ketoconazole), and group D (5 mg/kg voriconazole). A single dose of methadone was administrated half an hour later. Methadone in plasma concentrations and its metabolite EDDP in microsomes were determined by ultra‐high‐performance liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry method (UPLC–MS/MS), and pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated by DAS version 3.0. The Cmax of methadone in groups C and D increased to 2.7‐fold and 5‐fold, respectively. While AUC increased in three groups and group D increased the most. Also, isavuconazole, ketoconazole, and voriconazole showed inhibitory effect on human and rat microsomes. The inhibition ratios of isavuconazole, ketoconazole, and voriconazole in rat liver microsome were 97.87%, 96.74% and 78.9%, respectively (p < 0.01), while in human liver microsome, inhibition ratios were 86.97%, 96.46%, and 53.11%, respectively. And the IC50 for inhibition activity of isavuconazole, ketoconazole, and voriconazole in rat microsomes were 7.76 μM, 8.33 μM, and 4.45 μM, respectively. Our study indicated that taking methadone combine with ketoconazole, isavuconazole, or voriconazole could reduce the metabolism rate of methadone and prolong the pharmacological effects in vivo and in vitro.

show abstract

Evaluation of resources for analyzing drug interactions

Cited by 71 publications

References 6 publications

Performance Assessment of Software to Detect and Assist Prescribers with Antimicrobial Drug Interactions: Are all of them Created Equal?

Performance Assessment of Software to Detect and Assist Prescribers with Antimicrobial Drug Interactions: Are all of them Created Equal?

Comparing potential drug-drug interactions in veterinary medications using two electronic databases

Inhibitory effect of isavuconazole, ketoconazole, and voriconazole on the pharmacokinetics of methadone in vivo and in vitro

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About