Relative prevalence of 10 types of pharmacodynamic interactions in psychiatric treatment

P. Zarkowski
{"title":"Relative prevalence of 10 types of pharmacodynamic interactions in psychiatric treatment","authors":"P. Zarkowski","doi":"10.1177/0091217419870669","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective To assess the relative prevalence and factors affecting the prescription of medication combinations with a theoretical efficacy limiting pharmacodynamic interaction, defined as two medications with opposing indications and side effects or antagonistic action at the primary receptor of mechanism of action. Method One hundred sixteen combinations were identified for 10 types of pharmacodynamic interactions. PubMed was searched for each combination to assess the quality of evidence either supporting clinical use or verifying reduced efficacy. Micromedex was searched to determine the presence of warnings to prescribers of reduced efficacy. The prevalence in clinical practice was determined by computer review of the Genoa Healthcare database for all prescribers at 10 participating community mental health centers. The expected prevalence was calculated as the product of the probability of each medication prescribed alone and was compared with the actual prevalence of the combination using the test of proportions. Results The frequency of prescription of eight combinations met the Bonferroni corrected level of significance of p < 0.001. Four were combinations of amphetamine and D2 antagonists and each were prescribed less often than chance, p = 0.0001 consistent with epidemiological studies and multiple animal studies verifying an efficacy limiting interaction. Despite epidemiological studies indicating increased risk of accidents, alprazolam and amphetamine were prescribed more often than chance, p = 0.0001. Micromedex generated warnings for efficacy limiting interactions for five other combinations, but with no subsequent change in prescription frequency. Conclusions Neither presence of medical evidence nor warnings from Micromedex consistently affect the prescription of combinations with pharmacodynamic efficacy limiting interactions.","PeriodicalId":22510,"journal":{"name":"The International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine","volume":"13 1","pages":"104 - 82"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0091217419870669","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Objective To assess the relative prevalence and factors affecting the prescription of medication combinations with a theoretical efficacy limiting pharmacodynamic interaction, defined as two medications with opposing indications and side effects or antagonistic action at the primary receptor of mechanism of action. Method One hundred sixteen combinations were identified for 10 types of pharmacodynamic interactions. PubMed was searched for each combination to assess the quality of evidence either supporting clinical use or verifying reduced efficacy. Micromedex was searched to determine the presence of warnings to prescribers of reduced efficacy. The prevalence in clinical practice was determined by computer review of the Genoa Healthcare database for all prescribers at 10 participating community mental health centers. The expected prevalence was calculated as the product of the probability of each medication prescribed alone and was compared with the actual prevalence of the combination using the test of proportions. Results The frequency of prescription of eight combinations met the Bonferroni corrected level of significance of p < 0.001. Four were combinations of amphetamine and D2 antagonists and each were prescribed less often than chance, p = 0.0001 consistent with epidemiological studies and multiple animal studies verifying an efficacy limiting interaction. Despite epidemiological studies indicating increased risk of accidents, alprazolam and amphetamine were prescribed more often than chance, p = 0.0001. Micromedex generated warnings for efficacy limiting interactions for five other combinations, but with no subsequent change in prescription frequency. Conclusions Neither presence of medical evidence nor warnings from Micromedex consistently affect the prescription of combinations with pharmacodynamic efficacy limiting interactions.
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
精神科治疗中10种药效学相互作用的相对患病率
目的评价药效学相互作用存在理论疗效限制的联合用药的相对患病率及处方影响因素,药效学相互作用定义为两种药物的适应症和副作用相反或在主要受体作用机制上存在拮抗作用。方法鉴定10种药效相互作用,共116种组合。PubMed检索了每种组合,以评估支持临床使用或验证降低疗效的证据质量。对Micromedex进行了搜索,以确定是否存在疗效降低的处方医师警告。临床实践中的患病率是通过对热那亚医疗保健数据库中10个参与社区精神卫生中心的所有处方者的计算机审查来确定的。预期患病率计算为单独开具每种药物的概率的乘积,并使用比例检验将其与联合用药的实际患病率进行比较。结果8种组合的处方频次均满足Bonferroni校正水平,p < 0.001。四种是安非他明和D2拮抗剂的联合使用,每种药物的处方频率都低于偶然,p = 0.0001,这与流行病学研究和多次动物研究证实了限制相互作用的功效一致。尽管流行病学研究表明事故风险增加,但处方阿普唑仑和安非他明的频率高于偶然,p = 0.0001。Micromedex对其他五种组合的疗效限制相互作用发出警告,但随后处方频率没有变化。结论:医学证据和来自Micromedex的警告均不影响联合用药的处方,其药效学疗效限制了相互作用。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Application of AI in the creation of discharge summaries in psychiatric clinics Clinical correlates of medication adherence in individuals with bipolar disorder and comorbid hypertension All medical workers together: For better mental health and primary health care- Posters Duration of untreated psychosis and its associated sociodemographic and clinical factors in first-episode psychosis: A study from Eastern Nepal Depression, anxiety, hopelessness, and suicide in first-degree relatives of patients hospitalised in intensive care units in Türkiye
×
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