A comparison of four drug–drug interaction databases for patients undergoing haematopoietic stem cell transplantation

What is known and objective Patients who have undergone haematopoietic stem cell transplantation are prone to drug–drug interactions due to polypharmacy. Drug–drug interaction databases are essential tools for identifying interactions in this patient group. However, drug–drug interaction checkers, w...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of clinical pharmacy and therapeutics 2022-10, Vol.47 (10), p.1711-1719
Hauptverfasser: Günay, Ayşe, Demirpolat, Eren, Ünal, Ali, Aycan, Mükerrem Betül
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1719
container_issue 10
container_start_page 1711
container_title Journal of clinical pharmacy and therapeutics
container_volume 47
creator Günay, Ayşe
Demirpolat, Eren
Ünal, Ali
Aycan, Mükerrem Betül
description What is known and objective Patients who have undergone haematopoietic stem cell transplantation are prone to drug–drug interactions due to polypharmacy. Drug–drug interaction databases are essential tools for identifying interactions in this patient group. However, drug–drug interaction checkers, which help manage interactions, may have disagreements about assessing the existence or severance of the interactions. The study aimed to determine differences among popular drug–drug interaction databases from several angles for patients who underwent haematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Methods The 21‐day treatment sheets of one hundred patients who underwent haematopoietic stem cell transplantation were examined in two subscription‐based (Uptodate and Micromedex) and two open‐access databases (Drugs.com and Epocrates) in terms of several categories two years in a row. Statistical analysis was utilized to understand the compatibility of databases in terms of severity scores, evidence levels, given references, and word counts in interaction reports. Fleiss' and Cohen's kappa statistics were used to analyse the databases' agreement levels. Results and discussion A total of 1393 and 1382 different drug–drug interactions were detected in subsequent versions of the databases, namely the 2021 and 2022 versions. The Fleiss kappa overall agreement among databases was slight. Uptodate and Micromedex showed fair agreement, and other database pairs showed slight agreement in severity ratings. Conclusion There was a poor agreement among databases for interactions seen in bone marrow transplantation patients. Therefore, it would be safer to use more than one database in daily practice. Further work needs to be done to understand the agreement level of databases for different types of interactions. We examined the 21‐day treatment sheets of one hundred patients who underwent haematopoietic stem cell transplantation in two subscription‐based and two open‐access databases in terms of several categories for 2 years in a row. Fleiss' and Cohen's kappa statistics were used to analyse the databases' agreement levels. None of the databases detected all of the interactions, and the severity categories assigned to interactions were often different among the four‐drug interaction database programmes. A total of 1393 and 1382 different drug–drug interactions were detected in the subsequent versions of the databases, namely the 2021 and 2022 versions. The Fleiss kappa overall agree
doi_str_mv 10.1111/jcpt.13728
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2684100078</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2721107659</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4008-1f6d4c055e8ac1f170d782f7e4eb8f6232b8ee2dc8f1a511a371484afd51f5373</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kT2OFDEQhS0EEsNCwgkskSCkXlzuH3vD1YjlRytBsMRWjbs8eNRtN7Zbq824AzfkJLgZIgIqeUF99VR6j7GXIC6hztuTXcoltErqR2wH7dA3UoF4zHZCDldNp6R6yp7lfBJCDEq2O3Z_zW2cF0w-x8Cj4y6uiY9pPf768XMT7kOhhLb4uh-x4AEz5YolvmDxFErmaxgpHaMPR_4NacYSl-ipeMtzoZlbmiZeEoa8TBgKblbP2ROHU6YXf_WCfb15d7f_0Nx-fv9xf33b2E4I3YAbxs6KvieNFhwoMSotnaKODtoNspUHTSRHqx1gD4Ctgk536MYeXN-q9oK9PvsuKX5fKRcz-7w9hIHimo0cdAc1DaUr-uof9FSzCPU7I5UEEGroryr15kzZFHNO5MyS_IzpwYAwWwdm68D86aDCcIbv_UQP_yHNp_2Xu_PNb-2ejMM</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2721107659</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A comparison of four drug–drug interaction databases for patients undergoing haematopoietic stem cell transplantation</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Günay, Ayşe ; Demirpolat, Eren ; Ünal, Ali ; Aycan, Mükerrem Betül</creator><creatorcontrib>Günay, Ayşe ; Demirpolat, Eren ; Ünal, Ali ; Aycan, Mükerrem Betül</creatorcontrib><description>What is known and objective Patients who have undergone haematopoietic stem cell transplantation are prone to drug–drug interactions due to polypharmacy. Drug–drug interaction databases are essential tools for identifying interactions in this patient group. However, drug–drug interaction checkers, which help manage interactions, may have disagreements about assessing the existence or severance of the interactions. The study aimed to determine differences among popular drug–drug interaction databases from several angles for patients who underwent haematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Methods The 21‐day treatment sheets of one hundred patients who underwent haematopoietic stem cell transplantation were examined in two subscription‐based (Uptodate and Micromedex) and two open‐access databases (Drugs.com and Epocrates) in terms of several categories two years in a row. Statistical analysis was utilized to understand the compatibility of databases in terms of severity scores, evidence levels, given references, and word counts in interaction reports. Fleiss' and Cohen's kappa statistics were used to analyse the databases' agreement levels. Results and discussion A total of 1393 and 1382 different drug–drug interactions were detected in subsequent versions of the databases, namely the 2021 and 2022 versions. The Fleiss kappa overall agreement among databases was slight. Uptodate and Micromedex showed fair agreement, and other database pairs showed slight agreement in severity ratings. Conclusion There was a poor agreement among databases for interactions seen in bone marrow transplantation patients. Therefore, it would be safer to use more than one database in daily practice. Further work needs to be done to understand the agreement level of databases for different types of interactions. We examined the 21‐day treatment sheets of one hundred patients who underwent haematopoietic stem cell transplantation in two subscription‐based and two open‐access databases in terms of several categories for 2 years in a row. Fleiss' and Cohen's kappa statistics were used to analyse the databases' agreement levels. None of the databases detected all of the interactions, and the severity categories assigned to interactions were often different among the four‐drug interaction database programmes. A total of 1393 and 1382 different drug–drug interactions were detected in the subsequent versions of the databases, namely the 2021 and 2022 versions. The Fleiss kappa overall agreement among databases was slight. Uptodate and Micromedex showed fair agreement, and other database pairs showed slight agreement in severity ratings. There was a poor agreement among databases for interactions seen in bone marrow transplantation patients. Therefore, it would be safer to use more than one database in daily practice. Further work needs to be done to understand the agreement‐level of databases for different types of interactions.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0269-4727</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1365-2710</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/jcpt.13728</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford: Hindawi Limited</publisher><subject>Agreements ; Bone marrow transplantation ; DDIs ; Drug interaction ; Drug interactions ; drug–drug interaction databases ; drug–drug interactions ; haematopoietic stem cell transplantation ; Hematopoietic stem cells ; Immunosuppressive agents ; Patients ; Polypharmacy ; Statistical analysis ; Stem cell transplantation</subject><ispartof>Journal of clinical pharmacy and therapeutics, 2022-10, Vol.47 (10), p.1711-1719</ispartof><rights>2022 John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4008-1f6d4c055e8ac1f170d782f7e4eb8f6232b8ee2dc8f1a511a371484afd51f5373</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4008-1f6d4c055e8ac1f170d782f7e4eb8f6232b8ee2dc8f1a511a371484afd51f5373</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-7011-3412 ; 0000-0002-4503-8032 ; 0000-0002-4411-3459 ; 0000-0003-4405-4660</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fjcpt.13728$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fjcpt.13728$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,1412,27905,27906,45555,45556</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Günay, Ayşe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Demirpolat, Eren</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ünal, Ali</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aycan, Mükerrem Betül</creatorcontrib><title>A comparison of four drug–drug interaction databases for patients undergoing haematopoietic stem cell transplantation</title><title>Journal of clinical pharmacy and therapeutics</title><description>What is known and objective Patients who have undergone haematopoietic stem cell transplantation are prone to drug–drug interactions due to polypharmacy. Drug–drug interaction databases are essential tools for identifying interactions in this patient group. However, drug–drug interaction checkers, which help manage interactions, may have disagreements about assessing the existence or severance of the interactions. The study aimed to determine differences among popular drug–drug interaction databases from several angles for patients who underwent haematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Methods The 21‐day treatment sheets of one hundred patients who underwent haematopoietic stem cell transplantation were examined in two subscription‐based (Uptodate and Micromedex) and two open‐access databases (Drugs.com and Epocrates) in terms of several categories two years in a row. Statistical analysis was utilized to understand the compatibility of databases in terms of severity scores, evidence levels, given references, and word counts in interaction reports. Fleiss' and Cohen's kappa statistics were used to analyse the databases' agreement levels. Results and discussion A total of 1393 and 1382 different drug–drug interactions were detected in subsequent versions of the databases, namely the 2021 and 2022 versions. The Fleiss kappa overall agreement among databases was slight. Uptodate and Micromedex showed fair agreement, and other database pairs showed slight agreement in severity ratings. Conclusion There was a poor agreement among databases for interactions seen in bone marrow transplantation patients. Therefore, it would be safer to use more than one database in daily practice. Further work needs to be done to understand the agreement level of databases for different types of interactions. We examined the 21‐day treatment sheets of one hundred patients who underwent haematopoietic stem cell transplantation in two subscription‐based and two open‐access databases in terms of several categories for 2 years in a row. Fleiss' and Cohen's kappa statistics were used to analyse the databases' agreement levels. None of the databases detected all of the interactions, and the severity categories assigned to interactions were often different among the four‐drug interaction database programmes. A total of 1393 and 1382 different drug–drug interactions were detected in the subsequent versions of the databases, namely the 2021 and 2022 versions. The Fleiss kappa overall agreement among databases was slight. Uptodate and Micromedex showed fair agreement, and other database pairs showed slight agreement in severity ratings. There was a poor agreement among databases for interactions seen in bone marrow transplantation patients. Therefore, it would be safer to use more than one database in daily practice. Further work needs to be done to understand the agreement‐level of databases for different types of interactions.</description><subject>Agreements</subject><subject>Bone marrow transplantation</subject><subject>DDIs</subject><subject>Drug interaction</subject><subject>Drug interactions</subject><subject>drug–drug interaction databases</subject><subject>drug–drug interactions</subject><subject>haematopoietic stem cell transplantation</subject><subject>Hematopoietic stem cells</subject><subject>Immunosuppressive agents</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Polypharmacy</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Stem cell transplantation</subject><issn>0269-4727</issn><issn>1365-2710</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kT2OFDEQhS0EEsNCwgkskSCkXlzuH3vD1YjlRytBsMRWjbs8eNRtN7Zbq824AzfkJLgZIgIqeUF99VR6j7GXIC6hztuTXcoltErqR2wH7dA3UoF4zHZCDldNp6R6yp7lfBJCDEq2O3Z_zW2cF0w-x8Cj4y6uiY9pPf768XMT7kOhhLb4uh-x4AEz5YolvmDxFErmaxgpHaMPR_4NacYSl-ipeMtzoZlbmiZeEoa8TBgKblbP2ROHU6YXf_WCfb15d7f_0Nx-fv9xf33b2E4I3YAbxs6KvieNFhwoMSotnaKODtoNspUHTSRHqx1gD4Ctgk536MYeXN-q9oK9PvsuKX5fKRcz-7w9hIHimo0cdAc1DaUr-uof9FSzCPU7I5UEEGroryr15kzZFHNO5MyS_IzpwYAwWwdm68D86aDCcIbv_UQP_yHNp_2Xu_PNb-2ejMM</recordid><startdate>202210</startdate><enddate>202210</enddate><creator>Günay, Ayşe</creator><creator>Demirpolat, Eren</creator><creator>Ünal, Ali</creator><creator>Aycan, Mükerrem Betül</creator><general>Hindawi Limited</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7TO</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7011-3412</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4503-8032</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4411-3459</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4405-4660</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202210</creationdate><title>A comparison of four drug–drug interaction databases for patients undergoing haematopoietic stem cell transplantation</title><author>Günay, Ayşe ; Demirpolat, Eren ; Ünal, Ali ; Aycan, Mükerrem Betül</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4008-1f6d4c055e8ac1f170d782f7e4eb8f6232b8ee2dc8f1a511a371484afd51f5373</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Agreements</topic><topic>Bone marrow transplantation</topic><topic>DDIs</topic><topic>Drug interaction</topic><topic>Drug interactions</topic><topic>drug–drug interaction databases</topic><topic>drug–drug interactions</topic><topic>haematopoietic stem cell transplantation</topic><topic>Hematopoietic stem cells</topic><topic>Immunosuppressive agents</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Polypharmacy</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Stem cell transplantation</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Günay, Ayşe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Demirpolat, Eren</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ünal, Ali</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aycan, Mükerrem Betül</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Oncogenes and Growth Factors Abstracts</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of clinical pharmacy and therapeutics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Günay, Ayşe</au><au>Demirpolat, Eren</au><au>Ünal, Ali</au><au>Aycan, Mükerrem Betül</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A comparison of four drug–drug interaction databases for patients undergoing haematopoietic stem cell transplantation</atitle><jtitle>Journal of clinical pharmacy and therapeutics</jtitle><date>2022-10</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>47</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>1711</spage><epage>1719</epage><pages>1711-1719</pages><issn>0269-4727</issn><eissn>1365-2710</eissn><abstract>What is known and objective Patients who have undergone haematopoietic stem cell transplantation are prone to drug–drug interactions due to polypharmacy. Drug–drug interaction databases are essential tools for identifying interactions in this patient group. However, drug–drug interaction checkers, which help manage interactions, may have disagreements about assessing the existence or severance of the interactions. The study aimed to determine differences among popular drug–drug interaction databases from several angles for patients who underwent haematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Methods The 21‐day treatment sheets of one hundred patients who underwent haematopoietic stem cell transplantation were examined in two subscription‐based (Uptodate and Micromedex) and two open‐access databases (Drugs.com and Epocrates) in terms of several categories two years in a row. Statistical analysis was utilized to understand the compatibility of databases in terms of severity scores, evidence levels, given references, and word counts in interaction reports. Fleiss' and Cohen's kappa statistics were used to analyse the databases' agreement levels. Results and discussion A total of 1393 and 1382 different drug–drug interactions were detected in subsequent versions of the databases, namely the 2021 and 2022 versions. The Fleiss kappa overall agreement among databases was slight. Uptodate and Micromedex showed fair agreement, and other database pairs showed slight agreement in severity ratings. Conclusion There was a poor agreement among databases for interactions seen in bone marrow transplantation patients. Therefore, it would be safer to use more than one database in daily practice. Further work needs to be done to understand the agreement level of databases for different types of interactions. We examined the 21‐day treatment sheets of one hundred patients who underwent haematopoietic stem cell transplantation in two subscription‐based and two open‐access databases in terms of several categories for 2 years in a row. Fleiss' and Cohen's kappa statistics were used to analyse the databases' agreement levels. None of the databases detected all of the interactions, and the severity categories assigned to interactions were often different among the four‐drug interaction database programmes. A total of 1393 and 1382 different drug–drug interactions were detected in the subsequent versions of the databases, namely the 2021 and 2022 versions. The Fleiss kappa overall agreement among databases was slight. Uptodate and Micromedex showed fair agreement, and other database pairs showed slight agreement in severity ratings. There was a poor agreement among databases for interactions seen in bone marrow transplantation patients. Therefore, it would be safer to use more than one database in daily practice. Further work needs to be done to understand the agreement‐level of databases for different types of interactions.</abstract><cop>Oxford</cop><pub>Hindawi Limited</pub><doi>10.1111/jcpt.13728</doi><tpages>9</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7011-3412</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4503-8032</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4411-3459</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4405-4660</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0269-4727
ispartof Journal of clinical pharmacy and therapeutics, 2022-10, Vol.47 (10), p.1711-1719
issn 0269-4727
1365-2710
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2684100078
source Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete
subjects Agreements
Bone marrow transplantation
DDIs
Drug interaction
Drug interactions
drug–drug interaction databases
drug–drug interactions
haematopoietic stem cell transplantation
Hematopoietic stem cells
Immunosuppressive agents
Patients
Polypharmacy
Statistical analysis
Stem cell transplantation
title A comparison of four drug–drug interaction databases for patients undergoing haematopoietic stem cell transplantation
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-18T11%3A43%3A27IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20comparison%20of%20four%20drug%E2%80%93drug%20interaction%20databases%20for%20patients%20undergoing%20haematopoietic%20stem%20cell%20transplantation&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20clinical%20pharmacy%20and%20therapeutics&rft.au=G%C3%BCnay,%20Ay%C5%9Fe&rft.date=2022-10&rft.volume=47&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=1711&rft.epage=1719&rft.pages=1711-1719&rft.issn=0269-4727&rft.eissn=1365-2710&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/jcpt.13728&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2721107659%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2721107659&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true