Comparative performance of two drug interaction screening programmes analysing a cross-sectional prescription dataset of 84,625 psychiatric inpatients.

BACKGROUND: Clinical decision support software (CDSS) solutions can automatically identify drug interactions and thereby aim to improve drug safety. However, data on the comparative performance of different CDSS to detect and appropriately classify interactions in real-life prescription datasets is limited. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the results from two different CDSS analysing the pharmacotherapy of a large population of psychiatric inpatients for drug interactions. METHODS: We performed mass analyses of cross-sectional patient-level prescriptions from 84,625 psychiatric inpatients using two CDSS - MediQ and ID PHARMA CHECK(®). Interactions with the highest risk ratings and the most frequent ratings were reclassified according to the Zurich Interaction System (ZHIAS), a multidimensional classification that incorporates the OpeRational ClassificAtion of Drug Interactions (ORCA) and served as a reference standard. RESULTS: MediQ reported 6,133 unique interacting combinations responsible for 270,617 alerts affecting 63,454 patients. ID PHARMA CHECK(®) issued 5,400 interactions and 157,489 alerts in 48,302 patients. Only 2,154 unique interactions were identified by both programmes, but overlap increased with higher risk rating. MediQ reported high-risk interactions in 2.5 % of all patients, compared with 5 % according to ID PHARMA CHECK(®). The positive predictive value for unique major alerts to be (provisionally) contraindicated according to ORCA was higher for MediQ (0.63) than for either of the two ID PHARMA CHECK(®) components (0.42 for hospINDEX and 0.30 for ID MACS). MediQ reported more interactions, and ID PHARMA CHECK(®) tended to classify interactions into a higher risk class, but overall both programmes identified a similar number of (provisionally) contraindicated interactions according to ORCA criteria. Both programmes identified arrhythmia as the most frequent specific risk associated with interactions in psychiatric patients. CONCLUSIONS: CDSS can be used for mass-analysis of prescription data and thereby support quality management. However, in clinical practice CDSS impose an overwhelming alert burden on the prescriber, and prediction of clinical relevance remains a major challenge. Only a small subset of yet to be determined alerts appears suitable for automated display in clinical routine.

Comparative evaluation of the drug interaction screening programs MediQ and ID PHARMA CHECK in neurological inpatients.

PURPOSE: The comparative evaluation of clinical decision support software (CDSS) programs regarding their sensitivity and positive predictive value for the identification of clinically relevant drug interactions. METHODS: In this research, we used a cross-sectional study that identified potential drug interactions using the CDSS MediQ and the ID PHARMA CHECK in 484 neurological inpatients. Interactions were reclassified according to the Zurich Interaction System, a multidimensional classification that incorporates the Operational Classification of Drug Interactions. RESULTS: In 484 patients with 2812 prescriptions, MediQ and ID PHARMA CHECK generated a total of 1759 and 1082 alerts, respectively. MediQ identified 658 unique potentially interacting combinations, 8 classified as "high danger," 164 as "average danger," and 486 as "low danger." ID PHARMA CHECK detected 336 combinations assigned to one or several of 12 risk and management categories. Altogether, both CDSS issued alerts relating to 808 unique potentially interacting combinations. According to the Zurich Interaction System, 6 of these were contraindicated, 25 were provisionally contraindicated, 190 carried a conditional risk, and 587 had a minimal risk of adverse events. The positive predictive value for alerts having at least a conditional risk was 0.24 for MediQ and 0.48 for ID PHARMA CHECK. CONCLUSIONS: CDSS showed major differences in the identification and grading of interactions, and many interactions were only identified by one of the two CDSS. For both programs, only a small proportion of all identified interactions appeared clinically relevant, and the selected display of alerts that imply management changes is a key issue in the further development and local setup of such programs.

Evaluation of drug interactions and dosing in 484 neurological inpatients using clinical decision support software and an extended operational interaction classification system (Zurich Interaction System).

PURPOSE: The current study aimed at identifying and quantifying critical drug interactions in neurological inpatients using clinical decision support software (CDSS). Reclassification of interactions with a focus on clinical management aimed to support the development of CDSS with higher efficacy to reduce overalerting and improve medication safety in clinical practice. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study in consecutive patients admitted to the neurology ward of a tertiary care hospital. We developed a customized interface for mass analysis with the CDSS MediQ, which we used for automated retrospective identification of drug interactions during the first day of hospitalization. Interactions were reclassified according to the Zurich Interaction System (ZHIAS), which incorporates the Operational Classification of Drug Interactions (ORCA). Dose adjustments for renal impairment were also evaluated. RESULTS: In 484 patients with 2812 prescriptions, MediQ generated 8 "high danger," 518 "average danger," and 1233 "low danger" interaction alerts. According to ZHIAS, 6 alerts involved contraindicated and 33 alerts involved provisionally contraindicated combinations, and 327 alerts involved a conditional and 1393 alerts involved a minimal risk of adverse outcomes. Thirty-five patients (6.2%) had at least one combination that was at least provisionally contraindicated. ZHIAS also provides categorical information on expected adverse outcomes and management recommendations, which are presented in detail. We identified 13 prescriptions without recommended dose adjustment for impaired renal function. CONCLUSIONS: MediQ detected a large number of drug interactions with variable clinical relevance in neurological inpatients. ZHIAS supports the selection of those interactions that require active management, and the effects of its implementation into CDSS on medication safety should be evaluated in future prospective studies.

Trace amine associated receptor 1 and movement control.

The recently discovered trace amine associated receptors (TAARs) represent attractive potential mediators of certain aspects of movement control. The TAAR that is best characterized, TAAR1, is particularly interesting because it can be activated by a variety of monoaminergic compounds including trace amines, amphetamines and dopamine metabolites. By using an experimental paradigm developed in our laboratory that involves a novel model of acute dopamine deficiency (DDD mice), and mice lacking TAAR1 (TAAR1 knockout mice), we explored the role of TAAR1 in movement control and actions of antiparkinsonian drugs. These investigations may eventually bring novel approaches to the pharmacology of Parkinson's disease.