Successful strategy to improve the specificity of electronic statin–drug interaction alerts
- 196 Downloads
A considerable weakness of current clinical decision support systems managing drug–drug interactions (DDI) is the high incidence of inappropriate alerts. Because DDI-induced, dose-dependent adverse events can be prevented by dosage adjustment, corresponding DDI alerts should only be issued if dosages exceed safe limits. We have designed a logical framework for a DDI alert-system that considers prescribed dosage and retrospectively evaluates the impact on the frequency of statin–drug interaction alerts.
Upper statin dose limits were extracted from the drug label (SPC) (20 statin-drug combinations) or clinical trials specifying the extent of the pharmacokinetic interaction (43 statin–drug combinations). We retrospectively assessed electronic DDI alerts and compared the number of standard alerts to alerts that took dosage into account.
From among 2457 electronic prescriptions, we identified 73 high-risk statin–drug pairs. Of these, SPC dosage information classified 19 warnings as inappropriate. Data from pharmacokinetic trials took quantitative dosage information more often into consideration and classified 40 warnings as inappropriate. This is a significant reduction in the number of alerts by 55% compared to SPC-based information (26%; p < 0.001).
This retrospective study of pharmacokinetic statin interactions demonstrates that more than half of the DDI alerts that presented in a clinical decision support system were inappropriate if DDI-specific upper dose limits are not considered.
KeywordsClinical decision support systems Drug–drug interactions HMG-CoA-Reductase inhibitors Over-alerting Upper dose limits
The work was supported in part by the chamber of pharmacists, Baden-Wuerttemberg, Germany.
- 9.Kobashigawa JA, Murphy FL, Stevenson LW, Moriguchi JD, Kawata N, Kamjoo P et al (1990) Low-dose lovastatin safely lowers cholesterol after cardiac transplantation. Circulation 82[Suppl 4]:281–283Google Scholar
- 11.Hsiang B, Zhu Y, Wang Z, Wu Y, Sasseville V, Yang WP et al (1999) A novel human hepatic organic anion transporting polypeptide (OATP2): identification of a liver-specific human organic anion transporting polypeptide and identification of rat and human hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA reductase inhibitor transporters. J Biol Chem 274:37161–37168CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 12.Asberg A (2003) Interactions between cyclosporin and lipid-lowering drugs. Implications for organ transplant recipients. Drugs 63:367–378Google Scholar
- 14.Baxter K (ed) (2007) Stockley’s drug interactions, 8th edn. Pharmaceutical Press, Chicago LondonGoogle Scholar
- 15.Lendac Data Systems: DRUGDEX® System (database on CD-ROM). Thomson Healthcare, Greenwood VillageGoogle Scholar
- 17.Holdaas H, Felström B, Jardine AG, Holme I, Nyberg G, Fauchald P et al, on behalf of the assessment of LEscol in renal transplantation (ALERT) study investigators (2003) Effect of fluvastatin on cardiac outcomes in renal transplant recipients: a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 361:2024–2031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Kirchheiner J, Kudlicz D, Meisel C, Bauer S, Meineke I, Roots I et al (2003) Influence of CYP2C9 polymorphisms on the pharmacokinetics and cholesterol-lowering activity of (-)-3S, 5R-fluvastatin and (+)-3R, 5S-fluvastatin in healthy volunteers. Clin Pharmacol Ther 74:186–194CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 21.Haefeli WE (2007) Drug-drug interactions with levodopa modulating treatment responses in Parkinson’s disease. J Neurol 254[Suppl 4]:IV/29–IV/36Google Scholar
- 27.Gerber JG, Rosenkranz SL, Fichtenbaum CJ, Vega JM, Yang A, Alston BL, AIDS Clinical Trials Group A5108 Team et al (2005) Effect of Efavirenz on the Pharmacokinetics of Simvastatin, Atorvastatin, and Pravastatin. Results of AIDS Clinical Trials Group 5108 Study. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 39:307–312CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 40.Bramer SL, Brisson J, Corey AE, Mallikaarjun S (1999) Effect of multiple cilostazol doses on single dose lovastatin pharmacokinetics in healthy volunteers. Clin Pharmacokinet 37[Suppl 2]:69–77Google Scholar