Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Potential drug-drug interactions of immunosuppressants in kidney transplant recipients: comparison of drug interaction resources

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

Abstract

Background Drug-drug interactions are frequently observed in kidney transplant recipients due to polypharmacy and use of immunosuppressants. However, there is only one study evaluating clinically relevant potential drug-drug interactions of immunosuppressants specially in kidney transplant recipients by means of online databases and Stockleys Drug Interactions, as a gold standard. Aim This study aimed to compare four online databases used frequently to determined clinically relevant potential drug-drug interactions of immunosuppressants in kidney transplant recipients according to the Renal Drug Handbook. Method This was a descriptive cross-sectional study conducted between October 1, 2019, and March 18, 2020, in the nephrology ward of Ankara University School of the Medicine, Ibn-i Sina Hospital. In total, 52 adult patients’ discharge prescriptions were retrieved from their medical records and analyzed retrospectively. Micromedex®, Lexicomp®, Medscape, and Drugs.com databases were used to evaluate drug interactions. The Renal Drug Handbook was used as a gold standard to do specificity and sensitivity analysis. Results A total of 127 potential drug-drug interactions between the immunosuppressants and co-medications were detected by at least one online database. 32 (25.2%) of these were approved as clinically relevant potential drug-drug interactions by the Renal Drug Handbook. Lexicomp® and Drugs.com have exhibited the highest sensitivity (0.72 and 0.75) while Micromedex® has shown the highest specifity (0.83). Furthermore, the highest positive predictive value has been observed in Micromedex® (0.53). Micromedex® and Medscape had the highest negative predictive value (0.83 and 0.82). However, the kappa value of all was low. The values of inter-rater agreement (Kappa index) between online databases and the Renal Drug Handbook were weak (range 0.05–0.36). In addition, only 11 (8.7%) of potential drug-drug interactions were identified by all online databases. Conclusion This study showed that there was a weak compatibility between each database examined and the Renal Drug Handbook to detect clinically relevant potential drug-drug interactions for immunosuppressants in kidney transplant recipients. Therefore, we suggest that although databases might be practical to take a quick glance in detection of potential drug-drug interactions between immunosuppressants and co-medications, the data should be evaluated in detail and interpreted with caution in combination with a reference book like Renal Drug Handbook.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cameron J, Whiteside C, Katz J, et al. Differences in quality of life across renal replacement therapies: a meta-analytic comparison. Am J Kidney Dis. 2000;35:629–37.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Tonelli M, Wiebe N, Knoll G, et al. Systematic review: kidney transplantation compared with dialysis in clinically relevant outcomes. Am J Transplant. 2011;11:2093–109.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Ojo AO, Hanson JA, Wolfe RA, et al. Longterm survival in renal transplant recipients with graft function. Kidney Int. 2000;57:307–13.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. World Health Organization (WHO) and the Spanish Transplant Organization, Organización Nacional de Trasplantes (ONT). Global Observatory on Donation and Transplantation. Available from:http://www.transplant-observatory.org/. Accessed 19.04.2021.

  5. Turkish Society of Nephrology. Registry of the Nephrology, Dialysis and Transplantation in Turkey, Registry 2020. ISBN 978-605-62465-0-0. Available from: https://www.nefroloji.org.tr/icerik.php?gid=88. Accessed 10.05.2021.

  6. Bauer AC, Franco RF, Manfro RC. Immunosuppression in kidney transplantation: state of the art and current protocols. Curr Pharm Des. 2020;26(28):3440–50.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Stemer G, Lemmens-Gruber R. Clinical pharmacy services and solid organ transplantation: a literature review. Pharm World Sci. 2010;32(1):7–18.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Al Raiisi F, Stewart D, Fernandez-Llimos F, et al. Clinical pharmacy practice in the care of chronic kidney disease patients: a systematic review. Int J Clin Pharm. 2019;41(3):630–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Leape LL, Bates DW, Cullen DJ, et al. Systems analysis of adverse drug events. ADE Prevent Study Group JAMA. 1995;274:35–43.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Leape LL, Berwick DM. Five years after To Err Is Human: what have we learned? JAMA. 2005;293:2384–90.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Tecen-Yucel K, Bayraktar-Ekincioglu A, Yildirim T, et al. Assessment of clinically relevant drug interactions by online programs in renal transplant recipients. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2020;26(10):1291–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Amkreutz J, Koch A, Buendgens L, et al. Clinical decision support systems differ in their ability to identify clinically relevant drug interactions of immunosuppressants in kidney transplant patients. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2017;42(3):276–85.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Vonbach P, Dubied A, Krähenbühl S, et al. Evaluation of frequently used drug interaction screening programs. Pharm World Sci. 2008;30(4):367–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Moradi O, Karimzadeh I, Davani-Davari D, et al. Drug-drug interactions among kidney transplant recipients in the outpatient setting. Int J Organ Transplant Med. 2020;11(4):185–95.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Smith WD, Hatton RC, Fann AM, et al. Evaluation of drug interaction software to identify alerts for transplant medications. Ann Pharmacother. 2005;39(1):45–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Riu-Viladoms G, San Martín EC, Martín-Conde MT, et al. Drug interactions with oral antineoplastic drugs: The role of the pharmacist. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2019;28(1):e12944.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 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;5:257.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Akdemir-Kalkan I, Cinar G, Pehlivanli A, et al. Pattern of systemic antibiotic use and potential drug interactions: Evaluations through a point prevalence study in Ankara University Hospitals. Turk J Med Sci. 2021;51(2):523–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. O’Shaughnessy M, Allen N, O’Regan J, et al. Agreement between renal prescribing references and determination of prescribing appropriateness in hospitalized patients with chronic kidney disease. QJM. 2017;110(10):623–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Jodoin K. The renal drug handbook the ultimate prescribing guide for renal practitioners, 4th edition. Eur J Hosp. 2016;23:248.

    Google Scholar 

  21. IBM Micromedex® Web Applications Access. Drug interactions checker. Available from: https://www.micromedexsolutions.com/micromedex2/librarian/PFDefaultActionId/pf.LoginAction. Accessed 29.06.2021.

  22. Wolters Kluwer. Lexicomp. Database. Available from: https://www.wolterskluwercdi.com/lexicomp-online/. Accessed 29.03.2021.

  23. Medscape. Drug interaction checker. Available from: https://reference.medscape.com/drug-interactionchecker. Accessed 29.03.2021.

  24. Drugs.com. Drug interaction checker. Available from: https://www.drugs.com/interaction/list/. Accessed 29.03. 2021.

  25. Ashley C, Dunleavy A. The Renal Drug Handbook: The Ultimate Prescribing Guide for Renal Practitioners. 5th Edition. CRC Press; 2018. ISBN-13978–1–138–62479–5.

  26. Daniel WW, Cross CL. Biostatistics: a foundation for analysis in the health sciences. Hoboken: Wiley; 2013. ISBN 978-1-118-30279-8.

  27. Lwanga SK, Lemeshow S, World Health Organization. Sample size determination in health studies: a practical manual / S. K. Lwanga and S. Lemeshow. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1991. Available from: http://www.who.int/iris/handle/10665/40062. Accessed 10.08.2021.

  28. Bril F, Castro V, Centurion IG, et al. A systematic approach to assess the burden of drug interactions in adult kidney transplant patients. Curr Drug Saf. 2016;11(2):156–63.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Anthony J, Viere MD, Garrett PD. Understanding interobserver agreement: The kappa statistic. Fam Med. 2005;37(5):360–2.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Smith WD, Hatton RC, Fann AL, et al. Evaluation of drug interaction software to identify alerts for transplant medications. Ann Pharmacother. 2005;39:45–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Vonbach P, Dubied A, Krahenbuhl S, et al. Evaluation of frequently used drug interaction screening programs. Pharm World Sci. 2008;30:367–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Reis AMM, Cassiani SHDB. Evaluation of three brands of drug interaction software or use in intensive care units. Pharm World Sci. 2010;32:822–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Saverno KR, Hines LE, Warholak TL, et al. Ability of pharmacy clinical decision-support software to alert users about clinically important drug–drug interactions. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2011;18:32–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Coleman JJ, van der Sijs H, Haefeli WE, et al. On the alert: future priorities for alerts in clinical decision support for computerized physician order entry identified from a European workshop. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13:111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Abarca J, Malone DC, Armstrong EP, et al. Concordance of severity ratings provide in four drug interaction compendia. J Am Pharm Assoc. 2004;44:136–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Scheife RT, Hines LE, Boyce RD, et al. Consensus recommendations for systematic evaluation of drug–drug interaction evidence for clinical decision support. Drug Saf. 2015;38:197–206.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Zorina OI, Haueis P, Greil W, et al. Comparative performance of two drug interaction screening programmes analysing a crosssectional prescription dataset of 84,625 psychiatric inpatients. Drug Saf. 2013;36:247–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Funding

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Pharmacy, Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey

    Aysel Pehlivanli

  2. Graduate School of Health Sciences, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey

    Aysel Pehlivanli

  3. School of Medicine, Department of Nephrology, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey

    Rezzan Eren-Sadioglu, Merve Aktar, Sahin Eyupoglu, Sule Sengul, Kenan Keven & Sehsuvar Erturk

  4. Faculty of Pharmacy, Department of Pharmacology, Baskent University, Ankara, Turkey

    Bilgen Basgut

  5. Faculty of Pharmacy, Department of Pharmacology, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey

    Arif Tanju Ozcelikay

Authors
  1. Aysel Pehlivanli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rezzan Eren-Sadioglu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Merve Aktar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sahin Eyupoglu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sule Sengul
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Kenan Keven
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Sehsuvar Erturk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Bilgen Basgut
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Arif Tanju Ozcelikay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aysel Pehlivanli.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Authors have no potential conflict of interest that might be relevant to the contents of this manuscript.

Ethical approval

Ethical approval was obtained from Ethics Committee for Human Research of the School of Medicine at Ankara University.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pehlivanli, A., Eren-Sadioglu, R., Aktar, M. et al. Potential drug-drug interactions of immunosuppressants in kidney transplant recipients: comparison of drug interaction resources. Int J Clin Pharm 44, 651–662 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-022-01385-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-022-01385-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation