Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Drug–drug interactions in patients undergoing chemoradiotherapy and the impact of an expert team intervention

  • Research Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background Several studies have examined the drug–drug interaction patterns in different patient populations and treatment settings; however, there is a need, particularly in the field of oncology and radiotherapy, for evaluating methods targeted towards preventing potential drug–drug interactions. One of the measures proposed is identifying potential interactions using computer programs and their evaluation by pharmacologists or clinical pharmacists, thereby providing clinically relevant information to the treating physician regarding the required prescription changes. Objective To determine the prevalence of potential drug–drug interactions in patients receiving chemoradiotherapy and assess the usefulness of expert team recommendations in minimizing interactions. Setting Patients admitted to the radiotherapy and oncology ward of a tertiary care teaching hospital in Karnataka, India. Method We conducted a prospective, cross-sectional study of prescriptions written for patients receiving chemoradiotherapy. Prescriptions containing two or more drugs, at least one of the drugs being an anticancer drug, were analyzed. They were screened for potential drug–drug interactions using the Lexicomp® drug interaction software. The interactions were classified as X, drug combination to be avoided; D, modification of therapy to be considered; and C, therapy to be monitored, as per the Lexicomp criteria. Main outcome measure The number of drug–drug interactions detected that were accepted by the treating radio-oncologist as requiring prescription change before and after the prescription review by an expert team. Results Two hundred twenty-three prescriptions were screened for the presence of drug–drug interactions; 106 prescriptions (47.53%) containing 620 drugs and 211 drug–drug interactions were identified. Of the 211 interactions identified, 6.64% (14/211), 18.48% (39/211), and 74.88% (158/211) drug–drug interactions belonged to category X, D, and C, respectively. Twenty-seven (50.94%) of the 53 category X and D interactions identified were accepted the oncologist as requiring a change in the prescription; an additional 13 (24.53%) interactions were identified as significant by the expert team, and 11 (84.62%) of these were accepted by the oncologist. Conclusion A system of alerting the treating physician to a potential drug–drug interaction leads to avoidance of prescription of the interacting drug combination, and the assistance by an expert team adds significantly to avoidance of clinically relevant drug interactions.

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
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Magro L, Moretti U, Leone R. Epidemiology and characteristics of adverse drug reactions caused by drug–drug interactions. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2012;11:83–94.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Greenblatt DJ. Mechanisms and consequences of drug–drug interactions. Clin Pharmacol Drug Dev. 2017;6:118–24.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Percha B, Altman RB. Informatics confronts drug–drug interactions. Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2013;34:178–84.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Strandell J, Bate A, Lindquist M, Edwards IR, Swedish, Finnish IXDID (SFINX G). Drug–drug interactions—a preventable patient safety issue? Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2008;65:144–6.

  5. Guthrie B, Makubate B, Hernandez-Santiago V, Dreischulte T. The rising tide of polypharmacy and drug–drug interactions: population database analysis 1995–2010. BMC Med. 2015;13:74.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Kannan G, Anitha R, Rani VN, Thennarasu P, Alosh J, Vasantha J, et al. A study of drug–drug interactions in cancer patients of a south Indian tertiary care teaching hospital. J Postgrad Med. 2011;57:206–10.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. van Leeuwen RWF, Jansman FGA, van den Bemt PMLA, de Man F, Piran F, Vincenten I, et al. Drug–drug interactions in patients treated for cancer: a prospective study on clinical interventions. Ann Oncol Off J Eur Soc Med Oncol. 2015;26:992–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. van Leeuwen RWF, Brundel DHS, Neef C, van Gelder T, Mathijssen RHJ, Burger DM, et al. Prevalence of potential drug–drug interactions in cancer patients treated with oral anticancer drugs. Br J Cancer. 2013;108:1071–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. O’Neill CB, Baxi SS, Atoria CL, O’Neill JP, Henman MC, Sherman EJ, et al. Treatment-related toxicities in older adults with head and neck cancer: a population-based analysis. Cancer. 2015;121:2083–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. van Leeuwen RWF, Swart EL, Boven E, Boom FA, Schuitenmaker MG, Hugtenburg JG. Potential drug interactions in cancer therapy: a prevalence study using an advanced screening method. Ann Oncol Off J Eur Soc Med Oncol. 2011;22:2334–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Soldatos TG, Jackson DB. Adverse event circumstances and the case of drug interactions. Healthcare (Basel). 2019;7:45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Roblek T, Vaupotic T, Mrhar A, Lainscak M. Drug–drug interaction software in clinical practice: a systematic review. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2015;71:131–42.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Meslin SMM, Zheng WY, Day RO, Tay EMY, Baysari MT. Evaluation of clinical relevance of drug–drug interaction alerts prior to implementation. Appl Clin Inform. 2018;9:849–55.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Nightingale G, Pizzi LT, Barlow A, Barlow B, Jacisin T, McGuire M, et al. The prevalence of major drug–drug interactions in older adults with cancer and the role of clinical decision support software. J Geriatr Oncol. 2018;9:526–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Girre V, Arkoub H, Puts MTE, Vantelon C, Blanchard F, Droz JP, et al. Potential drug interactions in elderly cancer patients. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2011;78:220–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Lopez-Martin C, Garrido Siles M, Alcaide-Garcia J, Faus FV. Role of clinical pharmacists to prevent drug interactions in cancer outpatients: a single-centre experience. Int J Clin Pharm. 2014;36:1251–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Bhowmick S, Shenoy A. Evolving role of clinical pharmacologists in Indian accredited hospitals. J Pharmacol Pharmacother. 2018;9:121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Deshpande PR, Vantipalli R, Chaitanya Lakshmi CH, Rao EJ, Regmi B, Ahad A, et al. Clinical pharmacists: the major support to Indian healthcare system in near future. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2015;7:161–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Lexicomp® drug interact [internet]. Wolters Kluwer-[cited 2019 Nov 8]. Available from: https://www.uptodate.com/drug-interactions/?source=responsive_home#di-druglist.

  20. Mouzon A, Kerger J, D’Hondt L, Spinewine A. Potential interactions with anticancer agents: a cross-sectional study. Chemotherapy. 2013;59:85–92.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Riechelmann RP, Moreira F, Smaletz O, Saad ED. Potential for drug interactions in hospitalized cancer patients. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2005;56:286–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Balk TE, van der Sijs IH, van Gelder T, Janssen JJB, van der Sluis IM, van Leeuwen RWF, et al. Drug–drug interactions in pediatric oncology patients. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2017;64:e26410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Vayalil R, Shetty KJ, Mateti U. Assessment of potential drug–drug interactions in an oncology unit of a tertiary care teaching hospital. Indian J Med Paediatr Oncol. 2018;39:436.

  24. Chen L, Cheung WY. Potential drug interactions in patients with a history of cancer. Curr Oncol. 2014;21:e212–e220220.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Marcath LA, Coe TD, Hoylman EK, Redman BG, Hertz DL. Prevalence of drug–drug interactions in oncology patients enrolled on National Clinical Trials Network oncology clinical trials. BMC Cancer. 2018;18:1155.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Ramos-Esquivel A, Víquez-Jaikel Á, Fernández C. Potential drug–drug and herb–drug interactions in patients with cancer: a prospective study of medication surveillance. J Oncol Pract. 2017;13:e613–e622622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Taegtmeyer AB, Kullak-Ublick GA, Widmer N, Falk V, Jetter A. Clinical usefulness of electronic drug–drug interaction checking in the care of cardiovascular surgery inpatients. Cardiology. 2012;123:219–22.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Das S, Behera SK, Xavier AS, Dharanipragada S, Selvarajan S. Are drug–drug interactions a real clinical concern? Perspect Clin Res. 2019;10:62–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Fung KW, Kapusnik-Uner J, Cunningham J, Higby-Baker S, Bodenreider O. Comparison of three commercial knowledge bases for detection of drug–drug interactions in clinical decision support. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2017;24:806–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Ribed A, Romero-Jiménez RM, Escudero-Vilaplana V, Iglesias-Peinado I, Herranz-Alonso A, Codina C, et al. Pharmaceutical care program for onco-hematologic outpatients: safety, efficiency and patient satisfaction. Int J Clin Pharm. 2016;38:280–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Maleki S, Alexander M, Fua T, Liu C, Rischin D, Lingaratnam S. A systematic review of the impact of outpatient clinical pharmacy services on medication-related outcomes in patients receiving anticancer therapies. J Oncol Pharm Pract. 2019;25:130–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Mekonnen AB, McLachlan AJ, Brien JE. Effectiveness of pharmacist-led medication reconciliation programmes on clinical outcomes at hospital transitions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2016;6:e010003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Ussai S, Petelin R, Giordano A, Malinconico M, Cirillo D, Pentimalli F. A pilot study on the impact of known drug–drug interactions in cancer patients. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2015;34:89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Bulsink A, Imholz ALT, Brouwers JRBJ, Jansman FGA. Characteristics of potential drug-related problems among oncology patients. Int J Clin Pharm. 2013;35:401–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Buffery PJ, Strother RM. Domperidone safety: a mini-review of the science of QT prolongation and clinical implications of recent global regulatory recommendations. N Z Med J. 2015;128:66–74.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Biewenga J, Keung C, Solanki B, Natarajan J, Leitz G, Deleu S, et al. Absence of QTc prolongation with domperidone: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-and positive-controlled thorough QT/QTc study in healthy volunteers. Clin Pharmacol Drug Dev. 2015;4:41–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Bor S, Demir M, Ozdemir O, Yuksel K. A meta-analysis on the cardiac safety profile of domperidone compared to metoclopramide. United Eur Gastroenterol J. 2018;6:1331–466.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Hesketh PJ, Kris MG, Basch E, Bohlke K, Barbour SY, Clark-Snow RA, et al. Antiemetics: American society of clinical oncology clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:3240–61.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Product monograph. Iressa@ gefitinib tablets epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor [internet]. 2017 [cited 2019 Nov 8]. Available from: https://www.astrazeneca.ca/content/dam/az-ca/downloads/productinformation/iressa-product-monograph-en.pdf.

Download references

Acknowledgements

None.

Funding

The study did not receive any funding from governmental or non-governmental sources.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pharmacology, Kasturba Medical College, Mangalore, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, 575001, India

    Sumanjali J. V. Daggupati, Ashwin Kamath & Mukta N. Chowta

  2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Kasturba Medical College, Mangalore, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, 575001, India

    PU Prakash Saxena

Authors
  1. Sumanjali J. V. Daggupati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. PU Prakash Saxena
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ashwin Kamath
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mukta N. Chowta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ashwin Kamath.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Daggupati, S.J.V., Saxena, P.P., Kamath, A. et al. Drug–drug interactions in patients undergoing chemoradiotherapy and the impact of an expert team intervention. Int J Clin Pharm 42, 132–140 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-019-00949-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-019-00949-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation