Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Prevalence of potential drug–drug interactions in bone marrow transplant patients

  • Research Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective To assess the prevalence of potential drug–drug interactions (DDIs) in bone marrow transplantation (BMT) patients at the time of pre-infusion (day −1), to describe the potential DDIs and assess their frequency and severity. Setting The study was developed in a tertiary care hospital in São Paulo, Brazil. Method Cross-sectional study based on examining the medical prescriptions from the pre-infusion day (day −1) of 70 BMT patients. Potential DDIs were analyzed using Drug-Reax® and categorized according to levels of severity, evidence, and onset (rapid and delayed). Only interactions of major or moderate severity were included in the potential DDI analysis. Main outcome measure: Prevalence of potential DDIs in patients during the preinfusion phase of BMT. Results Data were analysed for 70 BMT patients. The median age was 36.5 years; 52.9% (37) of the patients were male, and 65.7% (46) were undergoing autologous BMT. The patients received a median of 8 drugs each. Up to 128 potential DDIs were detected, 60.0% (42) of patients had at least 1 potential DDI and 21.4% (15) were exposed to at least 1 major potential DDI. The most commonly involved drugs were cyclosporine (9, 28.1%), phenytoin (8, 25%) and fluconazole (5, 15.6%). Most potential DDIs had moderate severity (110, 85.9%), a pharmacokinetic mechanism (67, 52.3%), and were classified as delayed onset (106, 82.8%). For major interactions, fluconazole + sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim, diazepam + fentanyl, fluconazole + levofloxacin and fentanyl + fluconazole were the most frequent. Conclusions The prevalence of potential DDIs during the conditioning period of BMT was high as a consequence of the therapeutic complexity of the procedure. Most potential DDIs identified in the study may result in clinically relevant consequences as they could lead to nephrotoxicity, cardiotoxicity, and other undesirable adverse effects. Careful monitoring of clinical and laboratory parameters is essential to ensure a successful BMT and to avoid adverse drug events related to DDI.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Fuhr U. Improvement in the handling of drug–drug interactions. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2008;64:167–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Scripture CD, Figg WD. Drug interactions in cancer therapy. Nat Rev Cancer. 2006;6(7):546–58.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. 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. (ahead of print). doi:10.1093/annonc/mdq761.

  4. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Mihara A, Mori T, Aisa Y, Yamazaki R, Iketani O, Tanigawara Y, Ikeda Y, Okamoto S. Greater impact of oral fluconazole on drug interaction with intravenous calcineurin inhibitors as compared with intravenous fluconazole. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2008;64:89–91.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Secoli SR, Figueras A, Lebrão ML, Lima FD, Santos JL. Risk of potential drug–drug interactions among Brazilian elderly: a population-based, cross-sectional study. Drugs Aging. 2010;27:759–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Nagamura F, Takahashi T, Takeuchi M, Iseki T, Ooi J, Tomonari A, Uchimaru K, Takahashi S, Tojo A, Tani K, Asano S. Effect of cyclophosphamide on serum cyclosporine levels at the conditioning of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2003;32:1051–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Egger SS, Meier S, Leu C, Christen S, Gratwohl A, Krähenbühl S, Haschke M. Drug interactions and adverse events associated with antimycotic drugs used for invasive aspergillosis in hematopoietic SCT. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2010;45:1197–203.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Klasco RK editor. Drug Reax® System. Thomson Micromedex, Greenwood Village, Colorado, USA. Available on: http://www.periodicos.capes.gov.br Accessed 28 June 2008.

  10. Vonbach P, Dubied A, Krähenbühl S, Beer JH. Evaluation of frequently used drug interaction screening programs. Pharm World Sci. 2008;30(4):367–374. doi:10.1007/s11096-008-9191-x.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Reis AMM, Cassiani SHB. Evaluation of three brands of drug interaction software for use in intensive care units. Pharm World Sci. 2010;32(6):822–828. doi:10.1007/s11096-010-9445-2.

  12. World Health Organization. Collaborating Center for Drug Statistics Methodology. ATC/DDD Index 2011. Available from URL: http://www.whocc.no/atcddd/index. Accessed 04 Aug 2011.

  13. Riechelmann RP, Zimmermann C, Chin SN, Wang L, O’Carroll A, Zarinehbaf S, Krzyzanowska MK. Potential drug interactions in cancer patients receiving supportive care exclusively. J Pain Symp Manag. 2008;35:535–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Leather HL. Drug interactions in the hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) recipient: what every transplanter needs to know. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2004;33:137–52.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Freeman DL, Laupacis A, Keown PA, Stiller CR, Carruthers SG. Evaluation of cyclosporine—phenytoin interaction with observations on cyclosporine metabolites. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1984;18(6):887–93.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Keown PA, Laupacis A, Carruthers G, Stawecki M, Koegler J, McKenzie FN, Wall W, Stiller CR. Interaction between phenytoin and cyclosporine following organ transplantation. Transplantation. 1984;38(3):304–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Ng TM, Bell AM, Hong C, Hara JM, Touchette DR, Danskey KN, Lindsay TT, Puumala SE. Pharmacists monitoring of QTc interval—prolonging medications in critically ill medical patients: a pilot study. Ann Pharmacother. 2008;42:475–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Crouch MA, Limon L, Cassano AT. Clinical relevance and management of drug related QT interval prolongation. Pharmacotherapy. 2003;23:881–908.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Gandhi PJ, Menezes PA, Vu HT, Rivera AL, Ramaswamy K. Fluconazol and levofloxacin—induced torsades de pointes in an intensive care unit patient. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2003;60:2479–83.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Saad AH, DePestel DD, Carver PL. Factors influencing the magnitude and clinical significance of drug interactions between azole antifungals and select immunosuppressants. Pharmacotherapy. 2006;26:1730–44.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Yu DT, Peterson JF, Seger DL, Gerth WC, Bates DW. Frequency of potential azole drug–drug interactions and consequences of potential fluconazole drug interactions. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2005;14:755–67.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Lopez-Gil JA. Fluconazole-cyclosporine interaction: a dose-dependent effect? Ann Pharmacother. 1993;27:427–30.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Egger SS, Drewe J, Shlienger RG. Potential drug–drug interactions in the mediation of medical patient at hospital discharge. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2003;58:773–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Delafuente JC. Understanding and preventing drug–drug interactions in elderly patients. Critic Rev Oncol Hematol. 2003;48:133–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Zwart-van Rijkom J, Uijtendaal E, Ten Berg M, Van Solinge W, Egberts A. Frequency and nature of drug–drug interactions in a Dutch university hospital. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2010;68(2):187–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Leone R, Magro L, Moretti U, Cutroneo P, Moschini M, Motola D, Tuccori M, Conforti A. Identifying adverse drug reactions associated with drug–drug interactions: data mining of a spontaneous reporting database in Italy. Drug Saf. 2010;33(8):667–75.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Cruciol-Souza JM, Thomson JC. A pharmacoepidemiologic study of drug interactions in a Brazilian teaching hospital. Clinics. 2006;61(6):515–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Vonbach P, Dubied A, Krähenbühl S, Beer JH. Recognition and management of potential drug–drug interactions in patient on internal medicine wards. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2007;63:1075–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

None.

Funding

None.

Conflicts of interest

The Authors do not have any conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Instituto do Coração, Hospital das Clínicas, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil

    Rosimeire Barbosa Fonseca Guastaldi

  2. School of Pharmacy, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil

    Adriano Max Moreira Reis

  3. Fundació Institut Català de Farmacologia, Hospital Vall d’Hebron, Departament de Farmacologia, de Terapèutica i Toxicologia, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain

    Albert Figueras

  4. Nursing College, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil

    Silvia Regina Secoli

Authors
  1. Rosimeire Barbosa Fonseca Guastaldi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Adriano Max Moreira Reis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Albert Figueras
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Silvia Regina Secoli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adriano Max Moreira Reis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Guastaldi, R.B.F., Reis, A.M.M., Figueras, A. et al. Prevalence of potential drug–drug interactions in bone marrow transplant patients. Int J Clin Pharm 33, 1002–1009 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-011-9574-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-011-9574-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation