Advertisement

International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy

, Volume 35, Issue 4, pp 554–559 | Cite as

Medication surveillance on intravenous cytotoxic agents: a retrospective study

  • Brigit van OijenEmail author
  • Rob Janknegt
  • Hugo de Wit
  • Frank Peters
  • Harry Schouten
  • Hugo van der Kuy
Research Article

Abstract

Background Medication surveillance is not commonly performed for cytotoxic agents. Cytotoxic agents generally have a narrow therapeutic range and therefore it might be necessary to adjust the dose. Interactions may not only cause supratherapeutic ranges, but can also lead to subtherapeutic levels. Up till now, only a few studies have demonstrated the value and importance of medication surveillance in ambulatory cancer patients. Objective The objective of this study is to determine the prevalence and relevance of interactions with cytotoxic agents in ambulant cancer patients receiving one or more intravenous cytotoxic administrations. Setting This retrospective study was undertaken in the Orbis Medical Centre in Sittard, the Netherlands. Methods All ambulatory cancer patients receiving one or more intravenous cytotoxic treatments during the period October 2008 to April 2010 were included. Cytotoxic agent related information was determined using the hospital information system and medication history was determined using the Electronic Prescribing System (EPS) and an open care information system. Medication was entered into the EPS and medication surveillance was performed electronically using the G-standard. All alerts were generated retrospectively. Main outcome measure The prevalence and relevance of interactions between cytotoxic agents and other drugs in ambulatory cancer patients. Results A total of 527 ambulatory cancer patients was enrolled. The mean age of the patients was 63.6 years and 303 were female (55 %). In 24 patients a total of 58 cytotoxic agent-related interactions was detected of whom five were clinically relevant. The most frequent cytotoxic agent-related interaction was with acenocoumarol; the most relevant interactions were with antiepileptic drugs. Conclusion A total of 58 potential cytotoxic agent-related interactions was found. This corresponds to 11 cytotoxic agent-related interactions per 100 ambulatory cancer patients, of which one was indicated clinically relevant and should have required an intervention. The most frequently involved drug was acenocoumarol. Most drug-related interactions with cytotoxic agents are manageable and can be monitored. Prospective studies are needed to confirm the relevance of medication surveillance on cytotoxic agents.

Keywords

Chemotherapy Cytotoxic agents Drug-drug interactions Intravenous administration Medication surveillance The Netherlands 

Notes

Funding

No special funding was received.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Riechelmann RP, Tannock IF, Wang L, Saad ED, Taback NA, Krzyzanowska MK. Potential drug interactions and duplicate prescriptions among cancer patients. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99:592–600.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    McDonnel PJ, Jacobs MR. Hospital admissions resulting from preventable adverse drug reactions. Ann Pharmacother. 2002;36:1331–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Riechelmann RP, Moreira F, Smaletz O, Saad ED. Potential for drug interactions in hospitalized cancer patients. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2005;56:286–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kannan G, Anitha R, Rani VN, Thennarasu P, Alosh J, Vasantha J, Martin JR, Uma M. A study of drug–drug interactions in cancer patients of a south Indian tertiary care teaching hospital. J Postgrad Med. 2011;57:206–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Voll ML, Yap KD, Terpstra WE, Crul M. Potential drug–drug interactions between anti-cancer agents and community pharmacy dispensed drugs. Pharm World Sci. 2010;32(5):575–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lemachatti J, Levêque D, Beretz L, Bergerat JP. Potential pharmacokinetic interactions affecting antitumor drug disposition in cancer patients. Anticancer Res. 2009;29:4741–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    van Roon EN, Flikweert S, le Comte M, Langendijk PNJ, Kwee-Zuiderwijk WJM, Smits P, Brouwers JRBJ. Clinical relevance of drug–drug interactions. Drug Saf. 2005;28(12):1131–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Stoop AP, Bal R, Berg M. OZIS and the politics of safety: using ICT to create a regionally accessible patient medication record. Int J Med Inform. 2007;76(supp 1):S229–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Farmacotherapeutisch Kompas, FK, Interacties, http://www.fk.cvz.nl/. Accessed 7 Dec 2010.
  10. 10.
  11. 11.
  12. 12.
    Yap KY, Chui WK, Chan A. Drug interactions between chemotherapeutic regimens and antiepileptic. Clin Ther. 2008;30(8):1385–407.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brigit van Oijen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Rob Janknegt
    • 1
  • Hugo de Wit
    • 1
  • Frank Peters
    • 2
  • Harry Schouten
    • 3
  • Hugo van der Kuy
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Clinical Pharmacy and ToxicologyOrbis Medical CenterSittardThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Hematology and OncologyOrbis Medical CenterSittardThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Division of Hematology, Department of Internal MedicineUniversity Hospital MaastrichtMaastrichtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations