Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19916585›Full record

ArticleDrug safety2009

Laboratory tests in the clinical risk management of potential drug-drug interactions: a cross-sectional study using drug-dispensing data from 100 Dutch community pharmacies.

Arjen F J Geerts, Fred H P De Koning, Peter A G M De Smet, Wouter W Van Solinge, Toine C G Egberts

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Drug safety, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Arjen F J GeertsKring-apotheek BV, Den Bosch, the Netherlands. geertsa@kring-apotheek.nl
Fred H P De Koning
Peter A G M De Smet
Wouter W Van Solinge
Toine C G Egberts
Utrecht University · NLRadboud University Nijmegen · NLUniversity Medical Center Utrecht · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient safety and the life cycle of a drug are negatively influenced by the still increasing occurrence of potential drug-drug interactions (DDIs). Clinical risk management of potential DDIs is required in patients using drugs to influence the benefit-risk profile positively. Information about laboratory test results, in particular, may be useful in the assessment of potential DDIs for the individual patient.

objectiveThe objective of this study was to examine the frequency and nature of laboratory tests required for the assessment of the clinical relevance of potential DDIs in Dutch community pharmacies. In addition, the nature and clinical relevance of these potential DDIs is analysed.

methodsAll patients from 100 Dutch community pharmacies using, according to dispensing information, two or more drugs concomitantly on a specified date (Wednesday, 4 April 2007), were included (n = 223,019). The anonymous dispensing data of the included patients were analysed against a list of DDIs requiring laboratory tests for the assessment of their clinical relevance. The number of patients at risk for these potential DDIs with severe adverse reactions was calculated. The frequency of potential DDIs requiring laboratory tests were stratified by age, sex and degree of polypharmacy.

resultsOf the included patients, 24.4% had one or more potential DDIs (n = 54,427). In 9.0% of the included patients, one or more laboratory tests for the assessment of clinical relevance of the potential DDI were required (n = 19,968). The frequency of DDIs requiring laboratory tests increased with increasing age and number of drugs, but was not related to sex. The most commonly required laboratory tests were for renal function (42.2%), electrolytes (20.1%) and coagulation (13.1%). The percentage of patients at risk for potential DDIs requiring laboratory tests with adverse reaction category F (serious, irrecoverable disablement or death) was 2.5%; category E (increased risk of failure of life-saving therapy) was 0.6%; and category D (inconvenience with residual symptom and failure of therapy concerning serious but non-fatal diseases) was 3.8%.

conclusionsA large number of patients in Dutch community pharmacies are at risk for potential DDIs requiring laboratory tests for the assessment of the clinical relevance of the interaction. There is a strong relationship between the frequency of DDIs requiring laboratory tests and age and the number of drugs concomitantly used. In the clinical risk management of potential DDIs, information about laboratory test results is of additional value. Future research is necessary in order to obtain more evidence on using laboratory tests in terms of which tests should be linked to pharmacy data, in which patients they should be done, how often and what actions should be taken when an abnormal value is found.

Indexed as

Drug InteractionsPharmaciesRisk ManagementAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overChildChild, PreschoolCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansInfantInfant, NewbornMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID19916585
OpenAlexW2075038555

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.