Background As live expectancy and cancer incidence growing, polypharmacy in oncology patients is also increasing, raising the risk of developing potential drug–drug interactions.Objective To assess the prevalence of clinically relevant potential drug–drug interactions among cancer patients who receive parenteral treatment at our outpatient clinic. Method Retrospective observational study which included randomly selected patients who had received parenteral treatment from November 1st 2016 to January 31st 2017. Interactions were checked in 3 databases, and classified as clinically relevant or not and in three categories of severity: contraindicated, consider modification or monitor. Results A total of 273 patients were included; of which seventy three (26.7%) had at least one clinically relevant potential drug–drug interaction. Amongst them, 54 (74%) had at least one classified as monitor treatment, 50 (68.5%) as contraindicated and 26 (35.6%) as consider modification. The number of chronic prescriptions was associated with a higher risk of drug interactions. Conclusion Around one in four patients on treatment with parenteral antineoplastic drugs presented a clinically relevant potential drug–drug interaction. A systematic assessment of drug–drug interactions should be implemented to reduce the risk of clinically relevant drug–drug interactions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
We thank Mr. Jonathan McFarland for his contribution in the revision of English language of the manuscript.
The authors received no specific funding for this work.
Conflicts of interest
The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.
Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer. 2015;136(5):E359–E386386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lees J, Chan A. Polypharmacy in elderly patients with cancer: clinical implications and management. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12(13):1249–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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(8):592–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Girre V, Arkoub H, Puts MT, Vantelon C, Blanchard F, Droz JP, et al. Potential drug interactions in elderly cancer patients. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2011;78(3):220–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Leeuwen RW, Swart EL, Boven E, Boom FA, Schuitenmaker MG, Hugtenburg JG. Potential drug interactions in cancer therapy: a prevalence study using an advanced screening method. Ann Oncol. 2011;22(10):2334–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Leeuwen RW, Jansman FG, van den Bemt PM, de Man F, Piran F, Vincenten I, et al. Drug–drug interactions in patients treated for cancer: a prospective study on clinical interventions. Ann Oncol. 2015;26(5):992–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popa MA, Wallace KJ, Brunello A, Extermann M, Balducci L. Potential drug interactions and chemotoxicity in older patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy. J Geriatr Oncol. 2014;5(3):307–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lopez-Martin C, Garrido Siles M, Alcaide-Garcia J, Faus FV. Role of clinical pharmacists to prevent drug interactions in cancer outpatients: a single-centre experience. Int J Clin Pharm. 2014;36(6):1251–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Palencia Espinosa MÁF, Carrasco MSD, Romero JLA, de la Rubia Nieto A, Miró AE. Potential drug–drug interactions in oncological adult inpatients at a Spanish hospital: epidemiology and risk factors. Int J Clin Pharm 2015;37(6):1021–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kheshti R, Aalipour M, Namazi S. A comparison of five common drug–drug interaction software programs regarding accuracy and comprehensiveness. J Res Pharm Pract. 2016;5(4):257–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar