ArticleDaru : journal of Faculty of Pharmacy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences2026
Assessment of potential drug interactions in rheumatology: a comparative study of decision support software.
Article in Daru : journal of Faculty of Pharmacy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRheumatologic diseases often require long-term, complex pharmacotherapy involving immunosuppressive and anti-inflammatory agents. This complexity leads to a high prevalence of polypharmacy and increases the risk of potential drug–drug interactions (pDDIs), which may reduce efficacy, cause adverse effects, prolong hospitalization, and increase costs. Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) are used to detect pDDIs, but inconsistencies in knowledge bases, severity classification, and evidence sources challenge their reliability.
objectivesTo identify pDDIs in rheumatology patients and compare different CDSSs used in their evaluation.
methodsThis prospective cross-sectional study was conducted between January–July 2022 in a rheumatology outpatient clinic in Ağrı, Türkiye. Adult patients (≥ 18 years) using ≥ 2 systemic drugs (including one rheumatologic agent) were included. Data were collected by a rheumatologist, clinical pharmacist, and pharmacy student. pDDIs were identified using Lexidrug® and Micromedex®, with D/major and X/contraindicated levels considered clinically significant. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS v29; concordance between systems was assessed via Kendall’s W test.
resultsAmong 147 patients (64.6% female; mean age 45 ± 13.58 years), rheumatoid arthritis (46.3%), ankylosing spondylitis (27.9%), and Behçet’s disease (7.5%) were most common. Median disease duration was 4 years (IQR: 1–10); median drug count was 3 (IQR: 2–4). Hypertension (18.4%) and diabetes (11.6%) were frequent comorbidities. No concordance was found between CDSSs for contraindicated/major pDDIs; weak concordance was observed for total pDDIs (Kendall’s W: 0.006; 0.001; 0.286). Clinically significant interactions were identified in 87% (Lexidrug) and 84% (Micromedex) of differing pDDI pairs. Most frequent pDDIs were leflunomide–prednisolone (Lexidrug, 17.3%) and folic acid–methotrexate (Micromedex, 15.1%).
conclusionClinically significant pDDIs are common in rheumatology patients, with notable discrepancies between CDSSs. Clinical pharmacists play a vital role in interpreting interaction alerts and supporting safe prescribing. Using multiple CDSSs and fostering interdisciplinary collaboration may enhance patient safety and treatment outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.