Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Prevalence and clinical significance of potential drug–drug interaction in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) are at risk of developing potential drug–drug interactions (PDDIs). The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of PDDIs that occur in HSCT patients on the day of hematopoietic stem cell infusion. We performed a cross-sectional study based on the evaluation of prescriptions to HSCT patients on the day of infusion (day 0). The PDDIs were analyzed using the DRUG-REAX® system and classified according to the severity level, available scientific evidence, time of onset, and potential clinical impact. Forty patients undergoing HSCT were included in this study; 33 patients (82.5 %) were exposed to at least one major and one contraindicated PDDI in a concomitant manner. All patients exposed to PDDIs had an increased risk of cardiotoxicity. Most cases of PDDIs were classified as being of major severity (80.9 %), with time of onset not specified (61.9 %), and with good or excellent scientific evidence (52.4 %). HSCT patients have a high prevalence of clinically significant PDDIs. The management of PDDIs requires an approach that includes biochemical tests, installation of cardiac monitors, periodic electrocardiograms, implementation of electronic prescriptions with a PDDI alert system, and availability of the PDDI databases.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Guastaldi RBF, Secoli SR (2011) Drug interactions of anti-microbial agents used in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem 19:960–967

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Glotzbecker B, Duncan C, Alyea E, Campbell B, Soiffer R (2012) Important drug interactions in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: what every physician should know. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 18:989–1006

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Guastaldi RBF, Reis AMM, Figueras A, Secoli SR (2011) Prevalence of potential drug–drug interactions in bone marrow transplant patients. Int J Clin Pharm 33:1002–1009

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Antin JH, Raley DY (2013) Manual of stem cell and bone marrow transplantation. Cambrigde University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  5. Riechelmann RP, Tannock IF, Wang L, Saad ED, Taback NA, Krzyzanowska MK (2007) Potential drug interactions and duplicate prescriptions among cancer patients. J Natl Cancer Inst 99:592–600

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Beijnen JH, Schellens JH (2004) Drug interactions in oncology. Lancet Oncol 5:489–496

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Tatro DS (2011) Drug interactions facts. Wolters Kluwer Health/Facts & Comparisons, St Louis

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bachmann KA (2003) Drug interactions handbook. Lexi-Comp, Hudson

    Google Scholar 

  9. van Leeuwen RWF, Brundel DHS, Neef C et al (2013) Prevalence of potential drug–drug interactions in cancer patients treated with oral anticancer drugs. Br J Cancer 108:1071–1078

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lu C, Liao M, Cohen L, Xia CQ (2010) Emerging in vitro tools to evaluate cytochrome P450 and transporter-mediated drug–drug interactions. Curr Drug Discov Technol 7:199–222

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Buajordet I, Ebbesen J, Erikssen J, Brørs O, Hilberg T (2001) Fatal adverse drug events: the paradox of drug treatment. J Intern Med 250:327–341

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Gholaminezhad S, Hadjibabaie M, Gholami K et al (2014) Pattern and associated factors of potential drug–drug interactions in both pre- and early post-hematopoietic stem cell transplantation stages at a referral center in the middle east. Ann Hematol 93:1913–1922

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Egger SS, Meier S, Leu C et al (2010) Drug interactions and adverse events associated with antimycotic drugs used for invasive aspergillosis in hematopoietic SCT. Bone Marrow Transplant 45:1197–1203

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Jaklič A, Collins CJ, Mrhar A et al (2013) High prevalence of potential drug interactions affecting mycophenolic acid pharmacokinetics in nonmyeloablative hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 51:711–717

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Micromedex Healthcare Series. http://www.micromedexsolutions.com. Accessed 5 Jan 2014

  16. World Health Organization. Collaborating Center for Drug Statistics Methodology. ATC/DDD Index (2012). http://www.whocc.no/atcddd/index. Accessed 16 Nov 2013

  17. Lexi-interact. http://webstore.lexi.com/Lexi-Interact. Accessed 29 Nov 2014

  18. Drugs.com. http://www.drugs.com/drug_interactions.html. Accessed 30 Nov 2014

  19. CredibleMeds. http://reference.medscape.com/drug-interactionchecker. Accessed 30 Nov 2014

  20. Ruping MJ, Vehreschild JJ, Cornely OA (2008) Patients at high risk of invasive fungal infections: when and how to treat. Drugs 68:1941–1962

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Singh N, Paterson DL (2005) Aspergillus infections in transplant recipients. Clin Microbiol Rev 18:44–69

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. McCoy D, Depestel DD, Carver PL (2009) Primary antifungal prophylaxis in adult hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients: current therapeutic concepts. Pharmacotherapy 29:1306–1325

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Nivoix Y, Ubeaud-Sequier G, Engel P, Leveˆque D, Herbrecht R (2009) Drug–drug interactions of triazole antifungal agents in multimorbid patients and implications for patient care. Curr Drug Metab 10:395–409

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Bow EJ (2011) Fluoroquinolones, antimicrobial resistance and neutropenic cancer patients. Curr Opin Infect Dis 24:545–553

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Lopes LA, Veroneze I, Burgardt CI, Niebel Stier CJ (2014) Prophylaxis with levofloxacin: impact on bacterial susceptibility and epidemiology in a hematopoietic stem cell transplant unit. Rev Bras Hematol Hemoter 36:35–42

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Hadjibabaie M, Badri S, Ataei S et al (2013) Potential drug–drug interactions at a referral hematology–oncology ward in Iran: a cross-sectional study. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 71:1619–1627

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (2011). FDA drug safety communication: abnormal heart rhythms may be associated with use of Zofran (ondansetron). http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/ucm271913.htm. Accessed 27 Nov 2014

  28. Freedman SB, Uleryk E, Rumantir M, Finkelstein Y (2014) Ondansetron and the risk of cardiac arrhythmias: a systematic review and postmarketing analysis. Ann Emerg Med 64:19–25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Koeller JM, Aapro MS, Gralla RJ et al (2002) Antiemetic guidelines: creating a more practical treatment approach. Support Care Cancer 10:519–522

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Robinson RF, Nahata MC, Olshefski RS (2000) Syncope associated with concurrent amitriptyline and fluconazole therapy. Ann Pharmacother 34:1406–1409

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Blower PR (2002) 5-HT3-receptor antagonists and the cytochrome P450 system: clinical implications. Cancer J 8:405–414

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. de Bruijn KM (1992) Tropisetron. A review of the clinical experience. Drugs 43:11–22

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Neuvonen PJ, Kantola T, Kivistö KT (1998) Simvastatin but not pravastatin is very susceptible to interaction with the CYP3A4 inhibitor itraconazole. Clin Pharmacol Ther 63:332–341

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Hazin R, Abuzetun JY, Suker M, Porter J (2008) Rhabdomyolysis induced by simvastatin–fluconazole combination. J Natl Med Assoc 100:444–446

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Shaukat A, Benekli M, Vladutiu GD, Slack JL, Wetzler M, Baer MR (2003) Simvastatin–fluconazole causing rhabdomyolysis. Ann Pharmacother 37:1032–1035

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Jamal SM, Eisenberg MJ, Christopoulos S (2004) Rhabdomyolysis associated with hydroxymethylglutaryl-coenzyme a reductase inhibitors. Am Heart J 147:956–965

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Kashani A, Phillips CO, Foody JM et al (2006) Risks associated with statin therapy: a systematic overview of randomized clinical trials. Circulation 114:2788–2797

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Chatzizisis YS, Koskinas KC, Misirli G, Vaklavas C, Hatzitolios A, Giannoglou GD (2010) Risk factors and drug interactions predisposing to statin-induced myopathy: implications for risk assessment, prevention and treatment. Drug Saf 33:171–187

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Scripture CD, Sparreboom A, Figg WD (2005) Modulation of cytochrome P450 activity: implications for cancer therapy. Lancet Oncol 6:780–789

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Evans WE, McLeod HL (2003) Pharmacogenomics-drug disposition, drug targets, and side effects. N Engl J Med 348:538–549

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Scripture CD, Figg WD (2006) Drug interactions in cancer therapy. Nat Rev Cancer 6:546–558

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Peterson JF, Kuperman GJ, Shek C, Bates DW (2001) Physician responses to life-threatening drug–drug interaction alerts. J Gen Intern Med 16(Suppl 1):212

    Google Scholar 

  43. Abookire SA, Teich JM, Sandige H, et al (2000) Improving allergy alerting in a computerized physician order entry system. In: Proceedings of the AMIA symposium, 2–6

  44. Paterno MD, Maviglia SM, Gorman PN et al (2009) Tiering drug–drug interaction alerts by severity increases compliance rates. J Am Med Inform Assoc 16:40–46

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by grants from CNPq.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Nursing, University of Campinas, Rua: Tessália Vieira de Camargo, 126 Cidade Universitária Zeferino Vaz, Campinas, SP, 13083-970, Brazil

    Danilo D. Trevisan, Juliana B. Silva, Henrique C. Oliveira & Maria Helena M. Lima

  2. School of Nursing, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil

    Juliana B. Silva & Silvia R. Secoli

Authors
  1. Danilo D. Trevisan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Juliana B. Silva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Henrique C. Oliveira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Silvia R. Secoli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Maria Helena M. Lima
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Danilo D. Trevisan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Trevisan, D.D., Silva, J.B., Oliveira, H.C. et al. Prevalence and clinical significance of potential drug–drug interaction in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 75, 393–400 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00280-014-2657-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00280-014-2657-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation