Advertisement

European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

, Volume 73, Issue 5, pp 633–641 | Cite as

Definition of variables required for comprehensive description of drug dosage and clinical pharmacokinetics

  • Anna v. Medem
  • Hanna M. Seidling
  • Hans-Georg Eichler
  • Jens Kaltschmidt
  • Michael Metzner
  • Carina M. Hubert
  • David Czock
  • Walter E. HaefeliEmail author
Pharmacoepidemiology and Prescription
First Online:

Abstract

Purpose

Electronic clinical decision support systems (CDSS) require drug information that can be processed by computers. The goal of this project was to determine and evaluate a compilation of variables that comprehensively capture the information contained in the summary of product characteristic (SmPC) and unequivocally describe the drug, its dosage options, and clinical pharmacokinetics.

Methods

An expert panel defined and structured a set of variables and drafted a guideline to extract and enter information on dosage and clinical pharmacokinetics from textual SmPCs as published by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). The set of variables was iteratively revised and evaluated by data extraction and variable allocation of roughly 7% of all centrally approved drugs.

Results

The information contained in the SmPC was allocated to three information clusters consisting of 260 variables. The cluster “drug characterization” specifies the nature of the drug. The cluster “dosage” provides information on approved drug dosages and defines corresponding specific conditions. The cluster “clinical pharmacokinetics” includes pharmacokinetic parameters of relevance for dosing in clinical practice. A first evaluation demonstrated that, despite the complexity of the current free text SmPCs, dosage and pharmacokinetic information can be reliably extracted from the SmPCs and comprehensively described by a limited set of variables.

Conclusion

By proposing a compilation of variables well describing drug dosage and clinical pharmacokinetics, the project represents a step forward towards the development of a comprehensive database system serving as information source for sophisticated CDSS.

Keywords

Summary of product characteristics (SmPC) Drug label Electronic summary of product characteristics (e-SmPC) Clinical decision support system (CDSS) Dosage Pharmacokinetics 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all experts involved in the preliminary development of the e-SmPC model, in particular the e-SmPC consortium: B. Argüello Magaz, P. Arlett, E. N. Arnesen, P. Bastholm, J. J. Bekeringh, L. Brassart, A. Bucsics, O. Bültmann, T. Buxton, P. Cohen, D. Czock, H. G. Eichler, B. Eiermann, F. Fernandez-Llimos, E. van Ganze, B. Godman, L. Grandia, M. Gruvén, L. L. Gustafsson, W. E. Haefeli, A. Helldén, H. Herholz, J. Holmgren, G. Isaksson, A. Körbler, S. Korkmaz, S. Madsen, S. Maxwell, K. Menges, J. A. Rueda Montes, M. L. van der Oppenraay, D. Rodriguez, A. Schoelzky, H. M. Seidling, R. Vander Stichele, A. Veg, H.-G. Wagner, and B. Winbladh.

Authors’ contributions

HGE and WEH are members of the eSmPC Consortium Board and gave the creative force to develop a model for a future eSmPC. HMS, JK, DC, HGE, and WEH developed the first model of drug dosage and clinical pharmacokinetics. AvM, HMS, MM, CMH, and DC refined the suggested model. HMS, WEH, AvM, and DC planned the project; AvM, HMS, MM, CMH, and DC conducted the study; AvM, HMS, and DC analyzed the data. AvM, HMS, DC, and WEH wrote the manuscript. All authors revised and approved the final manuscript.

Authors’ information

The team consists of one employee of the European Medicines Agency (HGE) and clinical experts, including physicians specialized in internal medicine (WEH, DC), clinical pharmacology (WEH, DC), and nephrology (DC), clinical pharmacists (HMS, AvM), and a pharmacy student (CMH) with special expertise in data extraction from SmPCs and in the development of databases for CDSS supporting drug dosage, and IT specialists and experts for CDSS design (JK, MM).

Compliance with ethical standards

Competing interests

The views expressed in this article are the personal views of the author(s) and may not be understood or quoted as being made on behalf of or reflecting the position of the European Medicines Agency or one of its committees or working parties.

The authors HGE, CMH, AvM, JK and MM have nothing to disclose. HMS, DC, and WEH report non-financial support from the EMA during the conduct of the study.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests with regard to this work.

Supplementary material

228_2017_2214_MOESM1_ESM.docx (72 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 72 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Teich JM, Merchia PR, Schmiz JL, Kuperman GJ, Spurr CD, Bates DW (2000) Effects of computerized physician order entry on prescribing practices. Arch Intern Med 160:2741–2747. doi: 10.1001/archinte.160.18.2741 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Garg AX, Adhikari NK, McDonald H, Rosas-Arellano MP, Devereaux PJ, Beyene J, Sam J, Haynes RB (2005) Effects of computerized clinical decision support systems on practitioner performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review. JAMA 293:1223–1238. doi: 10.1001/jama.293.10.1223 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yourman L, Concato J, Agostini JV (2008) Use of computer decision support interventions to improve medication prescribing in older adults: a systematic review. Am J Geriatr Pharmacother 6:119–129. doi: 10.1016/j.amjopharm.2008.06.001 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gillaizeau F, Chan E, Trinquart L, Colombet I, Walton RT, Rège-Walther M, Burnand B, Durieux P (2013) Computerized advice on drug dosage to improve prescribing practice. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 11:CD002894. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002894.pub3 Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wolfstadt JI, Gurwitz JH, Field TS, Lee M, Kalkar S, Wu W, Rochon PA (2008) The effect of computerized physician order entry with clinical decision support on the rates of adverse drug events: a systematic review. J Gen Intern Med 23:451–458. doi: 10.1007/s11606-008-0504-5 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wright A, Feblowitz J, Phansalkar S, Liu J, Wilcox A, Keohane CA, Seger DL, Bloomrosen M, Kuperman GJ, Bates DW (2012) Preventability of adverse drug events involving multiple drugs using publicly available clinical decision support tools. Am J Health Syst Pharm 69:221–227. doi: 10.2146/ajhp110084 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nelson SJ, Zeng K, Kilbourne J, Powell T, Moore R (2011) Normalized names for clinical drugs: RxNorm at 6 years. J Am Med Inform Assoc 18:441–448. doi: 10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000116 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Implementation of the ISO IDMP standards. European Medicines Agency. http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/regulation/general/general_content_000645.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac058078fbe2. Accessed 03 March 2016
  9. 9.
    Bates DW, Baysari MT, Dugas M, Haefeli WE, Kushniruk AW, Lehmann CU, Liu J, Mantas J, Margolis A, Miyo K, Nohr C, Peleg M, de Quirós FG, Slight SP, Starmer J, Takabayashi K, Westbrook JI (2013) Discussion of “Attitude of physicians towards automatic alerting in computerized physician order entry systems”. Methods Inf Med 52:109–127PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Coleman JJ, Nwulu U, Ferner RE (2012) Decision support for sensible dosing in electronic prescribing systems. J Clin Pharm Ther 37:415–419. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2710.2011.01310.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Winterstein AG, Johns TE, Rosenberg EI, Hatton RC, Gonzalez-Rothi R, Kanjanarat P (2004) Nature and causes of clinically significant medication errors in a tertiary care hospital. Am J Health Syst Pharm 61:1908–1916PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lewis PJ, Dornan T, Taylor D, Tully MP, Wass V, Ashcroft DM (2009) Prevalence, incidence and nature of prescribing errors in hospital inpatients: a systematic review. Drug Saf 32:379–389. doi: 10.2165/00002018-200932050-00002 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Summary of product characteristic of Plavix, date of latest renewal July 2008Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Summary of product characteristic of Remicade, date of first authorization August 1999Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Summary of product characteristic of Procoralan, date of first authorization October 2005Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Summary of product characteristic of Sifrol, date of latest renewal October 2007Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Summary of product characteristic of Aprovel, date of latest renewal August 2007Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    ChemIDplus A Toxnet Database. U.S. National Library of Medicine (US). http://chem.sis.nlm.nih.gov/chemidplus/. Accessed 03 March 2016
  19. 19.
    ATC/DDD Index (2014) World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Drugs Statistics Methodology. http://www.whocc.no/atc_ddd_index/. Accessed 03 March 2016
  20. 20.
    International Classification of Diseases (ICD). World Health Organization. http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/en/. Accessed 03 March 2016
  21. 21.
    Maxwell S, Eichler HG, Bucsics A, Haefeli WE, Gustafsson LL, e-SPC Consortium (2012) e-SPC—delivering drug information in the 21st century: developing new approaches to deliver drug information to prescribers. Br J Clin Pharmacol 73:12–15. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2011.03981.x CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    European Directorate for the Quality of Medicines & HealthCare, Standard Terms. Council of Europe. https://standardterms.edqm.eu/stw/default/index. Accessed 14 March 2016
  23. 23.
    Summary of product characteristic of Raloxifene Teva, date of first authorization April 2010Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Summary of product characteristic of Memantine LEK, date of first authorization April 2013Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Summary of product characteristic of Capecitabine medac, date of first authorization November 2012Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Summary of product characteristics of M-M-RVAXPRO powder and solvent for suspension for injection, date of first authorization May 2006Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Summary of product characteristic of Aspirin, date of latest renewal August 2011Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Summary of product characteristic of Aspirin N 100 mg, date of latest renewal June 2013Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Summary of product characteristics of Dogmatil forte, date of latest renewal February 2015Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Enzyme Nomenclature. Nomenclature Committee of the International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (NC-IUBMB) (UK). http://www.chem.qmul.ac.uk/iubmb/enzyme/. Accessed 04 March 2016
  31. 31.
    Note for guidance on the evaluation of the pharmacokinetics of medical products in patients with impaired renal function (2004) European Medicines Agency. http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/includes/document/document_detail.jsp?webContentId=WC500003123&mid=WC0b01ac058009a3dc. Accessed 04 March 2016
  32. 32.
    Summary of product characteristics of Topotecan Hospira, date of first authorization June 2010Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Summary of product characteristic of Javlor, date of first authorization September 2009Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Child CG, Turcotte JG (1964) Surgery and portal hypertension. Major Probl Clin Surg 1:1–85PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pugh RN, Murray-Lyon IM, Dawson JL, Pietroni MC, Williams R (1973) Transection of the oesophagus for bleeding oesophageal varices. Br J Surg 60:646–649CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Logical Observation Identifier Names and Codes (LOINC). http://loinc.org/. Accessed 21 July 2014
  37. 37.
    Summary of product characteristics of Leflunomide ratiopharm, date of first authorization November 2010Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Summary of product characteristics of Atripla, date of latest renewal September 2012Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Summary of product characteristics of Emend, date of latest renewal November 2008Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Seden K, Kirkham JJ, Kennedy T, Lloyd M, James S, McManus A, Ritchings A, Simpson J, Thornton D, Gill A, Coleman C, Thorpe B, Khoo SH (2013) Cross-sectional study of prescribing errors in patients admitted to nine hospitals across North West England. BMJ Open 3 doi:  10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002036
  41. 41.
    Abramson EL, Bates DW, Jenter C, Volk LA, Barrón Y, Quaresimo J, Seger AC, Burdick E, Simon S, Kaushal R (2012) Ambulatory prescribing errors among community-based providers in two states. J Am Med Inform Assoc 19:644–648. doi: 10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000345 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Gleason KM, McDaniel MR, Feinglass J, Baker DW, Lindquist L, Liss D, Noskin GA (2010) Results of the Medications at Transitions and Clinical Handoffs (MATCH) study: an analysis of medication reconciliation errors and risk factors at hospital admission. J Gen Intern Med 25:441–447. doi: 10.1007/s11606-010-1256-6 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Franklin BD, Reynolds M, Shebl NA, Burnett S, Jacklin A (2011) Prescribing errors in hospital inpatients: a three-centre study of their prevalence, types and causes. Postgrad Med J 87:739–745. doi: 10.1136/pgmj.2011.117879 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Greene SB, Williams CE, Pierson S, Hansen RA, Carey TS (2010) Medication error reporting in nursing homes: identifying targets for patient safety improvement. Qual Saf Health Care 19:218–222. doi: 10.1136/qshc.2008.031260 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Pierson S, Hansen R, Greene S, Williams C, Akers R, Jonsson M, Carey T (2007) Preventing medication errors in long-term care: results and evaluation of a large scale web-based error reporting system. Qual Saf Health Care 16:297–302CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ferner RE, Coleman JJ (2010) An algorithm for integrating contraindications into electronic prescribing decision support. Drug Saf 33:1089–1096. doi: 10.2165/11539390-000000000-00000 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Choi Y, Jung C, Chae Y, Kang M, Kim J, Joung K, Lim J, Cho S, Sung S, Lee E, Kim S (2014) Comparison of validity of mapping between drug indications and ICD-10. Direct and indirect terminology based approaches. Methods Inf Med 53:195–201. doi: 10.3414/ME13-01-0053 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Coding of indications in the eXtended EudraVigilance Medicinal Product Dictionary (XEVMPD) (2015) European Medicines Agency. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Other/2015/12/WC500197859.pdf. Accessed 21 March 2016
  49. 49.
    Stafford RS (2008) Regulating off-label drug use-rethinking the role of the FDA. N Engl J Med 358:1427–1429. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp0802107 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Summary of product characteristic of Matever, date of first authorization October 2011Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Kuperman GJ, Reichley RM, Bailey TC (2006) Using commercial knowledge bases for clinical decision support: opportunities, hurdles, and recommendations. J Am Med Inform Assoc 13:369–371. doi: 10.1197/jamia.M2055 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Vitry AI (2007) Comparative assessment of four drug interaction compendia. Br J Clin Pharmacol 63:709–714. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2006.02809.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Olvey EL, Clauschee S, Malone DC (2010) Comparison of critical drug-drug interaction listings: the Department of Veterans Affairs medical system and standard reference compendia. Clin Pharmacol Ther 87:48–51. doi: 10.1038/clpt.2009.198 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Clauson KA, Santamarina ML, Rutledge JC (2008) Clinically relevant safety issues associated with St. John’s wort product labels. BMC Complement Altern Med 8:42. doi: 10.1186/1472-6882-8-42 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    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 61:327–335. doi: 10.1007/s00228-005-0943-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Ferner RE, Coleman J, Pirmohamed M, Constable SA, Rouse A (2005) The quality of information on monitoring for haematological adverse drug reactions. Br J Clin Pharmacol 60:448–451. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2005.02440.x CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Martin-Facklam M, Rengelshausen J, Tayrouz Y, Ketabi-Kiyanvash N, Lindenmaier H, Schneider V, Bergk V, Haefeli WE (2005) Dose individualization in patients with renal insufficiency: does drug labelling support optimal management? Eur J Clin Pharmacol 60:807–811. doi: 10.1007/s00228-004-0852-y CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Jank S, Bertsche T, Herzog W, Haefeli WE (2008) Patient knowledge on oral anticoagulants: results of a questionnaire survey in Germany and comparison with the literature. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 46:280–288CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Summary of product characteristics of Eliquis, date of first authorization May 2011Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Summary of product characteristics of ATryn, date of first authorization July 2006Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Day S, Fayers P, Harvey D (1998) Double data entry: what value, what price? Control Clin Trials 19:15–24CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Brook OR, Romero J, Brook A, Kruskal JB, Yam CS, Levine D (2015) The complementary nature of peer review and quality assurance data collection. Radiology 274:221–229. doi: 10.1148/radiol.14132931 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Yackanicz L, Kerr R, Levick D (2010) Physician buy-in for EMRs. J Healthc Inf Manag 24:41–44PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anna v. Medem
    • 1
  • Hanna M. Seidling
    • 1
  • Hans-Georg Eichler
    • 2
  • Jens Kaltschmidt
    • 1
  • Michael Metzner
    • 1
  • Carina M. Hubert
    • 1
  • David Czock
    • 1
  • Walter E. Haefeli
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Clinical Pharmacology and PharmacoepidemiologyUniversity of HeidelbergHeidelbergGermany
  2. 2.European Medicines AgencyLondonUK

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options