RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Drug-drug interaction databases are an important tool to increase drug safety in polypharmacy. There are several drug interaction databases available but it is unclear which one shows the best results and therefore increases safety for the user of the databases and the patients. So far, there has been no validation of German drug interaction databases. GOAL: Validation of German drug interaction databases regarding the number of hits, mechanisms of drug interaction, references, clinical advice, and severity of the interaction. METHODS: A total of 36 drug interactions which were published in the last 3-5 years were checked in 5 different databases. Besides the number of hits, it was also documented if the mechanism was correct, clinical advice was given, primary literature was cited, and the severity level of the drug-drug interaction was given. RESULTS: All databases showed weaknesses regarding the hit rate of the tested drug interactions, with a maximum of 67.7% hits. The highest score in this validation was achieved by MediQ with 104 out of 180 points. PsiacOnline achieved 83 points, arznei-telegramm® 58, ifap index® 54 and the ABDA-database 49 points. Based on this validation MediQ seems to be the most suitable databank for the field of psychopharmacotherapy. DISCUSSION: The best results in this comparison were achieved by MediQ but this database also needs improvement with respect to the hit rate so that the users can rely on the results and therefore increase drug therapy safety.
Assuntos
Bases de Dados como Assunto , Interações Medicamentosas , Transtornos Mentais/tratamento farmacológico , Psicotrópicos/efeitos adversos , Quimioterapia Combinada/efeitos adversos , Alemanha , Humanos , Psicotrópicos/uso terapêuticoRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the qualitative and quantitative changes of medications during the stay on a geriatric-psychiatric ward where the medication was optimized by a clinical pharmacist, and after discharge. The goal of the study was to analyze the continuity of the medication at the transfer from hospital to ambulatory care. METHODS: We interviewed 41 patients on the phone about their drug regimen 4 and 12 weeks after discharge. Medications were compared to their discharge medication. The number of medications from the PRISCUS list of inappropriate medications for the elderly as well as the number of drug interactions was documented. The drug interaction database MediQ was used to identify and classify the drug-drug interactions. RESULTS: During the hospitalization of the patients, 101 interventions of the clinical pharmacist were recommended and accepted. In cooperation with the physicians, the number of drug interactions decreased by 44% and the number of PRISCUS list medications by 42%. Only 4 weeks after discharge, 54 drugs for 27 patients (66%) had already been changed. During the following 8 weeks, another 44 medications were changed in 14 patients (35%). The total number of drugs after discharge did not change. The number of moderate drug interactions (p = 0.17) of medications from the PRISCUS list increased (p = 0.77), but not significantly. CONCLUSION: While the interventions of a clinical pharmacist can lead to a reduction in drug interactions and inappropriate medication for the elderly during the hospitalization, the medication was changed after discharge in numerous cases. In a detailed analysis it was found that some of the changes increased the number of drug interactions as well as the number of potentially inappropriate medications for the elderly. A drug interaction check after discharge could prevent drug interactions and medication errors. Also the nationwide medication plan can help to prevent medication errors by the prescribing physician as well as by the patient.