Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19810775›Full record

ReviewDrug safety2009

Predicting the clinical relevance of drug interactions from pre-approval studies.

Silvio Caccia, Silvio Garattini, Luca Pasina, Alessandro Nobili

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Drug safety, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Silvio CacciaLaboratory of Drug Metabolism, 'Mario Negri' Institute for Pharmacological Research, Milan, Italy.
Silvio Garattini
Luca Pasina
Alessandro Nobili

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Drug interactions (DIs) may result in adverse drug events that could be prevented, but in many cases the available information on potential DIs is not easily transferable to clinical practice. The majority of studies date from preclinical or premarketing phases, using animals or human-derived sources that may not accurately reflect the growing clinical complexity of high-risk populations, such as the elderly, women, children, patients with chronic disease, polytherapy and impaired organ functions. Thus, at the time of approval of a new drug the information in the summary of product characteristics refers to potential DIs, but lacks specific management recommendations and is of limited clinical utility. Therefore, we set out to review in vitro and in vivo methods to predict and quantify potential DIs, to see whether these studies could help the physician tackle daily problems of the assessment and choice of combined drug therapies, and to propose, from a clinical point of view, how premarketing studies could be improved so as to help the physician at the patient's bedside. Preclinical and premarketing study design needs to be improved to make information easily accessible and clinically transferable. Studies should also take into account appropriate sample size, duration, co-morbidity, number of coadministered drugs, within- and between-subject variability, specific at-risk populations and/or drugs with a relatively narrow therapeutic window, and clinical endpoints. After premarketing development in situations where there is potential high risk of serious adverse events, specific phase IV studies (and/or active pharmacovigilance studies) should be required to monitor and quantitatively assess their clinical impact.

Indexed as

Drug InteractionsDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsModels, BiologicalAnimalsClinical Trials as TopicDrug Evaluation, PreclinicalDrug Therapy, CombinationHumansModels, Animal

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.