Drug information: from education to practice.

Drug information is a specialty area within the realm of clinical pharmacy that has evolved as technology and clinical practice have changed. Drug information specialists are trained individuals who have clinical knowledge and skills that allow them to provide clear, concise, and accurate recommendations regarding drug use. The constant changing culture of drug information and health care in general has prompted the need for continual growth and refinement of the standards that govern drug information practice. This article outlines specific standards to help ensure that the education and practice of drug information will continue to meet the needs of the health care community. This opinion paper is divided into two sections: Education and Training, and Practice Areas. The Education and Training section is organized to describe the role of drug information and that of the drug information specialist in the training of all pharmacy students and advanced trainees, as well as to describe the role of focused training for those individuals wishing to specialize in drug information. This article also affirms the recommendations for the standards-based approach to drug information education and specialty training. The Practice Areas section is organized to describe the role of the drug information specialist within various practice settings, to identify some of the challenges faced by the drug information specialist within those settings, and to provide recommendations for the different practice areas. The areas found within this section include academia, institutional health systems, managed care, industry, medical writing, and informatics.

Clinical decision support tools: personal digital assistant versus online dietary supplement databases.

BACKGROUND: Clinical decision support tools (CDSTs) on personal digital assistants (PDAs) and online databases assist healthcare practitioners who make decisions about dietary supplements. OBJECTIVE: To assess and compare the content of PDA dietary supplement databases and their online counterparts used as CDSTs. METHODS: A total of 102 question-and-answer pairs were developed within 10 weighted categories of the most clinically relevant aspects of dietary supplement therapy. PDA versions of AltMedDex, Lexi-Natural, Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database, and Natural Standard and their online counterparts were assessed by scope (percent of correct answers present), completeness (3-point scale), ease of use, and a composite score integrating all 3 criteria. Descriptive statistics and inferential statistics, including a chi(2) test, Scheffé's multiple comparison test, McNemar's test, and the Wilcoxon signed rank test were used to analyze data. RESULTS: The scope scores for PDA databases were: Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database 84.3%, Natural Standard 58.8%, Lexi-Natural 50.0%, and AltMedDex 36.3%, with Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database statistically superior (p < 0.01). Completeness scores were: Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database 78.4%, Natural Standard 51.0%, Lexi-Natural 43.5%, and AltMedDex 29.7%. Lexi-Natural was superior in ease of use (p < 0.01). Composite scores for PDA databases were: Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database 79.3, Natural Standard 53.0, Lexi-Natural 48.0, and AltMedDex 32.5, with Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database superior (p < 0.01). There was no difference between the scope for PDA and online database pairs with Lexi-Natural (50.0% and 53.9%, respectively) or Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database (84.3% and 84.3%, respectively) (p > 0.05), whereas differences existed for AltMedDex (36.3% vs 74.5%, respectively) and Natural Standard (58.8% vs 80.4%, respectively) (p < 0.01). For composite scores, AltMedDex and Natural Standard online were better than their PDA counterparts (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database achieved significantly higher scope, completeness, and composite scores compared with other dietary supplement PDA CDSTs in this study. There was no difference between the PDA and online databases for Lexi-Natural and Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database, whereas online versions of AltMedDex and Natural Standard were significantly better than their PDA counterparts.

Clinical decision support tools: focus on dietary supplement databases.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the content of dietary supplement databases used for clinical decision support. METHODS: Four online dietary supplement databases were assessed according to scope, completeness, and ease of use. Additionally, a composite score integrating all 3 criteria was determined. One hundred two question-and-answer pairs were developed and distributed among 10 weighted categories dealing with the most clinically relevant aspects of dietary supplement therapy. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to summarize the evaluation components and to compare databases. Chi-square was used to investigate differences in scope scores. Scheffe's multiple comparison procedure was used to determine statistical differences in completeness and ease of use. RESULTS: The percentage of questions that each database answered successfully were as follows: Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database, 84.3%; Natural Standard, 80.4%; AltMedDex, 74.5%; and Lexi-Natural Products, 53.9%, indicating 2 statistical groupings (P < .05) in which the first 3 databases performed significantly better than Lexi-Natural. Completeness scores were similarly stratified. Ease-of-use scores were Natural Standard, 1.96; Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database, 2.00; Lexi-Natural, 2.02; and AltMedDex, 2.50. Composite scores indicating overall performance were Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database, 81.5%; Natural Standard, 76.9%; AltMedDex, 71.6%; and Lexi-Natural, 50.7%. CONCLUSION: Many clinicians may be unprepared to deal with patient-related dietary supplement questions; therefore, clinical decision support tools that address this knowledge gap are needed. There was significant heterogeneity in the content of dietary supplement-focused online databases, with clustering in the top tier.

Risk factors for developing gadolinium-induced nephrogenic systemic fibrosis.

OBJECTIVE: To identify medications and other potential risk factors, in addition to renal dysfunction, for developing gadolinium-induced nephrogenic systemic fibrosis (NSF). DATA SOURCES: Information was obtained from PubMed, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Iowa Drug Information Service, and Google Scholar, using the unlimited search terms nephrogenic systemic fibrosis, NSF, nephrogenic fibrosing dermopathy, NFD, gadolinium, gadodiamide, gadoversetamide, gadopentetate, gadobenate, and gadoteridol. Information was also obtained from the Food and Drug Administration, as well as the manufacturers of the above-mentioned products. Data were collected during April and May 2007. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: All identified articles and information were evaluated. Articles and other information that included data regarding concurrent medications, disease states, and other risk factors for developing gadolinium-induced NSF were included in this review, as were clinical practice guidelines. DATA SYNTHESIS: NSF is a mysterious and severe disorder that occurs in individuals with severe renal impairment. Virtually all cases of NSF have been associated with the administration of gadolinium-containing contrast media. However, not all renally impaired patients who receive gadolinium develop NSF. Thus, additional risk factors for the development of NSF have been suggested. These risk factors include medications that could cause transmetallation of gadolinium, medications that could cause acidosis, and high doses of erythropoietin. Concomitant medical conditions, including hyperphosphatemia, acidosis, recent surgery, hepatic disease, hypercoagulability, and proinflammatory processes may also predispose patients to NSF. CONCLUSIONS: Gadolinium-based contrast agents should be avoided in patients with significant renal impairment unless the benefits clearly outweigh the risks. If gadolinium is required, nonionic linear chelates (eg, gadodiamide, gadoversetamide) should not be used. Renally impaired individuals who require gadolinium should be screened proactively for underlying disease states and concomitant drugs that may increase their risk of developing NSF; therapy should be adjusted accordingly.