Assessment of drug-drug interactions among patients with hematologic malignancy: A clinical pharmacist-led study

INTRODUCTION

Patients with hematologic malignancies often receive multiple medications, leading to potential drug-drug interactions (DDIs). Identifying and managing these DDIs is crucial for ensuring patient safety and effective care. This study aimed to identify and describe DDIs and associated factors in hematologic malignancy patients.

METHODS

This prospective interventional study was conducted at a referral center and included hospitalized patients with hematologic malignancies who were receiving at least four concurrent medications. A pharmacist initially compiled a comprehensive list of all medications through patient interviews and medication reviews, and subsequently, identified and categorized potential DDIs using the Lexi-interact® and Micromedex® databases. The clinical pharmacist then evaluated the clinical impact of the identified DDIs in every individual patient and provided appropriate interventions to resolve them.

RESULTS

A total of 200 patients met the inclusion criteria for the study, with 1281 DDIs identified across 337 distinct types. The majority of identified DDIs exhibited major severity (52.1%) and pharmacokinetic mechanisms (50.3%), with an unspecified onset (79.4%) and fair evidence (67%). Of the identified DDIs, 81.1% were considered clinically significant, prompting 1059 pharmacotherapy interventions by the clinical pharmacist. Additionally, a significant relationship was observed between the number of drugs used during hospitalization and the occurrence of DDIs (P < 0.001, r = 0.633).

CONCLUSION

DDIs are highly prevalent among hospitalized patients with hematologic malignancies, with their occurrence increasing alongside the number of medications administrated. The intervention of a clinical pharmacist is crucial to evaluate the clinical impact of these DDIs and implement effective interventions for their management.

Potential Drug Interactions in Hospitalized Hematologic Cancer Patients: New Update with New Chemotherapy Regimens

Objective

This cross-sectional study aimed to assess the frequency of potential drug-drug interactions (DDIs) and demographic correlates of moderate and major DDIs among patients with hematologic cancer at a referral hematology hospital in Iran.

Methods

In this study, for 6 months, all patients suffering from hematologic cancers admitted to the tertiary oncology hospital, Omid, Isfahan, were considered. Data from all medications prescribed to patients during hospitalization were analyzed using the online Lexicomp® drug interaction checker, recording all interactions classified by risk level: C, D, or X.

Findings

A total of 674 DDIs were detected in 109 patients. The prevalence of treatments with at least one clinically relevant interaction was 95%, being 57.9% for those at level C and 31.5% for levels D and X. According to the frequency, the main interaction was between aprepitant and corticosteroids, followed by the interaction between aprepitant and vincristine. The most common interaction between antineoplastic agents was between doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide. In terms of mechanism, most of DDIs (54.9%) were pharmacodynamics. Only the number of administered medications was associated with DDI occurrence.

Conclusion

Potential DDIs of moderate to major severity are common among patients with hematologic malignancies. This underscores the importance of implementing different strategies to mitigate this clinically significant risk.

Prevalence of Potential Pharmacological Interactions in Patients Undergoing Systemic Chemotherapy in a Tertiary Hospital

Introduction: Pharmacological interactions are frequently observed in patients with chronic diseases, and their occurrence is proportional to the amount of medication used daily. Patients undergoing chemotherapy treatment commonly have comorbidities, which favor a greater prevalence of polypharmacy, increasing the risk of drug interactions. Therefore, the aim of this study was to estimate the prevalence of drug interactions in patients undergoing intravenous chemotherapy treated at a hospital oncology service in southern Brazil. Methods: This was an observational study with a cross-sectional design that was carried out with the analysis of secondary data obtained through the review of medical records. The population assessed consisted of all cancer patients who received intravenous chemotherapy from October to December 2020. Results: Out of the 297 patients included in the study, 231 (77.8%) had at least 1 potential pharmacological interaction. In total, 1044 drug interactions were found that were classified according to severity, resulting in 18 (1.7%) contraindicated drug-drug interactions (DDI), 699 (67%) severe, 281 (26.9%) moderate, and 46 (4.4%) minor interactions. There was an association between polypharmacy and the prevalence of drug interactions. Conclusion: The results demonstrate that a large percentage of patients undergoing chemotherapy are susceptible to drug interactions. Thus, it is necessary that prescribers consider all drugs used by patients and, when possible, prescribe alternative drugs that have less potential for interaction in order to prevent drug interactions adverse effects and provide a better prognosis for patients.

The Prevalence of Drug-Drug Interactions and Reported Therapy Related Side Effects in Oncology Out-Patients

Objective: The use of multiple medications in cancer patients is unavoidable; thus, adverse drug-drug interactions are frequent. This study aims to assess the prevalence of potential drug interactions in oncology patients visiting the outpatient chemotherapy unit. Method: Demographic and health-related information of patients visiting an outpatient chemotherapy unit was recorded using a pre-prepared form. A comprehensive list of all concurrently used medications was compiled and checked for interactions with the Micromedex online drug interaction tool. Results: A total of 179 adult patients were included. We recorded an average of 9.3 drugs per patient with 79 patients using more than 10 drugs. A total of 1671 drugs including 303 chemotherapeutic agents were assessed for drug-drug interactions. A total of 374 interactions, of which 203 were significant, were recorded in 118 (65.9%) patients with an average of 3.2 interactions per patient. Only 46 major interactions were recorded for anticancer agents. Cyclophosphamide (n=13) and cisplatin (n=12) were involved in most interactions. The number of interactions correlated with the number of drugs used (p=.001) and the presence of comorbidities (p=.002). The presence of comorbidities increased the risk of interaction by 1.21 (p=.04). Recorded side effects were not correlated to drug interactions. Conclusion: Medication review in cancer patients is essential in establishing all medications used by patients. Routine assessment in terms of potential drug interactions and evaluation of these interactions by a qualified pharmacist may help in optimizing patient outcomes.

Potential drug-drug interactions in drug therapy for older adults with chronic coronary syndrome at hospital discharge: A real-world study

Introduction: Polypharmacy are commonly observed among older adults with cardiovascular disease. However, multiple medications lead to increased risk of drug-drug interactions (DDIs). Therefore, identification and prevention actions related to harmful DDIs are expected in older adults. The study aimed to describe the prevalence of potential DDIs (pDDIs) in discharge prescriptions among older adults with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS).

Methods: A single-center cross-sectional study was performed in a tertiary public hospital in Beijing, China. CCS patients aged 65 years and above who were admitted to cardiology wards over a 3-month period and alive at discharge were included. Electronic medical records and discharge prescriptions were reviewed. pDDIs were evaluated through the Lexi-Interact online.

Results: pDDIs were identified in 72.9% of the 402 individuals (n = 293). A total of 864 pDDIs were obtained. 72.1% of patients were found with C DDIs (n = 290) and 20.3% were categorized in D and X DDIs (n = 82). The only X DDI was between cyclosporine and atorvastatin. Under category D, glycemia alterations within antidiabetics and increased chances of bleeding with antithrombotic were the most common. Concomitant use of clopidogrel and calcium channel blockers was a frequent situation within category C, followed by synergic blood pressure lowering agents and increased rosuvastatin concentration induced by clopidogrel.

Conclusion: DDIs exposure was common in older CCS. DDIs screening tools should be introduced to alert potential adverse effects. Prescribers need to rigorously review or modulate therapies to prevent DDI-related adverse outcomes. Clinical pharmacists should be more involved in complex drug regimen management.

Potential Drug Interactions Between Psychotropics and Intravenous Chemotherapeutics Used by Patients With Cancer

Introduction: Patients undergoing cancer treatment usually have comorbidities, and psychiatric disorders are commonly seen in these patients. For the treatment of these psychiatric disorders, the use of psychotropic drugs is common, turning these patients susceptible to untoward drug interactions. Therefore, the aim of this study was to estimate the prevalence of clinically relevant drug-drug interactions (DDI) between chemotherapeutic and psychotropic agents in patients with cancer treated at an oncology service in southern Brazil. Methods: An observational epidemiological study with a cross-sectional census-type design was carried out between October and December 2020. The drug-drug interactions were identified through consultation and analysis of the Medscape Drug Interaction Check and Micromedex databases. The interactions were classified as major, when the interaction can be fatal and/or require medical intervention to avoid or minimize serious adverse effects and moderate, when the interaction can exacerbate the patient's condition and/or requires changes in therapy. Results: A total of 74 patients was included in the study among the 194 patients seen in the oncology service during the period studied. A total of 24 (32.4%) DDIs were found, 21 (87.5%) of which were classified as being of major risk and 3 (12.5%) as moderate risk. According to the mechanism of action, 19 (79.1%) were classified as pharmacodynamic interactions and 5 (20.9%) as pharmacokinetic interactions. Conclusion: It was shown that a considerable percentage of patients undergoing intravenous chemotherapy are at risk of pharmacological interaction with psychotropic drugs. Thus, it is essential that the oncologist considers all psychotropic drugs and other drugs used by patients in order to avoid drug-drug interactions.

Comparison of different decision support software programs in perspective of potential drug-drug interactions in the oncology clinic

INTRODUCTION

One of the most intriguing situations for healthcare providers is cancer therapy. Drug-drug interactions (DDIs) account for 20-30% of all adverse effects. Cancer patients are more likely to have potential-DDIs since they are taking other drugs with anticancer treatments to prevent the side effects of chemotherapeutic agents. The purpose of this research is to compare various decision support software (CDSS) programs in terms of potential DDIs.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was carried out. A clinical pharmacist assessed the treatment regimens of 231 cancer patients. pDDIs were evaluated using three sources: Lexicomp®, Medscape®, and Micromedex®. The ethical approval was given in November 2017 with decision number 21/286.

RESULTS

A total of 231 participants who were receiving therapy and had a median age of 61.5 ± 9.18 years were assessed. Almost half of the patients (49%) were female, and 155 had at least one comorbidity in addition to cancer. Medscape had a substantial pDDI ratio of 7.09%, Micromedex had a ratio of 11.15%, and Lexicomp had a ratio of 19.50%. The total number of pDDIs for major/X/contraindicated were 363-2716 (1.56-11.7 pDDI/patient) for Medscape®, 60-1723 (0.26-7.4 pDDI/patient) for Micromedex, and 145-984 (0.62-2.24 pDDI/patient) for Lexicomp®. One of the most common pDDI found was diclofenac and dexamethasone. Interactions between escitalopram and granisetron were also common, and different CDSSs made different recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, significant disparities in the quantity and severity of CDSS across distinct CDSS were discovered. One of the major finding of our study was suboptimal prescribing. To address this issue, regulatory organizations should establish and verify validation and reporting mechanisms.

A comprehensive evaluation of potentially significant drug-drug, drug-herb, and drug-food interactions among cancer patients receiving anticancer drugs

INTRODUCTION

During the cancer treatment path, cancer patients use numerous drugs, including anticancer, supportive, and other prescribed medications, along with herbs and certain products. This puts them at risk of significant drug interactions (DIs). This study describes DIs in cancer patients and their prevalence and predictors.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study design was used to achieve the study objectives. The study was carried out in two centers in the northern West Bank, Palestine. The Lexicomp® Drug Interactions tool (Lexi-Comp, Hudson OH, USA) was applied to check the potential DIs. In addition, the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) was used to show the results and find the associations.

RESULTS

The final analysis included 327 patients. Most of the participants were older than 50 years (61.2%), female (68.5%), and had a solid tumor (74.6%). The total number of potential DIs was 1753, including 1510 drug-drug interactions (DDIs), 24 drug-herb interactions, and 219 drug-food interactions. Importantly, the prevalence of DDIs was 88.1%. In multivariate analysis, the number of potential DDIs significantly decreased with the duration of treatment (p = 0.007), while it increased with the number of comorbidities (p < 0.001) and the number of drugs used (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

We found a high prevalence of DIs among cancer patients. This required health care providers to develop a comprehensive protocol to monitor and evaluate DIs by improving doctor-pharmacist communication and supporting the role of clinical pharmacists.

Drug-drug interactions in subjects enrolled in SWOG trials of oral chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Patients with cancer are at increased risk of drug-drug interactions (DDI), which can increase treatment toxicity or decrease efficacy. It is especially important to thoroughly screen DDI in oncology clinical trial subjects to ensure trial subject safety and data accuracy. This study determined the prevalence of potential DDI involving oral anti-cancer trial agents in subjects enrolled in two SWOG clinical trials.

METHODS

Completed SWOG clinical trials of commercially available agents with possible DDI that had complete concomitant medication information available at enrollment were included. Screening for DDI was conducted through three methods: protocol-guided screening, Lexicomp® screening, and pharmacist determination of clinical relevance. Descriptive statistics were calculated.

RESULTS

SWOG trials S0711 (dasatinib, n = 83) and S0528 (everolimus/lapatinib, n = 84) were included. Subjects received an average of 6.6 medications (standard deviation = 4.9, range 0-29) at enrollment. Based on the clinical trial protocols, at enrollment 18.6% (31/167) of subjects had a DDI and 12.0% (20/167) had a DDI that violated a protocol exclusion criterion. According to Lexicomp®, 28.7% of subjects (48/167) had a DDI classified as moderate or worse, whereas pharmacist review indicated that 7.2% of subjects (12/167) had a clinically relevant interaction. The majority of clinically relevant DDI identified were due to the coadministration of acid suppression therapies with dasatinib (83.3%, 10/12).

CONCLUSIONS

The high DDI prevalence in subjects enrolled on SWOG clinical trials, including a high prevalence that violate trial exclusion criteria, support the need for improved processes for DDI screening to ensure trial subject safety and trial data accuracy.

Prevalence of potential interactions of medications, including herbs and supplements, before, during, and after chemotherapy in patients with breast and prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

The use of herbs and supplements (HS) is common among patients with cancer, yet limited information exists about potential medication interactions (PMIs) with HS use around chemotherapy.

METHODS

Patients with breast or prostate cancer who had recently finished chemotherapy at 2 academic medical centers were surveyed by telephone. Interviewers inquired about all medications, including HS, before, during, and after chemotherapy. Micromedex, Lexicomp, and Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database interaction software programs were used to determine PMIs.

RESULTS

A total of 67 subjects (age range, 39-77 years) were evaluated in this study. Participants were primarily White patients (73%) with breast cancer (87%). The median number of medications was 11 (range, 2-28) during the entire study and was highest during chemotherapy (7; range, 2-22). Approximately four-fifths (84%) used HS. A total of 1747 PMIs were identified, and they represented 635 unique PMIs across all 3 timeframes, with most occurring during chemotherapy. Prescription-related PMIs (70%) were the most common type, and they were followed by HS-related (56%) and anticancer treatment-related PMIs (22%). Approximately half of the PMIs (54%) were categorized as moderate interactions, and more than one-third (38%) were categorized as major interactions. Patient use of HS increased from 51% during chemotherapy to 66% after chemotherapy, and this correlated with an increased prevalence of HS PMIs (46% to 60%). HS users were more likely to be at risk for a major PMI than non-HS users (92% vs 70%; P = .038).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of HS remains prevalent among patients with cancer and may place them at risk for PMIs both during chemotherapy and after the completion of treatment.

LAY SUMMARY

This study evaluates the risk of potential medication interactions for patients with breast or prostate cancer undergoing chemotherapy. The results show that patients often use herbs and supplements during treatment. Prescription medications are most often associated with medication interactions, which are followed by herb and supplement-related interactions. More than one-third of potential medication interactions are considered major. Patients should be educated about the risk of herb and supplement-related medication interactions during treatment.

Real-world prevalence of potential drug-drug interactions involving oral antineoplastic agents: a population-based study

PURPOSE

We aimed to gain insight into the real-world prevalence of potentially significant drug-drug interactions (DDIs) involving oral antineoplastic agents using nationwide data in Korea.

METHODS

The data from the 2016 and 2017 Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service-National Patients Sample (HIRA-NPS) of South Korea were used. The drugs prescribed concomitantly with oral anticancer drugs were screened for the potential DDIs by using two international DDI databases: Lexicomp^TM and Micromedex®. Potentially significant DDIs were defined as DDIs with a severity rating of "major" or higher from at least one reference. The DDIs were classified into category 1 if the severity ratings were major or higher using both references.

RESULTS

Overall 5657 cases of DDIs in 2925 patients (26.4%) and 1640 cases of category 1 DDIs in 997 patients (9.0%) were identified among 11,076 patients receiving oral anticancer drugs. The prevalence was highest among the targeted agents (63.2%) followed by traditional (21.2%) and endocrine agents (19.3%). The common potential clinical consequences were increased risk of corrected QT interval prolongation (36.7%), reduced efficacy of antineoplastic agents (30.4%), and increased toxicities of antineoplastic agents (8.0%). Polypharmacy and the duration of oral cancer treatment increased the likelihood of potential DDIs in addition to individual antineoplastic agents.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that potentially significant DDIs with oral antineoplastic agents were prevalent in real-world practice. Recognizing the high prevalence of DDIs among patients taking oral antineoplastic agents is a necessary step toward improving the clinical outcome.

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.