Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27112273›Full record

Trial reportBMC family practice2016

Individualized versus standardized risk assessment in patients at high risk for adverse drug reactions (IDrug) - study protocol for a pragmatic randomized controlled trial.

Julia Carolin Stingl, Katharina Luise Kaumanns, Katrin Claus, Marie-Louise Lehmann, Kathrin Kastenmüller, Markus Bleckwenn, Gunther Hartmann, Michael Steffens, Dorothee Wirtz, Ann-Kristin Leuchs and 6 more

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyPragmatic Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC family practice, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

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

16 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Julia Carolin StinglResearch Division, Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices, Kurt-Georg-Kiesinger-Allee 3, 53175, Bonn, Germany.
Katharina Luise KaumannsResearch Division, Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices, Kurt-Georg-Kiesinger-Allee 3, 53175, Bonn, Germany. katharina.kaumanns@bfarm-research.de.
Katrin ClausResearch Division, Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices, Kurt-Georg-Kiesinger-Allee 3, 53175, Bonn, Germany.
Marie-Louise LehmannResearch Division, Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices, Kurt-Georg-Kiesinger-Allee 3, 53175, Bonn, Germany.
Kathrin KastenmüllerInstitute of General Practice and Family Medicine, University of Bonn, Sigmund-Freud-Str. 25, 53127, Bonn, Germany.
Markus BleckwennInstitute of General Practice and Family Medicine, University of Bonn, Sigmund-Freud-Str. 25, 53127, Bonn, Germany.
Gunther HartmannInstitute of Clinical Chemistry and Clinical Pharmacology, University of Bonn, Sigmund-Freud-Str. 25, 53127, Bonn, Germany.
Michael SteffensResearch Division, Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices, Kurt-Georg-Kiesinger-Allee 3, 53175, Bonn, Germany.
Dorothee WirtzResearch Division, Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices, Kurt-Georg-Kiesinger-Allee 3, 53175, Bonn, Germany.
Ann-Kristin LeuchsResearch Division, Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices, Kurt-Georg-Kiesinger-Allee 3, 53175, Bonn, Germany.
Norbert BendaResearch Division, Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices, Kurt-Georg-Kiesinger-Allee 3, 53175, Bonn, Germany.
Florian MeierDepartment of Economics and Management, Wilhelm Löhe University of Applied Sciences, Merkurstraße 41, 90763, Fürth, Germany.
Oliver SchöffskiDepartment of Health Management, University of Erlangen-Nürnberg, Lange Gasse 20, 90403, Nürnberg, Germany.
Stefan HoldenriederInstitute of Clinical Chemistry and Clinical Pharmacology, University of Bonn, Sigmund-Freud-Str. 25, 53127, Bonn, Germany.
Christoph CochInstitute of Clinical Chemistry and Clinical Pharmacology, University of Bonn, Sigmund-Freud-Str. 25, 53127, Bonn, Germany.
Klaus WeckbeckerInstitute of General Practice and Family Medicine, University of Bonn, Sigmund-Freud-Str. 25, 53127, Bonn, Germany.
Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices · DEUniversity of Bonn · DEFriedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg · DEWilhelm Löhe University for Applied Sciences · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundElderly patients are particularly vulnerable to adverse drug reactions, especially if they are affected by additional risk factors such as multimorbidity, polypharmacy, impaired renal function and intake of drugs with high risk potential. Apart from these clinical parameters, drug safety and efficacy can be influenced by pharmacogenetic factors. Evidence-based recommendations concerning drug-gene-combinations have been issued by international consortia and in drug labels. However, clinical benefit of providing information on individual patient factors in a comprehensive risk assessment aiming to reduce the occurrence and severity of adverse drug reactions is not evident. Purpose of this randomized controlled trial is to compare the effect of a concise individual risk information leaflet with standard information on risk factors for side effects. METHODS/

designThe trial was designed as a prospective, two-arm, randomized, controlled, multicenter, pragmatic study. 960 elderly, multimorbid outpatients in general medicine are included if they take at least one high risk and one other long-term drug (polymedication). As high risk "index drugs" oral anticoagulants and antiplatelets were chosen because of their specific, objectively assessable side effects. Following randomization, test group patients receive an individualized risk assessment leaflet evaluating their personal data concerning bleeding- and thromboembolic-risk-scores, potential drug-drug-interactions, age, renal function and pharmacogenetic factors. Control group patients obtain a standardized leaflet only containing general information on these criteria. Follow-up period is 9 months for each patient. Primary endpoint is the occurrence of a thromboembolic/bleeding event or death. Secondary endpoints are other adverse drug reactions, hospital admissions, specialist referrals and medication changes due to adverse drug reactions, the patients' adherence to medication regimen as well as health related quality of life, mortality and resulting costs. DISCUSSION: Despite extensive evidence of risk factors for adverse drug reactions, there are few prospective trial data about an individualized risk assessment including pharmacogenetic information to increase patient safety. By conducting a health economic analysis, we will evaluate if the application of an individualized drug therapy in daily routine is cost-effective.

trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register: DRKS00006256 , date of registration 09/01/15.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesPolypharmacyAgedAged, 80 and overClinical Decision-MakingClinical ProtocolsDecision Support Systems, ClinicalDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient SafetyRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsADR risk assessmentAdverse drug reactionClinical decision support systemDrug interactionElderlyIndividualized medicinePharmacogeneticsPolymedication

Identifiers

PMID27112273
PMCPMC4845354
OpenAlexW2344868291

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.