Potential Interactions of Medication Prescribed in Discharge Letters from a Clinic for Hematology and Oncology

The Prevalence of Polypharmacy and Potential Drug-Drug Interactions among Iranian Cancer Patients: which Patients Were at Risk?

INTRODUCTION

Drug-Drug interactions (DDIs) are one of the considerable consequences of polypharmacy. Due to the influence of polypharmacy and drug interactions on cancer treatment and patients` health outcomes, the present study aimed to determine the prevalence of polypharmacy and potential DDIs among adult cancer patients in Kerman province, southeast of Iran.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, 315 cancer patients who referred to Kerman city oncology clinics were assessed in 2018. Data were collected through face-to-face interviews and medical charts were reviewed. Polypharmacy was defined as the use of at least five drugs simultaneously. Potential DDIs were checked using the "Drugs.com" online database. A bivariable and a multivariable logistic regression were used to determine the associated factors of outcome variables, polypharmacy status and potential DDI in SPSS software version 23.

RESULTS

Of 315 cancer patients, 191 patients (60.6%; 95% CI:54.9, 66) used at least five drugs during chemotherapy courses. The prevalence of potential DDIs was 59.6% (n = 140, 95% CI: 53.6-66.0. Experience co-morbid diseases (OR:6.60; 95%CI: 3.82, 11.42; P-value ≤0.0001), and positive metastatic status (OR:2.80; 95%CI: 1.62, 4.82; P-value ≤0.0001) could predict the polypharmacy during chemotherapy courses. Patients who suffered gastrointestinal cancers (OR:5.55; 95%CI: 2.26, 13.62; P-value ≤0.0001) and the number of prescribed or Over The Counter (OTC) drugs (OR:1.29; 95%CI: 1.12, 1.48; P-value <0.0001) predicted the occurrence of potential DDIs among cancer patients.

CONCLUSION

Regarding the high prevalence of polypharmacy and potential drug interactions among Iranian cancer patients during chemotherapy courses, it is advisable for physicians, nurses, and pharmacists to be vigilant to improve prescribing patterns. In addition, with intensive monitoring, alternative treatment strategies can be replaced.

Interactions in cancer treatment considering cancer therapy, concomitant medications, food, herbal medicine and other supplements

Purpose

The aim of our study was to analyse the frequency and severity of different types of potential interactions in oncological outpatients’ therapy. Therefore, medications, food and substances in terms of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) like dietary supplements, herbs and other processed ingredients were considered.

Methods

We obtained data from questionnaires and from analysing the patient records of 115 cancer outpatients treated at a German university hospital. Drug–drug interactions were identified using a drug interaction checking software. Potential CAM-drug interactions and food–drug interactions were identified based on literature research.

Results

92.2% of all patients were at risk of one or more interaction of any kind and 61.7% of at least one major drug–drug interaction. On average, physicians prescribed 10.4 drugs to each patient and 6.9 interactions were found, 2.5 of which were classified as major. The most prevalent types of drug–drug interactions were a combination of QT prolonging drugs (32.3%) and drugs with a potential for myelotoxicity (13.4%) or hepatotoxicity (10.1%). In 37.2% of all patients using CAM supplements the likelihood of interactions with medications was rated as likely. Food-drug interactions were likely in 28.7% of all patients.

Conclusion

The high amount of interactions could not be found in literature so far. We recommend running interaction checks when prescribing any new drug and capturing CAM supplements in medication lists too. If not advised explicitly in another way drugs should be taken separately from meals and by using nonmineralized water to minimize the risk for food–drug interactions.

Collaborative networks and thematic trends of research on the application of complementary and alternative medicine in cancer patients: A bibliometric analysis

BACKGROUND

and purpose: Complementary and Alternative Medicine(CAM) has been greatly used in cancer patients. This research aimed to explore the research priorities of CAM for cancer patient's treatment.

METHODS

Web of Science(WoS), HistCite, BibExcel, GunnMap and VOSviewer were used to extract and visualize information.

RESULTS

2768 articles published in 789 journals were indexed in the WoS from 1989 to 2018. The USA(n = 1009) and Technion-Israel Institute Technology(n = 58) were the most prolific country and institution, respectively. Keywords co-occurrence analysis indicated that the research hotspots around the world formed five clusters, so did the author co-citation analysis. The research priorities of the top-five countries, the top-three prolific authors and the co-citation core authors were also discussed, which reveals the differences and similarities among them.

CONCLUSION

This study delineates a framework for better understanding the situational use of CAM in cancer patients, which could help health care workers to prioritize and organize future research.

Potential drug-drug interactions and nephrotoxicity in hematopoietic stem cell transplant adult recipients during bone marrow transplantation unit stay

PURPOSE

Studies have documented potential drug-drug interactions (pDDIs) occurring in cancer patients mainly with solid malignancies, either in the ambulatory or hospital settings. While hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) patients during their bone marrow transplantation unit (BMTU) stay have rather complex medical regimens combining chemotherapy, anti-infectious agents, immunosuppressive agents, and supportive-care drugs, studies on potential DDIs are lacking. Our objective was to evaluate the prevalence and the density of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic potential DDIs, and the evolution of the renal function in hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) adult recipients during their BMTU stay.

METHODS

Retrospective study in 31 adult patients consecutively admitted to the BMTU.

RESULTS

Prevalence of pharmacokinetic interactions was ten times lower than the pharmacodynamic interactions. The contraindications were rare, and only of pharmacokinetic origin. The main drugs involved in pharmacokinetic DDIs were ciclosporine, methotrexate, esomeprazole, tramadol, and vincristine. The median number of potential nephrotoxicity-related DDIs per patient was 7 and the median number of days during which nephrotoxicity-related DDIs potentially occurred was 77 days per patient. The decrease in glomerular filtration rate (GFR) throughout the BMTU stay (mean decrease of 13 ml/min) was correlated with the number of days of potential nephrotoxic drug interactions.

CONCLUSIONS

Potential DDIs in HCST patients in BMTU were quite common. The DDIs from pharmacokinetic origin were less frequent, but of higher grade, than those of pharmacodynamic origin. The decrease in GFR suggests that the density of potential nephrotoxic drug interactions may be an issue to be considered in these patients.