Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
##common.pageHeaderLogo.altText##

Original article

Vol. 140 No. 2930 (2010)

Assessment of potential drug-drug interactions at hospital discharge

  • R Bertoli
  • M Bissig
  • D Caronzolo
  • M Odorico
  • M Pons
  • E Bernasconi
DOI
https://doi.org/10.4414/smw.2010.13043
Cite this as:
Swiss Med Wkly. 2010;140:w13043
Published
19.07.2010

Summary

Objective: The evaluation of the prevalence of potential drug-drug interactions and assessment of their clinical relevance in patients’ discharge medication in the medical ward of a community teaching hospital. The relevant clinical information was reported to the treating physicians.

Methods: 200 patients at discharge from a medical ward were included. Prescribed drugs were analysed for interactions using commercially available software (Pharmavista®). Clinical pharmacists and a physician assessed the clinical relevance of detected interactions, eliminated those which were not considered clinically relevant and formulated recommendations for those considered clinically relevant. A written recommendation was given to the physician to provide rapid feedback before discharge.

Results: The median age of the 200 patients studied was 69 years. At discharge, patients took an average of 7 different drugs. 62.5% of patients had at least one potential drug-drug interaction. In total, 373 potential drug-drug interactions were identified: 223 (60%) of minor severity, 143 (38%) of moderate severity and 7 (2%) of major severity.

Conclusions: A computerised drug-drug interaction program (detection) together with clinical pharmacological experience (interpretation/evaluation) can be useful for decreasing the number of potentially harmful drug combinations. This approach may lead to an improvement in the quality of prescription, reducing possible risks and thus contributing to patient safety.

References

  1. Fijn R, et al. Hospital prescribing errors: epidemiological assessment of predictors. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2002;53(3):326–31.
  2. Classen DC, et al. Adverse drug events in hospitalized patients: excess length of stay, extra cost, and attributable mortality. JAMA. 1997;277(4):301–6.
  3. Forster AJ, et al. Adverse drug events occurring following hospital discharge. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20:317–23.
  4. Forster AJ, et al. Adverse events affecting medical patients following discharge from hospital CMAJ. 2004;170(3):345–9.
  5. Forster AJ. Can you prevent adverse drug events after hospital discharge? CMAJ. 2006;174(7):921–2.
  6. Egger S, et al. Potential drug-drug interactions in the medication of medical patients at hospital discharge. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2003;58:773–8.
  7. Di Castri A, et al. Interactions médicamenteuses: études de 409 ordonnances établies a l’issue d’une hospitalisation gériatrique. Therapie. 1995;50:259–64.
  8. Koehler GI, et al. Drug-drug interactions in medical patients: effects of in-hospital treatment and relation to multiple drug use. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2000;38:504–13.
  9. Bonetti PO, et al. Potentielle Arzneimittelinteraktionen und Verordnungshaufigkeit von Medikamenten mit speziellem Instruktionsbedarf bei Spitalaustritt. Schweiz Rundsch Med Prax. 2000;89:182–9.
  10. Kruse W, et al. Potentielle Medikamentenwechselwirkungen in der Behandlung multimorbider Hochbetagter. Z Gerontol. 1988;21:164–8.
  11. Vonbach P, et al. Evaluation of frequently used drug interaction screening programs, Pharm World Sci. 2008;30:367–74.
  12. Jankel CA, et al. Epidemiology of drug-drug interactions as a cause of hospital admissions. Drug Saf. 1993;9:51–9.
  13. Vonbach P, et al. Recognition and management of potential drug-drug interactions in patients on internal medicine wards, Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2007;63:1075–83.
  14. Vàzquez L, et al. Drug interactions in the prescription of medical patients at hospital discharge. An Med Interna. 2005;22:69–75.
  15. Straubhaar B, et al. The prevalence of potential drug-drug interactions in patients with heart failure at hospital discharge. Drug Safety. 2006;29(1):79–90.