IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0235353.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Prevalence of clinically manifested drug interactions in hospitalized patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Tâmara Natasha Gonzaga de Andrade Santos
  • Givalda Mendonça da Cruz Macieira
  • Bárbara Manuella Cardoso Sodré Alves
  • Thelma Onozato
  • Geovanna Cunha Cardoso
  • Mônica Thaís Ferreira Nascimento
  • Paulo Ricardo Saquete Martins-Filho
  • Divaldo Pereira de Lyra Jr.
  • Alfredo Dias de Oliveira Filho

Abstract

Aims: This review aims to determine the prevalence of clinically manifested drug-drug interactions (DDIs) in hospitalized patients. Methods: PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and Lilacs databases were used to identify articles published before June 2019 that met specific inclusion criteria. The search strategy was developed using both controlled and uncontrolled vocabulary related to the following domains: “drug interactions,” “clinically relevant,” and “hospital.” In this review, we discuss original observational studies that detected DDIs in the hospital setting, studies that provided enough data to allow us to calculate the prevalence of clinically manifested DDIs, and studies that described the drugs prescribed or provided DDI adverse reaction reports, published in either English, Portuguese, or Spanish. Results: From the initial 5,999 articles identified, 10 met the inclusion criteria. The pooled prevalence of clinically manifested DDIs was 9.2% (CI 95% 4.0–19.7). The mean number of medications per patient reported in six studies ranged from 4.0 to 9.0, with an overall average of 5.47 ± 1.77 drugs per patient. The quality of the included studies was moderate. The main methods used to identify clinically manifested DDIs were evaluating medical records and ward visits (n = 7). Micromedex® (27.7%) and Lexi-Comp® (27.7%) online reference databases were commonly used to detect DDIs and none of the studies evaluated used more than one database for this purpose. Conclusions: This systematic review showed that, despite the significant prevalence of potential DDIs reported in the literature, less than one in ten patients were exposed to a clinically manifested drug interaction. The use of causality tools to identify clinically manifested DDIs as well as clinical adoption of DDI lists based on actual adverse outcomes that can be identified through the implementation of real DDI notification systems is recommended to reduce the incidence of alert fatigue, enhance decision-making for DDI prevention or resolution, and, consequently, contribute to patient safety.

Suggested Citation

  • Tâmara Natasha Gonzaga de Andrade Santos & Givalda Mendonça da Cruz Macieira & Bárbara Manuella Cardoso Sodré Alves & Thelma Onozato & Geovanna Cunha Cardoso & Mônica Thaís Ferreira Nascimento & Paulo, 2020. "Prevalence of clinically manifested drug interactions in hospitalized patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-14, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0235353
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235353
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0235353
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0235353&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0235353?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pengli Jia & Longhao Zhang & Jingjing Chen & Pujing Zhao & Mingming Zhang, 2016. "The Effects of Clinical Decision Support Systems on Medication Safety: An Overview," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(12), pages 1-17, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      More about this item

      Statistics

      Access and download statistics

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0235353. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.