Current Knowledge about Providing Drug-Drug Interaction Services for Patients-A Scoping Review

Indirect and Direct 65+ Patient Reporting of Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug-Induced Adverse Drug Reactions as a Source of Information on Polypharmacy and Polypharmacy-Related Risk

Background and Objectives: Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), which have anti-inflammatory and analgesic properties, are commonly used in the treatment of various, particularly frequent, as well as chronic, conditions in older patients. Due to common polypragmasia in these patients and a high risk of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and drug interactions, pain management poses a therapeutic challenge. This study describes the importance of ADR reports in the identification of polypharmacy and the ensuing interactions. Materials and Methods: Both healthcare professionals (HPs) and non-healthcare professionals (non-HPs) reports collected in the EudraVigilance database of NSAIDs, including most commonly co-reported medications and reported reactions, were analysed and differences between HPs and non-HPs reports were identified. Results: In the analysed period and group, non-HPs reported more reactions but indicated fewer drugs as suspect or concomitant. The outcomes of our analysis indicate more HP engagement and more detailed reports of serious ADRs when compared to non-serious individual case safety reports (ICSRs) by non-HPs, which appeared more detailed. Such reactions as kidney failure and increased risk of bleeding are known adverse reactions to NSAIDs and common symptoms of their interactions, which were described in the available literature. They were much more frequently reported by HPs than by non-HPs. Non-HPs more frequently reported reactions that may have been considered less significant by HPs. Conclusions: The differences between healthcare professionals' (HPs) and non-healthcare professionals' (non-HPs) reports may result from the fact that the reports from patients and their caregivers require a professional medical diagnosis based on symptoms described by the patient or additional diagnostic tests. This means that when appropriately classified, medically verified, and statistically analysed, the data may provide new evidence for the risks of medication use or drug interactions.

Clinical relevance of potential self-medication drug interactions in antineoplastic and immune-modulating therapy among online pharmacy customers

Background

Modern oral antineoplastic and immune-modulating drugs offer an array of therapeutic advantages, and yet pose challenges in daily use for patients, physicians and pharmacists. In contrast to intravenous administration, these drugs are not subject to direct medical control. Recently, we have seen a huge rise in sales of non-prescription over-the-counter (OTC) medicines via the internet without any advice from a healthcare professional.

Objectives

The aim of this study was to investigate whether the risk of known potential drug-drug interactions between modern oral antineoplastic and immune-modulating drugs and OTC drugs differs between sales in traditional community pharmacies versus online pharmacies.

Design

Real-life sales data from community and online pharmacies were used as basis for the analysis.

Methods

We determined the most frequently purchased antineoplastic and immune-modulating drug-substances in 14 local community pharmacies within the Munich area, Germany and identified the OTC substance groups that could potentially cause interactions with oncological therapies. Using sales data from 11 local community pharmacies and three online pharmacies, we investigated whether OTC purchases differed between the two sales channels.

Results

We identified 10 relevant OTC substance classes and detected significant variations in patients' preferred sales channels between the drug classes. Certain OTC drugs, which seem to be bought more often over the internet, pose risks during antineoplastic and immune-modulating therapy.

Conclusion

Patients should therefore be proactively made aware of the corresponding risks in order not to jeopardize the activity of the antineoplastic and immune-modulating drugs and thus the success of their therapy.

Potentially harmful drug-drug interactions in the therapeutic regimens of persons with spinal cord injury

OBJECTIVES

Individuals with spinal cord injury deal with multiple health complications that require them to use many medications. The purpose of this paper was to find the most common potentially harmful drug-drug interactions (DDIs) in therapeutic regimens of persons with spinal cord injury, and the risk factors associated with it. We further highlight the relevance of each of the DDIs specific to spinal cord injury population.

DESIGN

Observational design and cross-sectional analysis.

SETTING

Community; Canada.

PARTICIPANTS

Individuals with spinal cord injury (n = 108).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES/ANALYSIS

The main outcome was the presence of one or more potential DDIs that can lead to an adverse outcome. All the reported drugs were classified as per the World Health Organization's Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification system. Twenty potential DDIs were selected for the analysis based on the most common medications prescribed to people with spinal cord injury and severity of clinical consequences. The medication lists of study participants were analyzed for selected DDIs.

RESULTS

Among the 20 potential DDIs analyzed in our sample, the top 3 prevalent DDIs were Opioids + Skeletal Muscle Relaxants, Opioids + Gabapentinoids, and Benzodiazepines + ≥ 2 other central nervous system (CNS)-active drugs. Of the total sample of 108 respondents, 31 participants (29%) were identified with having at least one potential DDI. The risk of having a potential DDI was highly associated with polypharmacy, though no associations were found between the presence of a drug interaction and age, sex, level of injury, time since injury, or cause of injury among the study sample.

CONCLUSION

Almost three out of ten individuals with spinal cord injury were at risk of having a potentially harmful drug interaction. Clinical and communication tools are needed that facilitate identification and elimination of harmful drug combinations in the therapeutic regimens of patients with spinal cord injury.

Pharmaceutical Care Within Community Pharmacies: Tools Availability and Pharmacists' Views, Wad-Medani, Sudan

Background

Pharmaceutical Care (PhC) services within community pharmacies (CPs) have become a vital issue in many developed countries.

Purpose

This study assessed the availability of PhC tools and pharmacists' views towards PhC services within CPs in Sudan.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted from December 2019 to August 2020 using a pretested self-administered questionnaire. The participants were 120 community pharmacists.

Results

Fifty-eight percent of respondents used to work in pharmacies near homes rather than within the marketplace. The study revealed that the overall tool availability of the assessed components and items was only 25% (Counselling areas 3%, Records 5%, Pharmacist identity 3%, Pharmacy phones 15%, Medical devices 38%, and Staff 29%). The result of pharmacists' views towards the PhC concept, roles, and responsibilities showed a high level of agreement, at 88%, with a statistically insignificant difference between participants.

Conclusion

Tools available within CPs were lower than required. However, pharmacists' views showed a high agreement level towards PhC concept roles and responsibilities. Community pharmacists, academic sectors, and regulatory authorities must start initiatives to improve the provision of PhC tools for better patient care service delivery.

Screening for severe drug-drug interactions in patients with multiple sclerosis: A comparison of three drug interaction databases

Background: Patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) often undergo complex treatment regimens, resulting in an increased risk of polypharmacy and potential drug-drug interactions (pDDIs). Drug interaction databases are useful for identifying pDDIs to support safer medication use. Objective: To compare three different screening tools regarding the detection and classification of pDDIs in a cohort of MS patients. Furthermore, we aimed at ascertaining sociodemographic and clinical factors that are associated with the occurrence of severe pDDIs. Methods: The databases Stockley's, Drugs.com and MediQ were used to identify pDDIs by screening the medication schedules of 627 patients. We determined the overlap of the identified pDDIs and the level of agreement in pDDI severity ratings between the three databases. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to determine patient risk factors of having a severe pDDI. Results: The most different pDDIs were identified using MediQ (n = 1,161), followed by Drugs.com (n = 923) and Stockley's (n = 706). The proportion of pDDIs classified as severe was much higher for Stockley's (37.4%) than for Drugs.com (14.4%) and MediQ (0.9%). Overall, 1,684 different pDDIs were identified by at least one database, of which 318 pDDIs (18.9%) were detected with all three databases. Only 55 pDDIs (3.3%) have been reported with the same severity level across all databases. A total of 336 pDDIs were classified as severe (271 pDDIs by one database, 59 by two databases and 6 by three databases). Stockley's and Drugs.com revealed 47 and 23 severe pDDIs, respectively, that were not included in the other databases. At least one severe pDDI was found for 35.2% of the patients. The most common severe pDDI was the combination of acetylsalicylic acid with enoxaparin, and citalopram was the drug most frequently involved in different severe pDDIs. The strongest predictors of having a severe pDDI were a greater number of drugs taken, an older age, living alone, a higher number of comorbidities and a lower educational level. Conclusions: The information on pDDIs are heterogeneous between the databases examined. More than one resource should be used in clinical practice to evaluate pDDIs. Regular medication reviews and exchange of information between treating physicians can help avoid severe pDDIs.

Mobile Health Apps Providing Information on Drugs for Adult Emergency Care: Systematic Search on App Stores and Content Analysis

Background

Drug-referencing apps are among the most frequently used by emergency health professionals. To date, no study has analyzed the quantity and quality of apps that provide information on emergency drugs.

Objective

This study aimed to identify apps designed to assist emergency professionals in managing drugs and to describe and analyze their characteristics.

Methods

We performed an observational, cross-sectional, descriptive study of apps that provide information on drugs for adult emergency care. The iOS and Android platforms were searched in February 2021. The apps were independently evaluated by 2 hospital clinical pharmacists. We analyzed developer affiliation, cost, updates, user ratings, and number of downloads. We also evaluated the main topic (emergency drugs or emergency medicine), the number of drugs described, the inclusion of bibliographic references, and the presence of the following drug information: commercial presentations, usual dosage, dose adjustment for renal failure, mechanism of action, therapeutic indications, contraindications, interactions with other medicinal products, use in pregnancy and breastfeeding, adverse reactions, method of preparation and administration, stability data, incompatibilities, identification of high-alert medications, positioning in treatment algorithms, information about medication reconciliation, and cost.

Results

Overall, 49 apps were identified. Of these 49 apps, 32 (65%) were found on both digital platforms; 11 (22%) were available only for Android, and 6 (12%) were available only for iOS. In total, 41% (20/49) of the apps required payment (ranging from €0.59 [US $0.64] to €179.99 [US $196.10]) and 22% (11/49) of the apps were developed by non–health care professionals. The mean weighted user rating was 4.023 of 5 (SD 0.71). Overall, 45% (22/49) of the apps focused on emergency drugs, and 55% (27/49) focused on emergency medicine. More than half (29/47, 62%) did not include bibliographic references or had not been updated for more than a year (29/49, 59%). The median number of drugs was 66 (range 4 to >5000). Contraindications (26/47, 55%) and adverse reactions (24/47, 51%) were found in only half of the apps. Less than half of the apps addressed dose adjustment for renal failure (15/47, 32%), interactions (10/47, 21%), and use during pregnancy and breastfeeding (15/47, 32%). Only 6% (3/47) identified high-alert medications, and 2% (1/47) included information about medication reconciliation. Health-related developer, main topic, and greater amount of drug information were not statistically associated with higher user ratings (P=.99, P=.09, and P=.31, respectively).

Conclusions

We provide a comprehensive review of apps with information on emergency drugs for adults. Information on authorship, drug characteristics, and bibliographic references is frequently scarce; therefore, we propose recommendations to consider when developing an app of these characteristics. Future efforts should be made to increase the regulation of drug-referencing apps and to conduct a more frequent and documented review of their clinical content.