Potential Drug Interactions in Adults Living in Manaus: A Real-World Comparison of Two Databases, 2019.

IF 1.8 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY Turkish Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences Pub Date : 2022-10-31 DOI:10.4274/tjps.galenos.2021.96603
Tayanny Margarida Menezes Almeida Biase, Giulia Sartori Bruniéri, Marcus Tolentino Silva, Taís Freire Galvão
{"title":"Potential Drug Interactions in Adults Living in Manaus: A Real-World Comparison of Two Databases, 2019.","authors":"Tayanny Margarida Menezes Almeida Biase,&nbsp;Giulia Sartori Bruniéri,&nbsp;Marcus Tolentino Silva,&nbsp;Taís Freire Galvão","doi":"10.4274/tjps.galenos.2021.96603","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Drug information systems are commonly used by professionals to assist in the identification of drug interactions and to ensure the safe use of medications. Real-world evidence about the comparison of different drug interaction sources is scarce. We aimed to compare two drug interaction databases to identify interactions in a population-based survey.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This is a cross-sectional study based on a previous survey performed in the city of Manaus, Brazil, in 2019. We included adults aged 18 years and over, who used two or more medicines 15 days before the interview. To assess potential drug interactions, we searched Micromedex and UpToDate databases. The primary outcome was the prevalence of potential drug interactions in each database. Weighted Kappa statistics were calculated to assess agreement on the presence of drug interaction, documentation and severity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 752 participants were included in the study. The prevalence of drug interactions was 43.8% [95% confidence interval (CI): 40.2, 47.3%] in UpToDate and 30.2% (95% CI: 26.9, 33.5%), in Micromedex. The agreement related to drug interactions between the two databases was fair (Kappa: 0.631). For severity (Kappa: 0.398) and documentation (Kappa: 0.311), the agreement was poor.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Agreement among compared databases was sub-optimal. Better quality and transparency of evidence available in drug interaction sources are needed to support informed healthcare professionals' decision.</p>","PeriodicalId":23378,"journal":{"name":"Turkish Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences","volume":"19 5","pages":"543-551"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9634440/pdf/TJPS-19-543.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Turkish Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4274/tjps.galenos.2021.96603","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Drug information systems are commonly used by professionals to assist in the identification of drug interactions and to ensure the safe use of medications. Real-world evidence about the comparison of different drug interaction sources is scarce. We aimed to compare two drug interaction databases to identify interactions in a population-based survey.

Materials and methods: This is a cross-sectional study based on a previous survey performed in the city of Manaus, Brazil, in 2019. We included adults aged 18 years and over, who used two or more medicines 15 days before the interview. To assess potential drug interactions, we searched Micromedex and UpToDate databases. The primary outcome was the prevalence of potential drug interactions in each database. Weighted Kappa statistics were calculated to assess agreement on the presence of drug interaction, documentation and severity.

Results: A total of 752 participants were included in the study. The prevalence of drug interactions was 43.8% [95% confidence interval (CI): 40.2, 47.3%] in UpToDate and 30.2% (95% CI: 26.9, 33.5%), in Micromedex. The agreement related to drug interactions between the two databases was fair (Kappa: 0.631). For severity (Kappa: 0.398) and documentation (Kappa: 0.311), the agreement was poor.

Conclusion: Agreement among compared databases was sub-optimal. Better quality and transparency of evidence available in drug interaction sources are needed to support informed healthcare professionals' decision.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
居住在马瑙斯的成年人的潜在药物相互作用:两个数据库的真实世界比较,2019。
目的:药物信息系统通常被专业人员用于协助识别药物相互作用并确保药物的安全使用。关于不同药物相互作用来源的比较的真实证据很少。我们的目的是比较两种药物相互作用数据库,以确定基于人群的调查中的相互作用。材料和方法:这是一项基于2019年在巴西马瑙斯市进行的一项调查的横断面研究。我们纳入了18岁及以上的成年人,他们在访谈前15天使用了两种或更多的药物。为了评估潜在的药物相互作用,我们检索了Micromedex和UpToDate数据库。主要结果是每个数据库中潜在药物相互作用的发生率。计算加权Kappa统计来评估药物相互作用、文献记录和严重程度的一致性。结果:共有752名参与者被纳入研究。在UpToDate中药物相互作用的发生率为43.8%[95%可信区间(CI): 40.2, 47.3%],在Micromedex中为30.2% (95% CI: 26.9, 33.5%)。两个数据库在药物相互作用方面的一致性是公平的(Kappa: 0.631)。对于严重性(Kappa: 0.398)和文档(Kappa: 0.311),一致性很差。结论:所比较数据库之间的一致性不是最优的。需要提高药物相互作用来源证据的质量和透明度,以支持知情的医疗保健专业人员的决策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
5.90%
发文量
79
期刊最新文献
A Novel Controlled Release Implant of Insulin Based on Poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyvalerate) Polymer Prepared by Extrusion. Optimization of Enterocin Production from Probiotic Enterococcus faecium Using Taguchi Experimental Design. Evaluation of a Synthetic PEI-based Polymeric Vector for ING4 Gene Delivery to MCF-7 Breast Cancer Cells Evaluation of Anticancer and Antioxidant Activities of Coffee Stem Parasite Extract (Scurrula Ferruginea (Roxb. Ex Jack) Danser) and in Silico Studies of its Isolate Development of Cyclosporine A Nanosuspension using Experimental Design by Response Surface Methodology: In Vitro Evaluations
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1