European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

, Volume 69, Issue 3, pp 565–571

Impact of the drug-drug interaction database SFINX on prevalence of potentially serious drug-drug interactions in primary health care

  • M. L. Andersson
  • Y. Böttiger
  • J. D. Lindh
  • B. Wettermark
  • B. Eiermann
Pharmacoepidemiology and Prescription

Abstract

Purpose

To investigate the impact of the integration of the drug-drug interaction database SFINX into primary health care records on the prevalence of potentially serious drug-drug interactions.

Methods

The study was a controlled before-and-after study on the prevalence of potential drug-drug interactions before and after the implementation of SFINX at 15 primary healthcare centres compared with 5 centres not receiving the intervention. Data on dispensed prescriptions from health care centres were retrieved from the Swedish prescribed drug register and analysed for September–December 2006 (pre-intervention) and September–December 2007 (post-intervention). All drugs dispensed during each 4 month period were regarded as potentially interacting.

Results

Use of SFINX was associated with a 17% decrease, to 1.81 × 10−3 from 2.15 × 10−3 interactions per prescribed drug-drug pair, in the prevalence of potentially serious drug-drug interactions (p = 0.042), whereas no significant effect was observed in the control group. The change in prevalence of potentially serious drug-drug interactions did not differ significantly between the two study groups. The majority of drug-drug interactions identified were related to chelate formation.

Conclusion

Prescriptions resulting in potentially serious drug-drug interactions were significantly reduced after integration of the drug-drug interaction database SFINX into electronic health records in primary care. Further studies are needed to demonstrate the effectiveness of drug-drug interaction warning systems.

Keywords

Drug-drug interactions Clinical decision support systems Database management systems Medical order entry systems Medication errors/prevention and control 

References

  1. 1.
    Tulner LR, Frankfort SV, Gijsen GJ, van Campen JP, Koks CH, Beijnen JH (2008) Drug-drug interactions in a geriatric outpatient cohort: prevalence and relevance. Drugs Aging 25(4):343–355PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Juurlink DN, Mamdani M, Kopp A, Laupacis A, Redelmeier DA (2003) Drug-drug interactions among elderly patients hospitalized for drug toxicity. JAMA 289(13):1652–1658PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Moura CS, Acurcio FA, Belo NO (2009) Drug-drug interactions associated with length of stay and cost of hospitalization. J Pharm Pharm Sci 12(3):266–272PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Paakkari I (2002) Cardiotoxicity of new antihistamines and cisapride. Toxicol Lett 127(1–3):279–284PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Becker ML, Visser LE, van Gelder T, Hofman A, Stricker BH (2008) Increasing exposure to drug-drug interactions between 1992 and 2005 in people aged > or = 55 years. Drugs Aging 25(2):145–152PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hovstadius B, Hovstadius K, Astrand B, Petersson G (2010) Increasing polypharmacy—an individual-based study of the Swedish population 2005-2008. BMC Clin Pharmacol 10(1):16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ko Y, Malone DC, D'Agostino JV, Skrepnek GH, Armstrong EP, Brown M, Woosley RL (2008) Potential determinants of prescribers' drug-drug interaction knowledge. Res Social Adm Pharm 4(4):355–366PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Langdorf MI, Fox JC, Marwah RS, Montague BJ, Hart MM (2000) Physician versus computer knowledge of potential drug interactions in the emergency department. Acad Emerg Med 7(11):1321–1329PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gartner (2009) eHealth for a healthier Europe! The Ministry of Health, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shah NR, Seger AC, Seger DL, Fiskio JM, Kuperman GJ, Blumenfeld B, Recklet EG, Bates DW, Gandhi TK (2006) Improving acceptance of computerized prescribing alerts in ambulatory care. J Am Med Inform Assoc 13(1):5–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bottiger Y, Laine K, Andersson ML, Korhonen T, Molin B, Ovesjo ML, Tirkkonen T, Rane A, Gustafsson LL, Eiermann B (2009) SFINX—a drug-drug interaction database designed for clinical decision support systems. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 65(6):627–633PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ko Y, Abarca J, Malone DC, Dare DC, Geraets D, Houranieh A, Jones WN, Nichol WP, Schepers GP, Wilhardt M (2007) Practitioners' views on computerized drug-drug interaction alerts in the VA system. J Am Med Inform Assoc 14(1):56–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sweidan M, Reeve JF, Brien JA, Jayasuriya P, Martin JH, Vernon GM (2009) Quality of drug interaction alerts in prescribing and dispensing software. Med J Aust 190(5):251–254PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Eliasson M, Bastholm P, Forsberg P, Henriksson K, Jacobson L, Nilsson A, Gustafsson LL (2006) Janus computerised prescribing system provides pharmacological knowledge at point of care—design, development and proof of concept. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 62(4):251–258PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
  16. 16.
    Wettermark B, Hammar N, Fored CM, Leimanis A, Otterblad OP, Bergman U, Persson I, Sundstrom A, Westerholm B, Rosen M (2007) The new Swedish Prescribed Drug Register–opportunities for pharmacoepidemiological research and experience from the first six months. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 16(7):726–735PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bjerrum L, Rosholm JU, Hallas J, Kragstrup J (1997) Methods for estimating the occurrence of polypharmacy by means of a prescription database. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 53(1):7–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Furu K, Wettermark B, Andersen M, Martikainen JE, Almarsdottir AB, Sorensen HT (2010) The Nordic countries as a cohort for pharmacoepidemiological research. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol 106(2):86–94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hallas J, Gaist D, Bjerrum L (1997) The waiting time distribution as a graphical approach to epidemiologic measures of drug utilization. Epidemiology 8(6):666–670PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    R Development Core Team (2009) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ash JS, Fournier L, Stavri PZ, Dykstra R (2003) Principles for a successful computerized physician order entry implementation. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2003:36–40Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wong K, Yu SK, Holbrook A (2010) A systematic review of medication safety outcomes related to drug interaction software. J Popul Ther Clin Pharmacol 17(2):e243–e255PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bertsche T, Pfaff J, Schiller P, Kaltschmidt J, Pruszydlo MG, Stremmel W, Walter-Sack I, Haefeli WE, Encke J (2010) Prevention of adverse drug reactions in intensive care patients by personal intervention based on an electronic clinical decision support system. Intensive Care Med 36(4):665–672PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yu DT, Seger DL, Lasser KE, Karson AS, Fiskio JM, Seger AC, Bates DW (2011) Impact of implementing alerts about medication black-box warnings in electronic health records. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 20(2):192–202PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wang LM, Wong M, Lightwood JM, Cheng CM (2010) Black box warning contraindicated comedications: concordance among three major drug interaction screening programs. Ann Pharmacother 44(1):28–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bergk V, Haefeli WE, Gasse C, Brenner H, Martin-Facklam M (2005) Information deficits in the summary of product characteristics preclude an optimal management of drug interactions: a comparison with evidence from the literature. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 61(5–6):327–335PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Astrand E, Astrand B, Antonov K, Petersson G (2007) Potential drug interactions during a three-decade study period: a cross-sectional study of a prescription register. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 63(9):851–859PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bergkvist A, Midlov P, Hoglund P, Larsson L, Bondesson A, Eriksson T (2009) Improved quality in the hospital discharge summary reduces medication errors—LIMM: Landskrona Integrated Medicines Management. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 65(10):1037–1046PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mannheimer B, Eliasson E (2010) Drug-drug interactions that reduce the formation of pharmacologically active metabolites: a poorly understood problem in clinical practice. J Intern Med 268(6):540–548PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. L. Andersson
    • 1
  • Y. Böttiger
    • 1
  • J. D. Lindh
    • 1
  • B. Wettermark
    • 1
    • 2
  • B. Eiermann
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Laboratory Medicine, Division of Clinical PharmacologyKarolinska University Hospital, Huddinge, Karolinska InstitutetStockholmSweden
  2. 2.Public Healthcare Services CommitteeStockholm County CouncilStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations