Drug interactions with antisecretory agents

Absolute contraindications in relation to potential drug interactions in outpatient prescriptions: analysis of the first five million prescriptions in 1999

OBJECTIVES

Adverse drug interactions increase morbidity and mortality. To prevent these, situations leading to adverse prescriptions must be clarified. This study quantifies and analyses prescriptions with potential adverse drug interactions in primary health care in the North of France over a 3-month period.

METHODS

All prescriptions administered between 1 January 1999 and 31 March 1999 were analysed to identify potential interactions amongst drugs appearing on the same prescription sheet. The regional French healthcare database was compiled to further classify contraindications.

RESULTS

There were 5,358,374 prescriptions administered to 44% of the overall population of the Nord-Pas de Calais area (1,754,372 patients per 3,990,167 general population). There were 14,390 prescriptions classified as either absolute (26%) or relative contraindications (74%). Nine drug categories accounted for most of the absolute contraindications: dopaminergic antiparkinsonians, neuroleptic agents, migraine treatments (such as ergot alkaloids, sumatriptan and other triptan derivatives), prokinetic drugs (cisapride), antibacterial drugs (macrolides), antifungals (imidazoles), antiarrhythmics, beta-blockers and analgesics (opioids and floctafenine). In 54% of patients exposed, the incurred risk was either QT prolongation/Torsade de Pointes or antagonism of dopaminergic antiparkinson agents with dopamine receptor antagonists prescribed as antipsychotic agents.

CONCLUSIONS

Among a non-selected population of ambulatory outpatients, the number of quarterly prescriptions with contraindications with potentially harmful drug interactions is 27 in 10,000 prescriptions. This would extrapolate to nearly 200,000 contraindications on same-prescription sheets in France in the first quarter of 1999.

Absolute contraindications in relation to potential drug interactions in outpatient prescriptions: analysis of the first five million prescriptions in 1999

OBJECTIVES

Adverse drug interactions increase morbidity and mortality. To prevent these, situations leading to adverse prescriptions must be clarified. This study quantifies and analyses prescriptions with potential adverse drug interactions in primary health care in the north of France over a 3-month period.

METHODS

All prescriptions administered between 1 January and 31 March 1999 were analysed to identify potential interactions amongst drugs appearing on the same prescription sheet. The regional French healthcare database was compiled to further classify contra-indications.

RESULTS

There were 5,358,374 prescriptions administered to 44% of the overall population of the Nord-Pas de Calais area (1,754,372 patients/3,990,167 general population). There were 14,390 prescriptions classified as either absolute (26%) or relative contraindications (74%). Nine drug categories accounted for most of the absolute contraindications: dopaminergic antiparkinsonians, neuroleptic agents, migraine treatments (such as ergot alkaloids, sumatriptan and other triptan derivatives), prokinetic drugs (cisapride), antibacterial drugs (macrolides), antifungals (imidazoles), antiarrhythmics, betablockers and analgesics (opioids and floctafenine). In 54% of patients exposed, the incurred risk was either QT prolongation/Torsade de Pointes or antagonism of dopaminergic antiparkinson agents with dopamine receptor antagonists prescribed as antipsychotic agents.

CONCLUSIONS

Among a non-selected population of ambulatory outpatients, the number of quarterly prescriptions with contra-indications with potentially harmful drug interaction was 27 in 10,000 prescriptions. This would extrapolate to nearly 200,000 contra-indications on the same-prescription sheets in France in the first quarter of 1999.

Drug interactions avoided-a useful indicator of good prescribing practice

AIMS

To develop an index of quality prescribing in general practice by investigating the incidence of potential drug interactions when medicines were coprescribed within the State supported General Medical Services (GMS) in Ireland.

METHODS

We determined an odds ratio (OR), as a measure of the relative risk of being exposed to a potential interaction, comparing the use of the H2-receptor antagonist, cimetidine, with that of the noninteracting agents ranitidine, famotidine and nizatidine in users and nonusers of warfarin, phenytoin and theophylline.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

In 86 510 prescriptions for the H2-receptor antagonists potentially interacting drugs were dispensed to 8188 (9%) patients in the Eastern Health Board Region of the GMS. We found that prescribers were significantly less likely to use cimetidine (OR = 0.20,95% CI 0. 17-0.21, P < 0.001) in those patients who were coprescribed warfarin, suggesting good prescribing practice within the GMS. Similarly there was preferential use of the noninteracting H2-receptor antagonists in patients receiving phenytoin or theophylline and the extent of this selective prescribing was in keeping with the rank order of severity of interaction with these drugs. This novel pharmacological index may be a sensitive marker of good prescribing practice.

Pharmacokinetic drug interactions with anti-ulcer drugs

The safety profile of any pharmacological agent is defined on the basis of its toxicity, tolerability and potential for pharmacokinetic and/or pharmacodynamic interactions with other compounds, which may belong to the same or to a different pharmacological class. Drug-drug interactions are important in clinical practice because short and long term therapeutic regimens frequently require coadministration of different drugs. The pharmacological treatment of gastric and duodenal ulcers (and of related syndromes) includes older and newer compounds, which have different mechanisms of action and exert different therapeutic effects. These compounds are widely prescribed in combination with other drugs being given for the treatment of concomitant diseases. This article reviews pharmacokinetic interactions with anti-ulcer drugs, paying particular attention to those which have clinically relevant adverse effects. Drugs mentioned in the literature as causing any pharmacokinetic interaction with anti-ulcer compounds are considered in this article.

Omeprazole. An update of its pharmacology and therapeutic use in acid-related disorders

Omeprazole, a gastric acid pump inhibitor, dose-dependently controls gastric acid secretion: the drug has greater antisecretory activity than histamine H2-receptor antagonists. Omeprazole 20 to 40 mg/day is more effective than histamine H2-receptor antagonists in the short term treatment of duodenal ulcer, gastric ulcer and reflux oesophagitis. Available data suggest that omeprazole 10 to 40 mg/day is also more effective than ranitidine in the maintenance therapy of duodenal ulcer and reflux oesophagitis. The drug is also effective in patients with duodenal ulcer, gastric ulcer or reflux oesophagitis poorly responsive to histamine H2-receptor antagonists. The efficacy of omeprazole 20 mg/day appears to be similar to that of lansoprazole 30 mg/day in the short term treatment of duodenal ulcer, gastric ulcer and reflux oesophagitis. However, most available studies have been reported in abstract form only, and 2 of 3 studies in patients with duodenal ulcer have shown greater healing rates at 2 (but not 4) weeks with lansoprazole. Helicobacter pylori eradication decreases duodenal ulcer relapse rates and appears to be associated with improved duodenal ulcer healing rates. Evidence also suggests that H. pylori eradication is associated with reduced gastric ulcer relapse rates. Omeprazole monotherapy may suppress but does not eradicate H. pylori infection. Eradication rates with omeprazole 20 or 40 mg twice daily plus amoxicillin usually up to 2 g/day (3 g/day in a few studies) for 2 weeks appear to be similar to those of standard triple therapy (bismuth salt plus metronidazole, plus tetracycline or amoxicillin) or omeprazole plus clarithromycin, although eradication rates vary widely. Omeprazole plus amoxicillin appears to be better tolerated than triple therapy and represents a first-line treatment alternative in patients with H. pylori-associated peptic ulcer disease. Omeprazole plus amoxicillin plus metronidazole appears to be more effective than omeprazole plus amoxicillin in patients with metronidazole-sensitive H. pylori infection. Omeprazole remains a treatment of choice in patients with Zollinger-Ellison syndrome. The dosages should be adjusted according to individual response. However, relatively low dosages of 10 to 40 mg/day may be sufficient in some patients. The drug has also shown promise in the treatment of children with severe reflux oesophagitis, in patients with reflux oesophagitis and coexisting systemic sclerosis, and in the prevention of aspiration pneumonia. Evidence suggests that omeprazole is more effective than ranitidine in patients with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-induced gastric damage who continue to take NSAIDs, especially in patients with large gastric ulcers; however, completion of ongoing studies is required to verify this.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Clinical relevance of cimetidine drug interactions

The excellent efficacy and tolerability profiles of H2-antagonists have established these agents as the leading class of antiulcer drugs. Attention has been focused on drug interactions with H2-antagonists as a means of product differentiation and because many patients are receiving multiple drug therapy. The main mechanism of most drug interactions involving cimetidine appears to be inhibition of the hepatic microsomal enzyme cytochrome P450, an effect which may be related to the different structures of H2-antagonists. Ranitidine appears to have less affinity than cimetidine for this system. There have been many published case reports and studies of drug interactions with cimetidine, but many of these have provided pharmacokinetic data only, with little information concerning the clinical significance of these findings. Nevertheless, the coadministration of cimetidine with drugs that have a narrow therapeutic margin (such as theophylline) may potentially result in clinically significant adverse effects. The monitoring of serum concentrations of drugs coadministered with cimetidine may reduce the risk of adverse events but does not abolish the problem. However, for most patients, concomitant administration of cimetidine with drugs possessing a wide therapeutic margin is unlikely to pose a significant problem.