Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Drug interaction databases in medical literature: transparency of ownership, funding, classification algorithms, level of documentation, and staff qualifications. A systematic review

  • Pharmacoepidemiology and Prescription
  • Published:
European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

It is well documented that drug-drug interaction databases (DIDs) differ substantially with respect to classification of drug-drug interactions (DDIs). The aim of this study was to study online available transparency of ownership, funding, information, classifications, staff training, and underlying documentation of the five most commonly used open access English language-based online DIDs and the three most commonly used subscription English language-based online DIDs in the literature.

Methods

We conducted a systematic literature search to identify the five most commonly used open access and the three most commonly used subscription DIDs in the medical literature. The following parameters were assessed for each of the databases: Ownership, classification of interactions, primary information sources, and staff qualification. We compared the overall proportion of yes/no answers from open access databases and subscription databases by Fisher’s exact test—both prior to and after requesting missing information.

Results

Among open access DIDs, 20/60 items could be verified from the webpage directly compared to 24/36 for the subscription DIDs (p = 0.0028). Following personal request, these numbers rose to 22/60 and 30/36, respectively (p < 0.0001). For items within the “classification of interaction” domain, proportions were 3/25 versus 11/15 available from the webpage (P = 0.0001) and 3/25 versus 15/15 (p < 0.0001) available upon personal request.

Conclusion

Available information on online available transparency of ownership, funding, information, classifications, staff training, and underlying documentation varies substantially among various DIDs. Open access DIDs had a statistically lower score on parameters assessed.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Askari M, Eslami S, Louws M, Wierenga PC, Dongelmans DA, Kuiper RA, Abu-Hanna A (2013) Frequency and nature of drug-drug interactions in the intensive care unit. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 22:430–437

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Moura C, Prado N, Acurcio F (2011) Potential drug-drug interactions associated with prolonged stays in the intensive care unit: a retrospective cohort study. Clin Drug Investig 31:309–316

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Pasina L, Djade CD, Nobili A, Tettamanti M, Franchi C, Salerno F, Corrao S, Marengoni A, Iorio A, Marcucci M, Mannucci P (2013) Drug-drug interactions in a cohort of hospitalized elderly patients. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 22:1054–1060

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Roblek T, Vaupotic T, Mrhar A, Lainscak M (2015) Drug-drug interaction software in clinical practice: a systematic review. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 71:131–142

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Mountford CM, Lee T, de Lemos J, Loewen PS (2010) Quality and usability of common drug information databases. Can J Hosp Pharm 63:130–137

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Clauson KA, Marsh WA, Polen HH, Seamon MJ, Ortiz BI (2007) Clinical decision support tools: analysis of online drug information databases. BMC Medical informatics and Decision Making 7:7

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Smithburger PL, Buckley MS, Bejian S, Burenheide K, Kane-Gill SL (2011) A critical evaluation of clinical decision support for the detection of drug-drug interactions. Expert Opin Drug Saf 10:871–882

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hedegaard U, Damkier P (2009) Problem-oriented drug information: physicians’ expectations and impact on clinical practice. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 65:515–522

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Sheets L, Callaghan F, Gavino A, Liu F, Fontelo P (2012) Usability of selected databases for low-resource clinical decision support. Appl Clin Inform 3:326–333

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Glassman PA, Simon B, Belperio P, Lanto A (2002) Improving recognition of drug interactions: benefits and barriers to using automated drug alerts. Med Care 40:1161–1171

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hoody DW, Beckett CF, Zielenski C, Moore GD (2011) Quality of drug information database research for clinical decision support. Int J Clin Pharm 33:599–602

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Abarca J, Malone DC, Armstrong EP, Grizzle AJ, Hansten PD, Van Bergen RC, Lipton RB (2004) Concordance of severity ratings provided in four drug interaction compendia. Journal of the American Pharmacists Association 44:136–141

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Vitry AI (2007) Comparative assessment of four drug interaction compendia. Br J Clin Pharmacol 63:709–714

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Chao SD, Maibach HI (2005) Lack of drug interaction conformity in commonly used drug compendia for selected at-risk dermatologic drugs. Am J Clin Dermatol 6:105–111

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Wang LM, Wong M, Lightwood JM, Cheng CM (2010) Black box warning contraindicated comedications: concordance among three major drug interaction screening programs. Ann Pharmacother 44:28–34

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Sweidan M, Reeve JF, Brien JA, Jayasuriya P, Martin JH, Vernon GM (2009) Quality of drug interaction alerts in prescribing and dispensing software. Med J Aust 190:251–254

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Reis AM, Cassiani SH (2010) Evaluation of three brands of drug interaction software for use in intensive care units. Pharm World Sci 32:822–828

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Vonbach P, Dubied A, Krahenbuhl S, Beer JH (2008) Evaluation of frequently used drug interaction screening programs. Pharm World Sci 30:367–374

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Abarca J, Colon LR, Wang VS, Malone DC, Murphy JE, Armstrong EP (2006) Evaluation of the performance of drug-drug interaction screening software in community and hospital pharmacies. J Manag Care Pharm 12:383–389

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Scheife RT, Hines LE, Boyce RD, Chung SP, Momper JD, Sommer CD, et al. (2015) Consensus recommendations for systematic evaluation of drug-drug interaction evidence for clinical decision support. Drug Saf 38:197–206

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Hines LE, Malone DC, Murphy JE (2012) Recommendations for generating, evaluating, and implementing drug-drug interaction evidence. Pharmacotherapy 32:304–313

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. McKinney R, Abernethy AP, Matchar DB, Wheeler JL. White Paper (2009): Potential Conflict of Interest in the Production of Drug Compendia [Internet]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK253242/

  24. Slight SP, Seger DL, Nanji KC, Cho I, Maniam N, Dykes PC, Bates DW (2013) Are we heeding the warning signs? Examining providers’ overrides of computerized drug-drug interaction alerts in primary care. PLoS One 8:e85071. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0085071

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kesselheim AS, Cresswell K, Phansalkar S, Bates DW, Sheikh A (2011). Clinical decision support systems could be modified to reduce ’alert fatigue’ while still minimizing the risk of litigation. Health Aff (Millwood) 30:2310–2317.

  26. Horn JR, Hansten PD, Osborn JD, Wareham P, Somani S (2011) Customizing clinical decision support to prevent excessive drug-drug interaction alerts. Am J Health Syst Pharm 68:662–664

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Ridgley M, Greenberg M (2012) Too many alerts, too much liability: sorting through the malpractice implications of drug-drug interaction clinical decision support. St Louis University Journal of Health Law and Policy 5:257–296

    Google Scholar 

  28. Greenberg M, Ridgely MS (2011) Clinical decision support and malpractice risk. JAMA 306:90–91

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol 62:e1–34

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Interaction Check. Athenahealth, ePocrates,. Available from: www.epocrates.com Accessed 01 March 2015.

  31. Drug Interactions. Drugsite Trust, Drugs.com. Available from: www.drugs.com/drug_interactions.html Accessed 01 March 2015.

  32. Drug Interaction Checker, WebMD, Medscape. Available from: www.reference.medscape.com/drug-interactionchecker Accessed 01 March 2015.

  33. Interax Multi Interaction Search, DrugBank Version 4.2. Available from: www.drugbank.ca/interax/multi_search Accessed 01 Mar 2015.

  34. Drug Interactions Checker WebMD. RxList, Available from: www.rxlist.com/drug-interaction-checker.htm Accessed 01 March 2015.

  35. Multidrug Symptom/Interaction Checker, EnhancedMD, DoubleCheckMD. Available from: www.doublecheckmd.com Accessed 01 March 2015.

  36. DRUG-REAX® System (electronic version). Truven Health Analytics. Greenwood Village, Colorado, USA. Available from: www.micromedexsolutions.com Accessed 01 March 2015.

  37. Drug Facts and Comparisons. Facts & Comparisons [database online]. St. Louis, MO: Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc; March 2005.

  38. Lexi-Interact, Lexicomp Online. Available from: www.uptodate.com Accessed 01 March 2015.

  39. Baxter K, Preston CL (eds), Stockley’s Drug Interactions. [online] London: Pharmaceutical Press. Available from: www.medicinescomplete.com Accessed 01 March 2015.

  40. The Medical Letter, Inc. Available from: www.secure.medicalletter.org Accessed 01 March 2015.

  41. Payne TH, Hines LE, Chan RC, Hartman S, Kapusnik-Uner J, Russ AL, et al (2015). Recommendations to improve the usability of drug-drug interaction clinical decision support alerts. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2015 Mar 30. pii: ocv011. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocv011. [Epub ahead of print]

  42. Sweidan M, Reeve J, Dartnell J, Phillips S (2011) Improving clinical decision support tools—challenges and a way forward. Aust Fam Physician 40:561–562

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Far E, Curkovic I, Byrne K, Roos M, Egloff I, Dietrich M, Kirch W, Kullak-Ublick GA, Egbring M (2012) Validation of a transparent decision model to rate drug interactions. BMC Pharmacol Toxicol 13:7

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was not funded.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethical approval

Not applicable. This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Clinical Pharmacology, Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, DK-5000, Odense, Denmark

    Gertrud Gansmo Kongsholm, Anna Katrine Toft Nielsen & Per Damkier

  2. Department of Clinical Biochemistry and Pharmacology, Odense University Hospital, DK-5000, Odense, Denmark

    Per Damkier

Authors
  1. Gertrud Gansmo Kongsholm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anna Katrine Toft Nielsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Per Damkier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Per Damkier.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 44 kb)

ESM 2

(DOCX 367 kb)

ESM 3

(DOCX 21.9 kb)

ESM 4

(DOCX 26.9 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kongsholm, G.G., Nielsen, A.K.T. & Damkier, P. Drug interaction databases in medical literature: transparency of ownership, funding, classification algorithms, level of documentation, and staff qualifications. A systematic review. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 71, 1397–1402 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-015-1943-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-015-1943-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation