Risk factors for potential drug-drug interactions in a general neurology ward

  • Marina J. Kostić University of Kragujevac, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Kragujevac, Serbia
  • Radica S. Živković Zarić University of Kragujevac, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Kragujevac, Serbia
  • Slobodan M. Janković University of Kragujevac, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Kragujevac, Serbia
Keywords: nervous system, diseases;, combination drug therapy;, drugs, interactions;, risk factors.

Abstract


Bacground/Aim. Treatment of neurological diseases usually requires polypharmacy, and it is crucial to detect potential drug-drug interactions (DDIs) and recognize risk factors on time, as consequences of DDIs could be serious. The aim of the study was to analyze risk factors for the occurrence and the number of potential DDIs among patients in a general neurological ward. Methods. This study was conducted with 144 inpatients in a general-care neurological department of a tertiary care hospital. The effects of risk factors for potential DDIs were evaluated by multiple linear regression. The study had retrospective cohort design. Frequencies of various types of potential DDIs (according to severity) were discovered by Medscape, Epocrates and Micromedex online interaction checkers. Results. The number of prescribed drugs, age of a patient, value of the Charlson comorbidity index and prescription of an antidepressant increase risk of potential DDIs in a general neurology ward. On the other hand, being paralyzed, number of prescribers for a single patient, being bedridden for at least one day of hospitalization decreased the number of potential DDIs per patient. Number of prescribed drugs per patient [odds ratio (OR) = 1.466 ± 0.250; p = 0.000) and age (OR = 1.027 ± 0.026; p = 0.041)] increased, and number of prescribers per patient (OR = 0.056 ± 0.028; p = 0.016), especially if the patients were paralyzed (OR = 0.214 ± 0.294; p = 0.007), decreased the risk of contraindicated, serious, “use alternative” or major potential DDIs. Antidepressants increased the risk of absolute number of all monitor/modify potential DDIs (OR = 1.257 ± 0.726; p = 0.035). Conclusion. Frequency of potential DDIs among neurological patients is considerable and influenced to the largest extent by advanced age, comorbidities, total number of prescribed drugs per patient and concomitant use of antidepressants.

References

Lu Y, Shen D, Pietsch M, Nagar C, Fadli Z, Huang H, et al. A novel algorithm for analyzing drug-drug interactions from MEDLINE literature. Sci Rep 2015; 5: 17357.

Marengoni A, Onder G. Guidelines, polypharmacy, and drug-drug interactions in patients with multimorbidity. BMJ 2015; 350: h1059.

Dumbreck S, Flynn A, Nairn M, Wilson M, Treweek S, Mercer S, et al. Drug-disease and drug-drug interactions: systematic ex-amination of recommendations in 12 UK national clinical guidelines. BMJ 2015; 350: h949

Smithburger PL, Kane-Gill SL, Seybert AL. Drug-drug interac-tions in the medical intensive care unit: an assessment of fre-quency, severity and the medications involved. Int J Pharm Pract 2012; 20(6): 402–8.

Medscape. Multi-drug interaction checker. Available from: Ahttp://reference.medscape.com/druginteractionchecker [ac-cessed date: 2018 May 10].

Epocrates, Inc. Interaction checker. Available from: https://online.epocrates.com/interaction-check [accessed date: 2018 May 10].

Truven Health Analtytics LLC. Micromedex® solutions. Available from: https://www.micromedexsolutions.com/home/dispatch/PFDefaultActionId/pf.LoginAction/ssl/true? [accessed date: 10 May2018].

Medscape. Drug Interaction Checker. Available from: https://reference.medscape.com/drug-interactionchecker. t

Epocrates. Interaction Check. Available from: https://online.epocrates.com/interaction-check IBM Watson Health..

IBM Micromedex Complete Drug Interactions. Available from: 23sthttps://www.ibm.com/downloads/cas/GZEMAEL8

Kheshti R, Aalipour M, Namazi S. A comparison of five com-mon drug–drug interaction software programs regarding accu-racy and comprehensiveness. J Res Pharm Pract 2016; 5(4): 257–63.

Aparasu R, Baer R, Aparasu A. Clinically important potential drug-drug interactions in outpatient settings. Res Social Adm Pharm 2007; 3(4): 426‒37.

Guerzoni S, Pellesi L, Pini LA, Caputo F. Drug-drug interac-tions in the treatment for alcohol use disorders: a comprehen-sive review. Pharmacol Res 2018: 133: 65‒76.

Nightingale G, Pizzi LT, Barlow A, Barlow B, Jacisin T, McGuire M, et al. The prevalence of major drug-drug interactions in older adults with cancer and the role of clinical decision sup-port software. J Geriatr Oncol 2018; 9(5): 526‒33.

Namazi S, Pourhatami S, Borhani-Haghighi A, Roosta S. Incidence of Potential Drug-Drug Interaction and Related Factors in Hospitalized Neurological Patients in two Iranian Teaching Hospitals. Iran J Med Sci 2014; 39(6): 515‒21.

Busa G, Burlina A, Damuzzo V, Chiumente M, Palozzo AC. Comorbidity, Polytherapy, and Drug Interactions in a Neuro-logical Context: An Example of a Multidisciplinary Approach to Promote the Rational Use of Drugs. J Pharm Pract 2018; 31(1): 58‒62.

Lichtner V, Dowding D, Esterhuizen P, Closs SJ, Long FA, Corbett A, et al. Pain assessment for people with dementia: a system-atic review of systematic reviews of pain assessment tools. BMC Geriatr 2014; 14: 138.

Brodie MJ, Besag F, Ettinger AB, Mula M, Gobbi G, Comai S, et al. Epilepsy, Antiepileptic Drugs, and Aggression: An Evi-dence-Based Review. Pharmacol Rev 2016; 68(3): 563‒602.

Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new meth-od of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal stud-ies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 1987; 40(5): 373–83.

Kim BY, Sharafoddini A, Tran N, Wen EY, Lee J. Consumer Mobile Apps for Potential Drug-Drug Interaction Check: Sys-tematic Review and Content Analysis Using the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS). JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2018; 6(3): e74.

Şimşek A, Taner N, Macit Ç, Berk B, Mercanoğlu G. The Im-portance of Computerized Drug Interaction Checker Pro-grams Used in Community Pharmacies to Avoid Potential Drug Interactions: A Preliminary Study with Clarithromycin. IMJ 2019; 20(1): 67‒71.

Bleakley S. Antidepressant drug interactions: evidence and clinical significance. Progress in Neurology and Psychiatry 2016; 20(3): 21‒7.

Gidal BE, French JA, Grossman P, Le Teuff G. Assessment of potential drug interactions in patients with epilepsy: impact of age and sex. Neurology 2009; 72(5): 419‒25.

Teles JS, Fukuda EY, Feder D. Warfarin: pharmacological pro-file and drug interactions with antidepressants. Einstein (Sao Paulo) 2012; 10(1): 110‒5.

Vingerhoets RW, Wieringa MH, Egberts TC, Jansen MM, Jansen PA. Multiple physicians are not independently associated with inappropriate prescribing: a cross-sectional study of geriatric patients. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2014; 77(1): 213‒5.

Andersson ML, Böttiger Y, Kockum H, Eiermann B. High Preva-lence of Drug-Drug Interactions in Primary Health Care is Caused by Prescriptions from other Healthcare Units. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol 2018; 122(5): 512‒6.

Dagli RJ, Sharma A. Polypharmacy: a global risk factor for el-derly people. J Int Oral Health 2014; 6(6): i-ii.

Royal College of Physicians of Ireland. National Clinical Pro-gramme for Neurology model. Available from: https://www.hse.ie/eng/services/publications/clinical-strategy-and-programmes/neurology-model-of-care.pdf [ac-cesed 2018 May 24].

Moura CS, Acurcio FA, Belo NO. Drug-drug interactions associ-ated with length of stay and cost of hospitalization. J Pharm Pharm Sci 2009; 12(3): 266‒72.

Adhiyaman V, Asghar M, Oke A, White AD, Shah IU. Ne-phrotoxicity in the elderly due to co-prescription of angioten-sin converting enzyme inhibitors and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. J R Soc Med 2001; 94(10): 512–4.

Bucsa C, Moga DC, Farcas A, Mogosan C, Dumitrascu DL. An investigation of the concomitant use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and diuretics. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2015; 19(15): 2938‒44.

Published
2021/07/12
Section
Original Paper