BMC Research Notes

, 11:234 | Cite as

Prevalence of drug–drug interactions in geriatric patients at an ambulatory care pharmacy in a tertiary care teaching hospital

Open Access
Research note
  • 218 Downloads

Abstract

Objective

A cross-sectional study was performed from February to May 2015, to estimate the prevalence of drug–drug interactions in geriatric patients at the ambulatory care pharmacy at King Abdul-Aziz Medical City in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

Results

A total of 310 patients were included, with a mean age (± SD) of 73.78 ± 6.96, and 48.70% were female. The overall prevalence of DDIs of all categories was 90.64%. Category B DDIs was 55.80%, category C DDIs 87.74%, category D DDIs 51.93%, and category X DDIs 16.45%. Atorvastatine plus omeprazole was identified as the most common interacting pair, with a prevalence of 25.26%. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that category D or X DDIs are more likely to occur in the female patient (OR = 1.79; 95% CI 1.07, 2.97), the patient taking more than three medications (OR = 22.62; 95% CI 2.93, 174.83), and the patient with more than two conditions (OR = 3.09; 95% CI 1.81, 5.27).

Keywords

Prevalence Drug–drug interactions Geriatric Ambulatory care Pharmacy 

Abbreviations

DDIs

drug–drug interactions

KAIMRC

King Abdullah International Medical Research Center

Introduction

The issue of poly-pharmacy in geriatric patients has led to concern over an increase in drug–drug interactions (DDIs) prevalence. The precise minimum number of medications used to define “poly-pharmacy” varies but generally ranges from 5 to 10 [1]. Some combined medications may result in undesired pharmacodynamic or pharmacokinetic interactions, leading to under-treatment or harmful effects [2]. DDIs are an important cause of adverse drug reactions. Approximately 3–26% of all adverse drug reactions that require hospital admission are caused by drug–drug interactions [3]. Studies involving community-dwelling individuals report prevalence rates ranging from 4.6 to 17.6% [4, 5]. Studies conducted in hospital settings report prevalence rates ranging from 0.6 to 18.3%, and a study carried out in a primary health care unit reports a prevalence rate of 6.8% [6, 7, 8]. Janchawee studied the pharmacoepidemiologic of potential drug–drug interactions in the outpatient pharmacy of a university hospital, where the overall rate of potential DDIs was 27.9%, with a maximal value of 57.8% at the Department of Psychiatry. The rate of the most potentially significant interactions was 2.6%, being the highest in the Department of Medicine (6%), with isoniazid vs. rifampin as the most common interacting combination [9]. Another study of drug–drug interactions potential pattern in a tertiary care teaching hospital diabetic outpatient pharmacy, including a total of 182 patients, found a higher risk of DDIs among patients 51–60 years of age (43 patients, or 23.6%), It was found that 10 (5.3%) of the potential drug–drug interactions were major, 5 (2.7%) minor, and 174 (92.1%) moderate, the most common potential drug–drug interaction observed was between metformin and enalapril (n = 64) [10]. Even though nature and prevalence of potential DDIs has been widely studied in different settings, DDIs nature in the ambulatory setting still a gray area with many contradictions, ambulatory care pharmacy serves a huge number of patients on a daily basis, should provide the highest possible level of quality, with the understanding that safety assurance is a cornerstone for the quality of any type of service. We realized the harmful effect of drug–drug interactions on patients’ conditions and progress, as well as the effect on the pharmacoeconomics of the hospital itself. Based on that, this study was conducted to estimate the prevalence of drug–drug interactions in geriatric patients at the ambulatory care pharmacy at King Abdul-Aziz Medical City in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

Main text

Methods

Study design

This cross-sectional study was approved by King Abdullah International Medical Research Center (KAIMRC) and was conducted to estimate the prevalence of drug–drug interactions in geriatric patients at the ambulatory care pharmacy at King Abdul-Aziz Medical City in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, from February to May 2015.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

We included patients 65 years and older of both genders who visited the ambulatory care pharmacy at King Abdul-Aziz Medical City in Jeddah and who had a drug profile containing two or more medications, drug profile containing herbal products or topical products only including: creams, ointments, gels, patches, drops, sprays and inhalers were excluded.

Data collection

In this study, we did a retrospective review of 310 patients’ medication profiles of ambulatory care pharmacy dispensed prescriptions. The assigned pharmacist retrieved the dispensed prescriptions randomly. Then the baseline characteristic and patient demographics data (including patient age, gender, number of drugs, and chronic illness at the time of dispensing) and the patient drug profile data (including drug, dose, and route) were collected. The drug profile for each patient was analyzed by Lexi-Interact (a comprehensive drug-to-drug, drug-to-herb, and herb-to-herb interaction analysis program); Lexi-Interact categorized DDIs into five categories according to its risk rating, category A: data have not demonstrated either pharmacodynamic or pharmacokinetic interactions between the specified medications, B: the specified medications may interact with each other, but there is little to no evidence of clinical concern resulting from their concomitant use, C: the medications agents may interact with each other in a clinically significant manner, but the benefits of concomitant use of these two medications usually outweigh the risks, D: the two medications may interact with each other in a clinically significant manner, a patient-specific assessment must be conducted to determine whether the benefits of concomitant therapy outweigh the risks, and X: the specified medications may interact with each other in a clinically significant manner, but the risks associated with concomitant use of these medications usually outweigh the benefits [11].

Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics were used to describe continuous (Mean ± SD) and categorical variables (frequency and percent). We used Chi square test to assess the association between D or X DDIs and categorical variables, while Independent-t test was used to assess the association between D or X DDIs and continuous variables. Prevalence was used to determine the proportion of geriatric patients visiting the ambulatory care pharmacy who have a medication profile containing at least one interacting pair with no regard for DDI risk rating. Prevalence was also used to determine the proportion of geriatric patients with at least one interacting pair for each drug–drug interaction risk rating (B, C, D, and X) alone. It was also used to estimate the proportion of patients for each one of the most common interacting pairs. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to determine if gender, age, number of drugs, and chronic conditions can predict D and X DDIs risk rating prevalence. The odds ratio (OR) and respective confidence interval (CI) was calculated in this analysis for each variable. Wald Chi square test P values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Using IBM SPSS Statistics for Microsoft, Version 22.0, we preformed all the statistical analysis [12].

Results

A total of 310 patients were included in this study, with a mean age of 73.8 (± SD 7) years. Approximately half of them (48.70%) were female. The majority (91.3%) had a prescription with more than three medications, and 62.3% had more than two chronic conditions. Baseline characteristics and patient demographics are listed in Table 1.
Table 1

Baseline characteristics and patient demographics

Factor

Reference

Mean

± SD

Interactions D or X DDIs

P

No

Yes

Mean

± SD

Mean

± SD

Age

73.8

7.0

74.2

7.1

73.5

6.8

0.412

 

N

%

N

%

N

%

 

Gender

Female

151

48.7

56

37.1

95

62.9

0.092

Male

159

51.3

74

46.5

85

53.5

 

Number of prescribed medications

3 or fewer medications

27

8.7

26

96.3

1

3.7

0.001*

More than 3 medications

283

91.3

104

36.7

179

63.3

 

Number of chronic conditions

2 or fewer conditions

117

37.7

74

63.2

43

36.8

0.001*

More than 2 conditions

193

62.3

56

29

137

71

 

* Chi square test is significant α = 0.05

Drug–drug interactions prevalence

The overall prevalence of DDIs of all categories was 90.64% (95% CI 86.8%, 93.6%). Category B DDIs prevalence was 55.80% (95% CI 50.1%, 61.4%), category C DDIs 87.74% (95% CI 83.6%, 91.2%), category D DDIs 51.93% (95% CI 46.2%, 57.6%), and category X interacting pairs 16.45% (95% CI 12.5%, 21.1%).

Most common interacting pairs

Atorvastatin + omeprazole was identified as the most common interacting pair, with a prevalence of 25.26%. Next was atorvastatin + calcium, with a prevalence of 22.90%. The prevalence of all the identified most common interacting pairs, their risk rating, severity, reliability rating, predicted impact on the clinical outcome, and suggested patient management plan are all mentioned in Table 2.
Table 2

Most common interacting pairs prevalence, risk rating, severity, reliability rating, predicted impact on the clinical outcome, and patient management

Interacting pair

Prevalence (%)

Risk rating

Severity

Reliability rating

Predicted impact on the clinical outcome

Patient management

Atorvastatine + omeprazole

25.16

C

Major

Poor

Proton pump inhibitors may increase the serum concentration of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors

Monitor for evidence of rhabdomyolysis and other adverse effects if a PPI and an HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor are co-administered

Atorvastatin + calcium

22.90

C

Minor

Fair

Antacids may decrease the serum concentration of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors

Monitor for decreased effects of statins (e.g., cholesterol changes) in patients who consistently take antacids concomitantly

Aspirin + calcium

17.09

B

Minor

Excellent

Antacids may decrease the serum concentration of salicylates

Monitor for decreased therapeutic effects of salicylates if an antacid is initiated/dose increased or increased effects if an antacid is discontinued/dose decreased

Aspirin + metformin

16.77

C

Moderate

Fair

Salicylates may enhance the hypoglycemic effect of blood glucose lowering agents

Monitor for excessive pharmacological effect (e.g., hypoglycemia). This is likely more of a concern in patients receiving salicylates at a dose of 3 g or greater per day

Aspirin + insulin

13.87

C

Moderate

Fair

Aspirin + gliclazide

12.25

C

Moderate

Fair

Amlodipine + calcium

11.29

C

Moderate

Excellent

Calcium salts may diminish the therapeutic effect of calcium channel blockers

Monitor the therapeutic effects of calcium channel blockers if a calcium supplement is initiated or dose changed

Gliclazide + omeprazole

10.64

C

Moderate

Fair

CYP2C9 inhibitors (moderate) may decrease the metabolism of CYP2C9 substrates

Monitor for increased effects of the CYP substrate if a CYP inhibitor is initiated/dose increased and decreased effects if a CYP inhibitor is discontinued/dose decreased

Atorvastatin + esomeprazole

10.32

C

Major

Poor

Proton pump inhibitors may increase the serum concentration of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors

Monitor for evidence of rhabdomyolysis and other adverse effects if a PPI and an HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor are co-administered

Atorvastatin + clopidogrel

10.32

B

Moderate

Good

Atorvastatin may diminish the antiplatelet effect of clopidogrel

No action required

Calcium + gliclazide

9.03

B

Minor Onset Rapid

Excellent

Antacids may increase the absorption of sulfonylureas. Increase in rate, not extent

Monitor for increased therapeutic effects of sulfonylureas if an antacid is administered concomitantly. Consider separating doses by at least 2 h to minimize effects

Aspirin + multivitamins/minerals

8.38

C

Moderate

Fair

Multivitamins/minerals (with AE, no iron) may enhance the antiplatelet effect of aspirin

Monitor patients closely for evidence of increased platelet inhibition (e.g., bruising, bleeding)

Alendronate + calcium

7.74

D

Moderate

Fair

Calcium salts may decrease the serum concentration of bisphosphonate derivatives

Avoid administration of oral calcium supplements 30 min after alendronate

Amlodipine + tamsulosin

7.41

C

Moderate

Excellent

Alpha1-blockers may enhance the hypotensive effect of calcium channel blockers

Monitor for increased risk of hypotension during concomitant use of an alpha1-blocker and a calcium channel blocker

Calcium + levothyroxine

7.41

D

Moderate

Fair

Calcium salts may diminish the therapeutic effect of thyroid products

Separate the doses of the thyroid product and the oral calcium supplement by at least 4 h. Monitor the therapeutic effects of thyroid products if an oral calcium supplement is initiated or dose changed

Atorvastatin + carvedilol

7.09

C

Moderate

Fair

P-glycoprotein/ABCB1 inhibitors may increase the serum concentration of P-glycoprotein/ABCB1 substrates. It may also enhance the distribution of p-glycoprotein substrates to specific tissues

Monitor the effects of P-glycoprotein (Pgp) substrates if a Pgp inhibitor is started or if the dose of a concurrently used Pgp inhibitor changed

Drug–drug interactions predictors

Univariate logistic regression analysis including all 310 patients showed that the odds of D or X DDIs were 44 times higher when more than three medications were prescribed (OR = 44.75, 95% CI 5.99, 334.61). The percentage of D or X DDIs was higher in patients taking more than three medications (3.7% were using ≤ 3 medications vs. 63.3% using > 3 medications, P = 0.001). Also, univariate analysis revealed that the odds of D or X DDIs were four times higher when the patient had more than two chronic conditions (OR = 4.21, 95% CI 2.59, 6.86). When we compare the number of chronic conditions among patients with D or X DDIs, we can see that the percentage of patients with more than two conditions who have D or X DDIs almost doubles the percentage of patients with two or fewer conditions (36.8% with ≤ 2 conditions vs. 71.0% > 2 conditions, P = 0.001). The combined effects of all the factors were further investigated by conducting a multivariate logistic regression analysis, which indicated that D or X DDIs were more likely to occur in the female patient (OR = 1.79; 95% CI 1.07, 2.97), the patient taking more than three medications (OR = 22.62; 95% CI 2.93, 174.83), and the patient with more than two conditions (OR = 3.09; 95% CI 1.81, 5.27). Regression analysis results are stated in Table 3.
Table 3

Logistic regression analysis results for category D or X DDIs potential predictors

Factor

Reference

Univariate analysis

Multivariate analysis

OR

95% CI for OR

P

OR

95% CI for OR

P

Lower

Upper

Lower

Upper

Age

 

0.99

0.96

1.02

0.411

0.983

0.95

1.02

0.348

Female

Male

1.48

0.94

2.33

0.092

1.79

1.07

2.97

0.026*

More than 3 medications

3 or fewer medications

44.75

5.99

334.61

0.001*

22.62

2.93

174.83

0.003*

More than 2 conditions

2 of fewer conditions

4.21

2.59

6.86

0.001*

3.09

1.81

5.27

0.001*

* Wald Chi square test is significant α = 0

Discussion

The overall DDIs prevalence estimate (90.64%) could be misleading if not linked to the expected clinical impact of each category, to correctly judge these results, we must consider that category C, which has the highest influence on this estimate, has less of a clinical impact compared to category D and X DDIs. D and X DDIs’ estimated prevalence of 51.93 and 16.45% respectively reflects the need for in-depth investigations. Björkman et al. studied drug–drug interactions in elderly outpatients in six European countries. They found that 46% of patients had at least one potential clinically significant DDI, and 10% of these DDIs were classified as (to be avoided) according to the Swedish interaction classification system [13]. Venturini et al. reported a moderate DDIs prevalence of 69.9%, and a 21.2% prevalence of major DDIs. The difference in the results may be attributed to the use of different DDIs analysis database; DDIs categories differ according to the database used, the difference in the population characteristics, and the sample size of these studies [14]. A direct comparison can’t be done without a further adjustment for these factors. Other studies reported the prevalence of DDIs either in different settings, such as the hospital, or in a specific population, such as cancer patients, so also can’t be directly compared with the results of this study.

Several studies investigated the most common interacting pairs, and different results were reported. This is to be expected due to the variations in the medication availability and medical practice of each institute. Of the top 20 identified most common interacting pairs we identified, atorvastatine was responsible for four, as was aspirin. Hypoglycemic agents, PPIs, and calcium were each responsible for three interacting pairs. Dinesh reported aspirin as the fourth-ranked of the top 10 medications with a high risk for DDIs [10].

Our multivariate logistic regression analysis results agree with the results of many previous studies. Neto et al. studied the prevalence and predictors of potential drug–drug interactions in the elderly in the Brazilian primary public health system. Their multivariate regression analysis results showed that being female and having three or more diagnosed diseases were positively associated with exposure to DDIs (OR = 2.49; 95% CI 2.29, 2.75 and OR = 6.43; 95% CI 3.25, 12.44, respectively) [15]. Teixeira et al. performed a multivariate regression that showed that patients with three to five medications have high odds of DDIs (OR = 4.84; 95% CI 2.85, 7.91), while patients with six or more medications have higher odds of DDIs (OR = 25.11; 95% CI 9.98, 48.63) [16].

Conclusion

The prevalence of DDIs among geriatric patients attending the ambulatory care pharmacy was high. This indicates the need for special care while handling their prescriptions. Even though the majority of the most common interacting pairs (top 20) were category C, we still need to look for D and X interacting pairs carefully. Finally, the identified DDIs’ main predictors of number of prescribed medications (more than four) and number of chronic conditions (more than three) could guide us to provide better care and to develop a safer practice.

Limitations

DDIs analysis was based only on one database (Lexi-Interact). Our study was conducted in a specific type of setting and population, which is why our findings are not generalizable to other settings or different populations, especially populations such as cancer or transplant patients. The study may underestimate the prevalence of DDIs in these populations. Additionally, non-prescribed medications such as over-the-counter and herbal products were excluded, which may lead to an underestimate of the prevalence of DDIs in our sample. Despite these limitations, the results of this study represent a step forward in exploring the occurrence and nature of DDIs in geriatric patients attending the ambulatory care pharmacy.

Notes

Authors’ contributions

RA designed the study, collected the data, performed the statistical analysis, interprets the results, and drafted the manuscript. MA participated in the study design, and helped to draft the manuscript. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

We thank Dr. Anwar Ahmed and Dr. Fayssal Farahat for their useful criticism and their constructive recommendations.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are not publicly available to protect participant information confidentiality but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Consent to publish

Not applicable.

Ethical approval and consent to participate

This study was conducted with ethical approval from the Ethical Committee of King Abdullah International Medical Research Center (KAIMRC). The need for consent was waived by the IRB, the decision number is (RJ15/003/J), the research didn’t involve any procedure or represents any harm to participants, and to avoid any potential breach of confidentiality necessary participant identifiers were removed from data files, Identifiers were stored in a physically separated and secured location of the data files.

Funding

The authors have no funding to report.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  1. 1.
    Astrand B, Astrand E, Antonov K, Petersson G. Detection of potential drug interactions—a model for a national pharmacy register. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2006;62:749–56.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Peyriere H, Cassan S, Floutard E, et al. Adverse drug events associated with hospital admission. Ann Pharmocother. 2003;37:5–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ferner RE, Aronson JK. Communicating information about drug safety. BMJ. 2006;333:143.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Secoli SR, Figueras A, Lebrao ML, de Lima FD, Santos JL. Risk of potential drug–drug interactions among Brazilian elderly: a population-based, cross-sectional study. Drugs Aging. 2010;27:759–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bleich GW, Bleich A, Chiamulera P, et al. Frequency of potential interactions between drugs in medical prescriptions in a city in southern Brazil. Sao Paulo Med J. 2009;127:206–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cruciol-Souza JM, Thomson JC. A pharmacoepidemiologic study of drug interactions in a Brazilian teaching hospital. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2006;61:515–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Silva NMO, Carvalho RP, Bernardes ACA, et al. Potential drug interaction evaluation in medical prescriptions in a public hospital specialized in women care, in Campinas, SP. Rev Ciênc Farm Básica Apl. 2010;31:171–6.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Codagnone Neto V, Garcia VP, Santa Helena ET. Possible pharmacological interactions in hypertensive and/or diabetic elderly in family health units at Blumenau (SC). Braz J Pharm Sci. 2010;46:795–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Janchawee B, Wongpoowarak W, Owatranporn T, et al. Pharmacoepidemiologic study of potential drug interactions in outpatients of a university hospital in Thailand. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2005;30:13–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dinesh KU, Subish P, Pranaya M, et al. Pattern of potential drug–drug interactions in diabetic out-patients in a tertiary care teaching hospital in Nepal. Med J Malaysia. 2007;62:294–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lexicomp Online, Lexi-Interact™ Online, Hudson, Ohio: Lexi-Comp, Inc.; 2015. http://www.uptodate.com/crlsql/interact/frameset.jsp. Accessed Feb 2018
  12. 12.
    IBM Corp. Released 2013. IBM SPSS Statistics for Macintosh, Version 22.0. Armonk: IBM Corp.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bjorkman IK, Fastbom J, Schmidt IK, Bernsten CB, The Pharmaceutical Care Of The Elderly In Europe Research (PEER) Group. Drug–drug interactions in the elderly. Ann Pharmacother. 2002;36:1675–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Venturini C, Engroff P, Ely L, et al. Gender differences, polypharmacy, and potential pharmacological interactions in the elderly. Clinics. 2011;66(11):1867–72.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Neto P, Nobili A, Marusic S, et al. Prevalence and predictors of potential drug–drug interactions in the elderly: a cross-sectional study in the Brazilian primary public health system. J Pharm Pharm Sci. 2012;15(2):344–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Teixeira JJV, Crozatti MTL, dos Santos CA, Romano-Lieber NS. Potential drug–drug interactions in prescriptions to patients over 45 years of age in primary care, Southern Brazil. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(10):47062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Pharmacy DepartmentKing Saud bin AbdulAziz University for Health Sciences/King AbdulAziz Medical CityRiyadhSaudi Arabia
  2. 2.Clinical Pharmacy Services, Pharmacy DepartmentKing Saud bin AbdulAziz University for Health Sciences/King AbdulAziz Medical CityJeddahSaudi Arabia

Personalised recommendations