Loading…

5PSQ-137 When is a drug interaction not a drug interaction? Comparison of drug-drug interactions-checking databases between the UK and USA

BackgroundThe drug-drug interaction (DDI)-checking function of an electronic medical record (EMR) is helpful but is also a distraction, firing too many warnings and triggering alert fatigue. Anecdotally, hospital staff ignore warnings in over 50% of cases. Additionally, there are a number of commonl...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:European journal of hospital pharmacy. Science and practice 2019-03, Vol.26 (Suppl 1), p.A265-A265
Main Authors: Junaid, E, Hermes-DeSantis, ER, Bhalla, N, Cadman, B, Eggleton, A
Format: Article
Language:English
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by
cites
container_end_page A265
container_issue Suppl 1
container_start_page A265
container_title European journal of hospital pharmacy. Science and practice
container_volume 26
creator Junaid, E
Hermes-DeSantis, ER
Bhalla, N
Cadman, B
Eggleton, A
description BackgroundThe drug-drug interaction (DDI)-checking function of an electronic medical record (EMR) is helpful but is also a distraction, firing too many warnings and triggering alert fatigue. Anecdotally, hospital staff ignore warnings in over 50% of cases. Additionally, there are a number of commonly used DDI-checking databases available.PurposeWhat is the concordance of DDI databases when evaluating identified high-risk interactions alerts on an EMR system? Can the number of alerts be safely downgraded to alert fatigue?Material and methodsComparison of DDI-checking databases: Stockley’s Drug Interactions in the UK and Lexicomp (Lexi), Micromedex (MDX) and Facts and Comparison (Facts) in the USA.Based on their review, 477 interactions were recommended to be downgraded to moderate risk. These 477 interactions were further evaluated by a USA-based senior pharmacist utilising the DDI-checking databases of Lexi, MDX and Facts to identify the severity of the interaction. The agreement across all three databases, as well as between each database, was analysed. Descriptive statistics analysed the difference between the ratings and agreement in each database with the Chi square and an alpha set to 0.01.ResultsOf the 477 interactions evaluated, Lexi, MDX and Facts, agreed on the rating only 17.8% (85/477) of the time. Of these 85 interactions, 68 (80%) were no interaction/none reported, 2% (2/85) were considered a moderate interaction and 18% (15/85) were considered a major interaction. However, for moderate interaction (4% versus 19%, p
doi_str_mv 10.1136/ejhpharm-2019-eahpconf.570
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_bmj_p</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2190002086</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2190002086</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b1260-b6c1910692e076447830fff6dc628adcdbc70c941fcd8155704a4e4919e158293</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptkMtKAzEUhoMoWLTvEHSdmttkJispxRsWVGpxGTKZTCfVyYzJFHHnxp1P6ZM4tdaFuDqH83-cHz4AjggeEcLEiV1WbaVDjSgmElldtabx5ShJ8Q4YUMxTJKXgu797IvbBMEaX44SxTHImB-AjuZ3dIcLSz7f3h8p66CLUsAirBXS-s0GbzjUe-qb753wKJ03d6uBijzTld47-QhGZyppH5xew0J3OdbQR5rZ7sX1bV1k4v4baF3A-Gx-CvVI_RTv8mQdgfn52P7lE05uLq8l4inJCBUa5MEQSLCS1OBWcpxnDZVmKwgia6cIUuUmxkZyUpshI0vvgmlsuibQkyahkB-B487cNzfPKxk4tm1XwfaWiRGKMKc5ETyUbKq-Xqg2u1uFVEazW7tXWvVq7V1v3qu9iX0ZyfcU</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2190002086</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>5PSQ-137 When is a drug interaction not a drug interaction? Comparison of drug-drug interactions-checking databases between the UK and USA</title><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Junaid, E ; Hermes-DeSantis, ER ; Bhalla, N ; Cadman, B ; Eggleton, A</creator><creatorcontrib>Junaid, E ; Hermes-DeSantis, ER ; Bhalla, N ; Cadman, B ; Eggleton, A</creatorcontrib><description>BackgroundThe drug-drug interaction (DDI)-checking function of an electronic medical record (EMR) is helpful but is also a distraction, firing too many warnings and triggering alert fatigue. Anecdotally, hospital staff ignore warnings in over 50% of cases. Additionally, there are a number of commonly used DDI-checking databases available.PurposeWhat is the concordance of DDI databases when evaluating identified high-risk interactions alerts on an EMR system? Can the number of alerts be safely downgraded to alert fatigue?Material and methodsComparison of DDI-checking databases: Stockley’s Drug Interactions in the UK and Lexicomp (Lexi), Micromedex (MDX) and Facts and Comparison (Facts) in the USA.Based on their review, 477 interactions were recommended to be downgraded to moderate risk. These 477 interactions were further evaluated by a USA-based senior pharmacist utilising the DDI-checking databases of Lexi, MDX and Facts to identify the severity of the interaction. The agreement across all three databases, as well as between each database, was analysed. Descriptive statistics analysed the difference between the ratings and agreement in each database with the Chi square and an alpha set to 0.01.ResultsOf the 477 interactions evaluated, Lexi, MDX and Facts, agreed on the rating only 17.8% (85/477) of the time. Of these 85 interactions, 68 (80%) were no interaction/none reported, 2% (2/85) were considered a moderate interaction and 18% (15/85) were considered a major interaction. However, for moderate interaction (4% versus 19%, p&lt;0.00001) and major interactions (23% versus 55%, p&lt;0.00001) MDX had a higher rate of agreement with Lexi compared to Facts. All three databases were significantly different from Stockley’s (p&lt;0.001).ConclusionThere are a number of DDI-checking database tools available for the clinician to utilise. The interaction checker in an EMR seems to over-alert what it considers highly significant interactions. Based on common DDI-checking databases (in the UK and USA), the concordance of results is very low. This study highlights the need for checking multiple sources and critically evaluating the impact of the DDI before taking action, either to consider downgrading an alert from the EMR or for managing the individual patient case.References and/or acknowledgementsNo conflict of interest.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2047-9956</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2047-9964</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1136/ejhpharm-2019-eahpconf.570</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: BMJ Publishing Group LTD</publisher><ispartof>European journal of hospital pharmacy. Science and practice, 2019-03, Vol.26 (Suppl 1), p.A265-A265</ispartof><rights>2019, Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions</rights><rights>2019 2019, Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Junaid, E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hermes-DeSantis, ER</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bhalla, N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cadman, B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eggleton, A</creatorcontrib><title>5PSQ-137 When is a drug interaction not a drug interaction? Comparison of drug-drug interactions-checking databases between the UK and USA</title><title>European journal of hospital pharmacy. Science and practice</title><description>BackgroundThe drug-drug interaction (DDI)-checking function of an electronic medical record (EMR) is helpful but is also a distraction, firing too many warnings and triggering alert fatigue. Anecdotally, hospital staff ignore warnings in over 50% of cases. Additionally, there are a number of commonly used DDI-checking databases available.PurposeWhat is the concordance of DDI databases when evaluating identified high-risk interactions alerts on an EMR system? Can the number of alerts be safely downgraded to alert fatigue?Material and methodsComparison of DDI-checking databases: Stockley’s Drug Interactions in the UK and Lexicomp (Lexi), Micromedex (MDX) and Facts and Comparison (Facts) in the USA.Based on their review, 477 interactions were recommended to be downgraded to moderate risk. These 477 interactions were further evaluated by a USA-based senior pharmacist utilising the DDI-checking databases of Lexi, MDX and Facts to identify the severity of the interaction. The agreement across all three databases, as well as between each database, was analysed. Descriptive statistics analysed the difference between the ratings and agreement in each database with the Chi square and an alpha set to 0.01.ResultsOf the 477 interactions evaluated, Lexi, MDX and Facts, agreed on the rating only 17.8% (85/477) of the time. Of these 85 interactions, 68 (80%) were no interaction/none reported, 2% (2/85) were considered a moderate interaction and 18% (15/85) were considered a major interaction. However, for moderate interaction (4% versus 19%, p&lt;0.00001) and major interactions (23% versus 55%, p&lt;0.00001) MDX had a higher rate of agreement with Lexi compared to Facts. All three databases were significantly different from Stockley’s (p&lt;0.001).ConclusionThere are a number of DDI-checking database tools available for the clinician to utilise. The interaction checker in an EMR seems to over-alert what it considers highly significant interactions. Based on common DDI-checking databases (in the UK and USA), the concordance of results is very low. This study highlights the need for checking multiple sources and critically evaluating the impact of the DDI before taking action, either to consider downgrading an alert from the EMR or for managing the individual patient case.References and/or acknowledgementsNo conflict of interest.</description><issn>2047-9956</issn><issn>2047-9964</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNptkMtKAzEUhoMoWLTvEHSdmttkJispxRsWVGpxGTKZTCfVyYzJFHHnxp1P6ZM4tdaFuDqH83-cHz4AjggeEcLEiV1WbaVDjSgmElldtabx5ShJ8Q4YUMxTJKXgu797IvbBMEaX44SxTHImB-AjuZ3dIcLSz7f3h8p66CLUsAirBXS-s0GbzjUe-qb753wKJ03d6uBijzTld47-QhGZyppH5xew0J3OdbQR5rZ7sX1bV1k4v4baF3A-Gx-CvVI_RTv8mQdgfn52P7lE05uLq8l4inJCBUa5MEQSLCS1OBWcpxnDZVmKwgia6cIUuUmxkZyUpshI0vvgmlsuibQkyahkB-B487cNzfPKxk4tm1XwfaWiRGKMKc5ETyUbKq-Xqg2u1uFVEazW7tXWvVq7V1v3qu9iX0ZyfcU</recordid><startdate>201903</startdate><enddate>201903</enddate><creator>Junaid, E</creator><creator>Hermes-DeSantis, ER</creator><creator>Bhalla, N</creator><creator>Cadman, B</creator><creator>Eggleton, A</creator><general>BMJ Publishing Group LTD</general><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BTHHO</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201903</creationdate><title>5PSQ-137 When is a drug interaction not a drug interaction? Comparison of drug-drug interactions-checking databases between the UK and USA</title><author>Junaid, E ; Hermes-DeSantis, ER ; Bhalla, N ; Cadman, B ; Eggleton, A</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b1260-b6c1910692e076447830fff6dc628adcdbc70c941fcd8155704a4e4919e158293</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Junaid, E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hermes-DeSantis, ER</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bhalla, N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cadman, B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eggleton, A</creatorcontrib><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>BMJ Journals</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><jtitle>European journal of hospital pharmacy. Science and practice</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Junaid, E</au><au>Hermes-DeSantis, ER</au><au>Bhalla, N</au><au>Cadman, B</au><au>Eggleton, A</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>5PSQ-137 When is a drug interaction not a drug interaction? Comparison of drug-drug interactions-checking databases between the UK and USA</atitle><jtitle>European journal of hospital pharmacy. Science and practice</jtitle><date>2019-03</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>26</volume><issue>Suppl 1</issue><spage>A265</spage><epage>A265</epage><pages>A265-A265</pages><issn>2047-9956</issn><eissn>2047-9964</eissn><abstract>BackgroundThe drug-drug interaction (DDI)-checking function of an electronic medical record (EMR) is helpful but is also a distraction, firing too many warnings and triggering alert fatigue. Anecdotally, hospital staff ignore warnings in over 50% of cases. Additionally, there are a number of commonly used DDI-checking databases available.PurposeWhat is the concordance of DDI databases when evaluating identified high-risk interactions alerts on an EMR system? Can the number of alerts be safely downgraded to alert fatigue?Material and methodsComparison of DDI-checking databases: Stockley’s Drug Interactions in the UK and Lexicomp (Lexi), Micromedex (MDX) and Facts and Comparison (Facts) in the USA.Based on their review, 477 interactions were recommended to be downgraded to moderate risk. These 477 interactions were further evaluated by a USA-based senior pharmacist utilising the DDI-checking databases of Lexi, MDX and Facts to identify the severity of the interaction. The agreement across all three databases, as well as between each database, was analysed. Descriptive statistics analysed the difference between the ratings and agreement in each database with the Chi square and an alpha set to 0.01.ResultsOf the 477 interactions evaluated, Lexi, MDX and Facts, agreed on the rating only 17.8% (85/477) of the time. Of these 85 interactions, 68 (80%) were no interaction/none reported, 2% (2/85) were considered a moderate interaction and 18% (15/85) were considered a major interaction. However, for moderate interaction (4% versus 19%, p&lt;0.00001) and major interactions (23% versus 55%, p&lt;0.00001) MDX had a higher rate of agreement with Lexi compared to Facts. All three databases were significantly different from Stockley’s (p&lt;0.001).ConclusionThere are a number of DDI-checking database tools available for the clinician to utilise. The interaction checker in an EMR seems to over-alert what it considers highly significant interactions. Based on common DDI-checking databases (in the UK and USA), the concordance of results is very low. This study highlights the need for checking multiple sources and critically evaluating the impact of the DDI before taking action, either to consider downgrading an alert from the EMR or for managing the individual patient case.References and/or acknowledgementsNo conflict of interest.</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>BMJ Publishing Group LTD</pub><doi>10.1136/ejhpharm-2019-eahpconf.570</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2047-9956
ispartof European journal of hospital pharmacy. Science and practice, 2019-03, Vol.26 (Suppl 1), p.A265-A265
issn 2047-9956
2047-9964
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2190002086
source PubMed Central
title 5PSQ-137 When is a drug interaction not a drug interaction? Comparison of drug-drug interactions-checking databases between the UK and USA
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-02T20%3A05%3A07IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_bmj_p&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=5PSQ-137%E2%80%85When%20is%20a%20drug%20interaction%20not%20a%20drug%20interaction?%20Comparison%20of%20drug-drug%20interactions-checking%20databases%20between%20the%20UK%20and%20USA&rft.jtitle=European%20journal%20of%20hospital%20pharmacy.%20Science%20and%20practice&rft.au=Junaid,%20E&rft.date=2019-03&rft.volume=26&rft.issue=Suppl%201&rft.spage=A265&rft.epage=A265&rft.pages=A265-A265&rft.issn=2047-9956&rft.eissn=2047-9964&rft_id=info:doi/10.1136/ejhpharm-2019-eahpconf.570&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_bmj_p%3E2190002086%3C/proquest_bmj_p%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b1260-b6c1910692e076447830fff6dc628adcdbc70c941fcd8155704a4e4919e158293%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2190002086&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true