Evaluation of the Performance of Drug-Drug Interaction Screening Software in Community and Hospital Pharmacies

BACKGROUND Computerized drug-drug interaction (DDI) screening is widely used to identify potentially harmful drug combinations in the inpatient and outpatient setting. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the performance of drug-drug interaction (DDI) screening software in identifying select clinically significant DDIs in pharmacy computer systems in community and hospital pharmacies. METHODS Ten community pharmacies and 10 hospital pharmacies in the Tucson metropolitan area were invited to participate in the study in 2004. To test the performance of each of the systems used by the pharmacies, 25 medications were used to create 6 mock patient profiles containing 37 drug-drug pairs, 16 of which are clinically meaningful DDIs that pose a potential risk to patient safety. Each profile was entered into the computer pharmacy system, and the system response in terms of the presence or absence of a DDI alert was recorded for each drug pair. The percentage of correct responses and the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of each system to correctly classify each drug pair as a DDI or not was calculated. Summary statistics of these measures were calculated separately for community and hospital pharmacies. RESULTS Eight community pharmacies and 5 hospital pharmacies in the Tucson metropolitan area agreed to participate in the study. The median sensitivity and median specificity for community pharmacies was 0.88 (range, 0.81-0.94) and 0.91 (range, 0.67-1.00), respectively. For hospital pharmacies, the median sensitivity and median specificity was 0.38 (range, 0.15-0.94) and 0.95 (range, 0.81-0.95), respectively. CONCLUSION Based on this convenience sample of 8 community pharmacies and 5 hospital pharmacies in 1 metropolitan area, the performance of community pharmacy computer systems in screening DDIs appears to have improved over the last several years compared with research published previously in 2001. However, significant variation remains in the performance of hospital pharmacy computer systems, even among systems manufactured by the same vendor. Future research should focus on improving the performance of these systems in accurately and precisely identifying DDIs with a high probability of resulting in true potential adverse effects on clinical outcomes and creating a low .noise. ratio associated with false-positive alerts.

[1]  R. Lipton,et al.  Assessment of potential drug-drug interactions with a prescription claims database. , 2005, American journal of health-system pharmacy : AJHP : official journal of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists.

[2]  D. Tatro Drug Interaction Facts , 1990 .

[3]  W P McKinney,et al.  Pharmacist recognition of potential drug interactions. , 1999, American journal of health-system pharmacy : AJHP : official journal of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists.

[4]  Amy J Grizzle,et al.  Concordance of severity ratings provided in four drug interaction compendia. , 2004, Journal of the American Pharmacists Association : JAPhA.

[5]  P. Glassman,et al.  Improving Recognition of Drug Interactions: Benefits and Barriers to Using Automated Drug Alerts , 2002, Medical care.

[6]  T K Hazlet,et al.  Performance of community pharmacy drug interaction software. , 2001, Journal of the American Pharmaceutical Association.

[7]  L. Kohn,et al.  To Err Is Human : Building a Safer Health System , 2007 .

[8]  P. Glassman,et al.  Retrospective drug utilization review: incidence of clinically relevant potential drug-drug interactions in a large ambulatory population. , 2003, Journal of managed care pharmacy : JMCP.

[9]  A. Lyles,et al.  When warnings are not enough: primary prevention through drug use review. , 1998, Health affairs.

[10]  R. Barrons,et al.  Evaluation of personal digital assistant software for drug interactions. , 2004, American journal of health-system pharmacy : AJHP : official journal of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists.

[11]  Kay Brune,et al.  Identification of Adverse Drug Reactions in Geriatric Inpatients Using a Computerised Drug Database , 2003, Drugs & aging.

[12]  Robert J. Valuck,et al.  Disagreement among drug compendia on inclusion and ratings of drug-drug Interactions , 2000 .

[13]  Michelle A Chui,et al.  The role of pharmacy computer systems in preventing medication errors. , 2002, Journal of the American Pharmaceutical Association.

[14]  Marcello Pagano,et al.  Principles of Biostatistics , 1992 .

[15]  E P Armstrong,et al.  How pharmacists respond to on-line, real-time DUR alerts. , 1998, Journal of the American Pharmaceutical Association.

[16]  Mark J. Hogan,et al.  Evaluations Of Drug Interactions , 1985 .

[17]  P. Maurette,et al.  [To err is human: building a safer health system]. , 2002, Annales francaises d'anesthesie et de reanimation.

[18]  David W Bates,et al.  Frequency of potential azole drug–drug interactions and consequences of potential fluconazole drug interactions , 2005, Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety.

[19]  B. Martin,et al.  Evaluation of six computerized drug interaction screening programs. , 1992, American journal of hospital pharmacy.