Evidence Hub

Prevalence of potential drug-drug interactions in bone marrow transplant patients

Guastaldi RB, Reis AM, Figueras A, Secoli SR

International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2011

70 participants

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the prevalence of potential drug-drug interactions (DDIs) in bone marrow transplantation (BMT) patients at the time of pre-infusion (day -1), to describe the potential DDIs and assess their frequency and severity.

SETTING: The study was developed in a tertiary care hospital in São Paulo, Brazil.

METHOD: Cross-sectional study based on examining the medical prescriptions from the pre-infusion day (day -1) of 70 BMT patients. Potential DDIs were analyzed using Drug-Reax(®) and categorized according to levels of severity, evidence, and onset (rapid and delayed). Only interactions of major or moderate severity were included in the potential DDI analysis.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Prevalence of potential DDIs in patients during the preinfusion phase of BMT.

RESULTS: Data were analysed for 70 BMT patients. The median age was 36.5 years; 52.9% (37) of the patients were male, and 65.7% (46) were undergoing autologous BMT. The patients received a median of 8 drugs each. Up to 128 potential DDIs were detected, 60.0% (42) of patients had at least 1 potential DDI and 21.4% (15) were exposed to at least 1 major potential DDI. The most commonly involved drugs were cyclosporine (9, 28.1%), phenytoin (8, 25%) and fluconazole (5, 15.6%). Most potential DDIs had moderate severity (110, 85.9%), a pharmacokinetic mechanism (67, 52.3%), and were classified as delayed onset (106, 82.8%). For major interactions, fluconazole + sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim, diazepam + fentanyl,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cross-sectional, done in people. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause. Reported size: 70 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free