European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

, Volume 70, Issue 3, pp 313–318

Checklist for standardized reporting of drug–drug interaction management guidelines

  • Annemieke Floor-Schreudering
  • Arjen F. J. Geerts
  • Jeffrey K. Aronson
  • Marcel L. Bouvy
  • Robin E. Ferner
  • Peter A. G. M. De Smet
Pharmacoepidemiology and Prescription

Abstract

Purpose

Inconsistencies and omissions in drug–drug interaction (DDI) management guidelines may lead to harm and suboptimal therapy. The purpose of this study was to define a checklist for DDI management guidelines to help developers produce high-quality guidelines that will support healthcare providers in clinical practice.

Methods

We carried out a two-round Delphi process with an international panel of healthcare providers, most of whom are pharmacists involved in providing DDI information, in order to select those items that should be addressed in DDI management guidelines (including grading systems that could be used).

Results

Twenty-three panellists reached consensus on 19 items in two main domains. These were consolidated into a checklist of 15 elements for standardized reporting in management guidelines. For each element a description is provided to specify what information should be documented in that specific element.

Conclusions

It was possible to reach a broad consensus on which relevant items should be included in a checklist for the development of DDI management guidelines.

Keywords

Practice guidelines Evidence-based medicine drug–drug interactions Checklist Assessment Management 

Supplementary material

228_2013_1612_MOESM1_ESM.docx (70 kb)
ESM 1(DOCX 69 kb)
228_2013_1612_MOESM2_ESM.docx (43 kb)
ESM 2(DOCX 43 kb)
228_2013_1612_MOESM3_ESM.doc (619 kb)
ESM 3(DOC 619 kb)
228_2013_1612_MOESM4_ESM.docx (83 kb)
ESM 4(DOCX 83.1 kb)
228_2013_1612_MOESM5_ESM.docx (44 kb)
ESM 5(DOCX 43 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Grol R, Grimshaw J (2003) From best evidence to best practice: effective implementation of change in patients' care. Lancet 362:1225–1230PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shiffman RN, Shekelle P, Overhage JM et al (2003) Standardized reporting of clinical practice guidelines: a proposal from the Conference on Guideline Standardization. Ann Intern Med 139:493–498PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    The AGREE Collaboration (2003) Development and validation of an international appraisal instrument for assessing the quality of clinical practice guidelines: the AGREE project. Qual Saf Health Care 12:18–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cluzeau FA, Littlejohns P, Grimshaw JM et al (1999) Development and application of a generic methodology to assess the quality of clinical guidelines. Int J Qual Health Care 11:21–28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE et al (2008) GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 336:924–926. doi:10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    van Roon EN, Flikweert S, le Comte M et al (2005) Clinical relevance of drug–drug interactions : a structured assessment procedure. Drug Saf 28:1131–1139PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Indermitte J, Erba L, Beutler M et al (2007) Management of potential drug interactions in community pharmacies: a questionnaire-based survey in Switzerland. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 63:297–305PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sweidan M, Reeve JF, Brien JA et al (2009) Quality of drug interaction alerts in prescribing and dispensing software. Med J Aust 190:251–254PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Malone DC, Abarca J, Hansten PD et al (2004) Identification of serious drug–drug interactions: results of the partnership to prevent drug–drug interactions. J Am Pharm Assoc 44:142–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Floor-Schreudering A, De Smet PA, Buurma H et al (2011) Clarity and applicability of drug–drug interaction management guidelines: a systematic appraisal by general practitioners and community pharmacists in the Netherlands. Drug Saf 34:683–690. doi:10.2165/11587270-000000000-00000 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bottiger Y, Laine K, Andersson ML et al (2009) SFINX-a drug–drug interaction database designed for clinical decision support systems. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 65:627–633. doi:10.1007/s00228-008-0612-5 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ferner RE, Coleman J, Pirmohamed M et al (2005) The quality of information on monitoring for haematological adverse drug reactions. Br J Clin Pharmacol 60:448–451PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Vitry AI (2007) Comparative assessment of four drug interaction compendia. Br J Clin Pharmacol 63:709–714PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hansten PD (2003) Drug interaction management. Pharm World Sci 25:94–97PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wong CM, Ko Y, Chan A (2008) Clinically significant drug–drug interactions between oral anticancer agents and nonanticancer agents: profiling and comparison of two drug compendia. Ann Pharmacother 42:1737–1748. doi:10.1345/aph.1L255 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bergk V, Gasse C, Schnell R et al (2004) Requirements for a successful implementation of drug interaction information systems in general practice: results of a questionnaire survey in Germany. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 60:595–602PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fulda TR (2000) Disagreement among drug compendia on inclusion and ratings of drug–drug Interactions. Curr Ther Res 61:540–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Buurma H, Schalekamp T, Egberts AC et al (2007) Compliance with national guidelines for the management of drug–drug interactions in Dutch community pharmacies. Ann Pharmacother 41:2024–2031PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Campbell SM, Cantrill JA, Roberts D (2000) Prescribing indicators for UK general practice: Delphi consultation study. BMJ 321:425–428PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dalkey NC (1969) The Delphi method: an experimental study of group opinion. RAND Corporation, Santa MonicaGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shaneyfelt TM, Mayo-Smith MF, Rothwangl J (1999) Are guidelines following guidelines? The methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines in the peer-reviewed medical literature. JAMA 281:1900–1905PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Grilli R, Magrini N, Penna A et al (2000) Practice guidelines developed by specialty societies: the need for a critical appraisal. Lancet 355:103–106PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    National Guideline Clearinghouse (2012) NGC template of guideline attributes. Available at: http://guideline.gov/about/template-of-attributes.aspx. Accessed 11 June 2012
  24. 24.
    Atkins D, Eccles M, Flottorp S et al (2004) Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations I: critical appraisal of existing approaches The GRADE Working Group. BMC Health Serv Res 4:38PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Brook R (1995) The RAND/UCLA appropriateness method. RAND Corporation, Santa MonicaGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Deshpande AM, Shiffman RN, Nadkarni PM (2005) Metadata-driven Delphi rating on the Internet. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 77:49–56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Fitch K, Bernstein SJ, Aguilar MD et al (2001) The RAND/UCLA appropriateness method user’s manual. RAND Corporation, Santa MonicaGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Powell C (2003) The Delphi technique: myths and realities. J Adv Nurs 41:376–382PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hines LE, Malone DC, Murphy JE (2012) Recommendations for generating, evaluating, and implementing drug–drug interaction evidence. Pharmacotherapy 32:304–313PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Geerts AF, De Koning FH, De Smet PA et al (2009) Laboratory tests in the clinical risk management of potential drug–drug interactions: a cross-sectional study using drug-dispensing data from 100 Dutch community pharmacies. Drug Saf 32:1189–1197PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zwart-van Rijkom JE, Uijtendaal EV, ten Berg MJ et al (2009) Frequency and nature of drug–drug interactions in a Dutch university hospital. Br J Clin Pharmacol 68:187–193. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2125.2009.03443.x PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Jansman FG, Reyners AK, van Roon EN et al (2011) Consensus-based evaluation of clinical significance and management of anticancer drug interactions. Clin Ther 33:305–314. doi:10.1016/j.clinthera.2011.01.022 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Annemieke Floor-Schreudering
    • 1
    • 2
  • Arjen F. J. Geerts
    • 3
  • Jeffrey K. Aronson
    • 4
  • Marcel L. Bouvy
    • 1
    • 3
  • Robin E. Ferner
    • 5
  • Peter A. G. M. De Smet
    • 2
    • 6
  1. 1.SIR Institute for Pharmacy Practice and PolicyLeidenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Departments of Clinical Pharmacy and IQ HealthcareUniversity Medical Centre St RadboudNijmegenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Division Pharmacoepidemiology & Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences (UIPS)Utrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Department of Primary Care Health SciencesUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
  5. 5.West Midlands Centre for Adverse Drug Reactions City HospitalBirminghamUK
  6. 6.Scientific Institute of Dutch Pharmacists (WINAp)The HagueThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations