Evaluation of Potential Drug–Drug Interactions in Adults in the Intensive Care Unit: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Mary Grace Fitzmaurice (), Adrian Wong (), Hannah Akerberg (), Simona Avramovska (), Pamela L. Smithburger (), Mitchell S. Buckley () and Sandra L. Kane-Gill ()
Additional contact information
Mary Grace Fitzmaurice: University of Pittsburgh
Adrian Wong: University of Pittsburgh
Hannah Akerberg: University of Pittsburgh
Simona Avramovska: University of Pittsburgh
Pamela L. Smithburger: University of Pittsburgh
Mitchell S. Buckley: Banner-University Medical Center Phoenix
Sandra L. Kane-Gill: UPMC Presbyterian

Drug Safety, 2019, vol. 42, issue 9, No 2, 1035-1044

Abstract: Abstract Introduction There is an increased risk of potential drug–drug interactions (pDDIs) in critically ill patients based on the number of drugs received. The occurrence of pDDIs and clinical significance is not well described. Objective The aim was to provide insight into important clinical issues and offer guidance on drug–drug interaction (DDI) surveillance through the performance of a systematic review. Methods Five targeted objectives were developed, a priori, which guided study selection and data abstraction. Two independent reviewers extracted the definition, frequency, type, and clinical significance of pDDIs. A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the proportion of patients exposed to a pDDI. Three data sources (PubMed, Embase, and Scopus) were utilized for the search to include studies that evaluated pDDIs in adult critically ill patients. Included studies in the systematic review and meta-analysis were required to be full text. Results A total of 39 studies met inclusion criteria. Definitions of pDDIs were diverse. Frequency of pDDIs varied by study, but was most commonly between one and five pDDIs per patient. Fifty-eight percent of patients were exposed to at least one pDDI during their intensive care unit admission. Types of pDDIs identified were numerous, with aspirin being the most common drug involved. As expected, not all pDDIs were clinically significant. Clinical significance was determined by varied definitions and sources. Conclusions Improving the understanding of clinically significant pDDIs and alerts that clinicians encounter may guide better development of surveillance through clinical decision support and decrease alert fatigue.

Date: 2019
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40264-019-00829-y Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:drugsa:v:42:y:2019:i:9:d:10.1007_s40264-019-00829-y

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/adis/journal/40264

DOI: 10.1007/s40264-019-00829-y

Access Statistics for this article

Drug Safety is currently edited by Nitin Joshi

More articles in Drug Safety from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().