Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34311787›Full record

ArticleJournal of pharmaceutical policy and practice2021

Potential drug-drug interactions in patients with cardiovascular diseases: findings from a prospective observational study.

Zarka Akbar, Sundas Rehman, Asad Khan, Amjad Khan, Muhammad Atif, Nafees Ahmad

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Zarka AkbarDepartment of Pharmacy Practice, Faculty of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, University of Balochistan, Quetta, Pakistan.
Sundas RehmanDepartment of Pharmacy Practice, Faculty of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, University of Balochistan, Quetta, Pakistan.
Asad KhanDepartment of Pharmacy Practice, Faculty of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, University of Balochistan, Quetta, Pakistan.
Amjad KhanDepartment of Pharmacy, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Muhammad AtifDepartment of Pharmacy Practice, Faculty of Pharmacy, The Islamia University of Bahawalpur, Bahawalpur, Pakistan.
Nafees AhmadDepartment of Pharmacy Practice, Faculty of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, University of Balochistan, Quetta, Pakistan. nafeesuob@gmail.com.
University of Balochistan · PKIslamia University of Bahawalpur · PKQuaid-i-Azam University · PK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients with cardiovascular diseases (CVD) are at high risk of experiencing drug-drug interactions (DDIs). The objective of this study was to evaluate the frequency, level and risk factors associated with potential-DDIs (pDDIs) in hospitalized CVD patients at cardiology departments of two tertiary care hospitals in Quetta, Pakistan.

methodsIn the current prospective observational study, a total of 300 eligible CVD inpatients were evaluated for pDDIs using Lexicomp Interact®. The pDDIs were classified into class A (no known interaction); B (no action needed); C (monitor therapy: it is documented that the benefits of an interaction outweigh the risk, appropriately monitor therapy in order to avoid potential adverse outcomes); D (consider therapy modification: it is documented that proper actions must be taken to reduce the toxicity resulting from an interaction); X (avoid combination: the risk of an interaction outweighs the benefits and are usually contraindicated). Multivariate binary logistic regression analysis was used to find factors associated with the presence of Class-D and/or X pDDIs. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

resultsWith a median of 8.50 pDDIs per patient, all patients (100%) had ≥ 1 pDDIs. Out of total 2787 pDDIs observed, 74.06% (n = 2064) were of moderate and (n = 483) 17.33% of major severity. Class C pDDIs were most common (n = 1971, 70.72%) followed by D (n = 582, 20.88%), B (n = 204, 7.32%) and X (n = 30, 1.08%). Suffering from cardiovascular diseases other than myocardial infarction (OR 0.053, p-value < 0.001) and receiving > 12 drugs (OR 4.187, p-value = 0.009) had statistical significant association with the presence of class D and/or X pDDIs.

conclusionIn the current study, pDDIs were highly prevalent. The inclusion of DDI screening tools, availability of clinical pharmacists and paying special attention to the high-risk patients may reduce the frequency of pDDIs at the study sites.

Indexed as

CVDLexicompMyocardial infarctionPakistanPotential drug–drug interactions

Identifiers

PMID34311787
PMCPMC8311960
OpenAlexW3186780140

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.