Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41039328›Full record

ArticleBMC psychiatry2025

Analysis of drug-drug interactions in spontaneous adverse drug reaction reports from EudraVigilance focusing on psychiatric drugs and somatic medication.

Diana Dubrall, Rebecca Weber, Miriam Böhme, Matthias Schmid, Bernhardt Sachs, Catharina Scholl

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Diana DubrallInstitute for Medical Biometry, Informatics and Epidemiology, University Hospital Bonn, Venusberg-Campus 1, 53127, Bonn, Germany.
Rebecca WeberResearch Division, Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (BfArM), Kurt-Georg-Kiesinger-Allee 3, 53175, Bonn, Germany.
Miriam BöhmeResearch Division, Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (BfArM), Kurt-Georg-Kiesinger-Allee 3, 53175, Bonn, Germany.
Matthias SchmidInstitute for Medical Biometry, Informatics and Epidemiology, University Hospital Bonn, Venusberg-Campus 1, 53127, Bonn, Germany.
Bernhardt SachsResearch Division, Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (BfArM), Kurt-Georg-Kiesinger-Allee 3, 53175, Bonn, Germany.
Catharina SchollResearch Division, Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (BfArM), Kurt-Georg-Kiesinger-Allee 3, 53175, Bonn, Germany. Catharina.scholl@bfarm.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPsychiatric diseases are often treated with several drugs. In addition, the risk of developing somatic comorbidities which may require drug therapy is higher in patients with than in patients without psychiatric diseases. Further on, the risk of drug-drug interactions (DDI) increases with the number of drugs taken. The aim of this study was to analyze whether already known DDI between psychiatric drugs and somatic medications still occur in everyday clinical practice.

methodsWe analyzed 9,276 spontaneous adverse drug reaction (ADR) reports from Germany contained in the European ADR database EudraVigilance received between 2017 and 2021 for adults in which antidepressants, antipsychotics and mood stabilizers were reported as suspected/interacting. The ABDATA (a division of Avoxa—Mediengruppe Deutscher Apotheker GmbH) drug information system was used to identify already known potential DDI (pDDI) related to psychiatric drugs and somatic medications. An individual assessment of reports was performed to detect whether the pDDI actually occurred.

results1,271 reports (49.7%) with 2,655 pDDI relating to 728 different potentially interacting drug pairs of psychiatric drugs and somatic medications were identified. Patients in reports with pDDI were older than patients in reports without pDDI (median 64 vs. 49 years) (p < 0.05). In addition, the number of pDDI and the number of drugs reported increased with rising age. Restricted to potentially interacting drugs pairs with more than 10 reports (n = 704 reports, 1,111pDDI), the two most frequently identified pDDIs were (i) hyponatremias related to antidepressants and diuretics (n = 362, 32.6%) and (ii) bleeding events related to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) and platelet aggregation inhibitors, anticoagulants or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (n = 295, 26.5%). After individual assessment of reports, bleeding events were found in 33.3% (14/42), 23.7% (45/190) and 17.4% (8/46) of reports related to SSRIs and anticoagulants, SSRIs and platelet aggregation inhibitors and SSRIs and NSAIDs. Hyponatremia was observed in 7.6% (22/289) of the reports related to antidepressants and diuretics.

conclusionsWell-known DDI still occur to a considerable amount in everyday clinical practice in psychiatric patients treated with psychiatric drugs and somatic medications. Special attention should be paid to older polymedicated patients.

Indexed as

Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting SystemsAntidepressive AgentsAntipsychotic AgentsDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsPharmacovigilancePsychotropic DrugsAdultAgedDatabases, FactualDrug InteractionsFemaleGermanyHumansMaleMental DisordersMiddle AgedAntidepressive AgentsAntipsychotic AgentsPsychotropic DrugsAdverse drug reaction reportsDrug-drug interactionsPsychiatric drugsPsychopharmacoepidemiologySpontaneous reporting systemsSpontaneous reports

Identifiers

PMID41039328
PMCPMC12490046

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.