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.

Pharmacotherapeutic trends in 2231 psychiatric inpatients with bipolar depression from the International AMSP Project between 1994 and 2009.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacological treatment of bipolar depression is a complex and controversial issue, and its real-world practice remains largely unknown. METHOD: Observational analysis of the pharmacotherapy of 2231 psychiatric inpatients with a current episode of bipolar depression. The study was based on cross-sectional prescription data from European psychiatric hospitals that had been repeatedly collected between 1994 and 2009 through the collaborative Drug Safety in Psychiatry (AMSP) program. RESULTS: Overall 81.3% of patients received antidepressants (AD) (7.8% monotherapy), 57.9% antipsychotics (AP), 50.1% anticonvulsants (AC), 47.5% tranquilizers, and 34.6% lithium (Li). Use over time was stable for AD, decreased for Li, and increased for AC, AP and tranquilizers. Pronounced increases were specifically observed for quetiapine, lamotrigine and valproate. Use of tricyclic AD decreased but its prevalence was still 11.8% in 2009. Venlafaxine was used by 19.5% in 2009. We also observed an increase of polypharmacy combining AD, AP, AC and Li. From 2006 to 2009 37.0% received concomitant treatment with three, and 6.4% even with all four of those drug classes. LIMITATIONS: Observational cross-sectional study without follow-up or additional clinical information. CONCLUSIONS: Monotherapy with antidepressants and any use of tricyclic AD and venlafaxine still has a considerable prevalence in bipolar depression, but this is controversial due to the reported risk of treatment emergent affective switches. Triple and quadruple therapy is not evidence-based but increasingly used in clinical practice. This may reflect an attempt to overcome treatment failure, and further studies should evaluate efficacy and safety of this common practice.