The Development of Practice Recommendations for Drug-Disease Interactions by Literature Review and Expert Opinion.
clinical decision support
drug-disease interactions
expert opinion
literature review
practice recommendations
study protocol
Journal
Frontiers in pharmacology
ISSN: 1663-9812
Titre abrégé: Front Pharmacol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101548923
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
14
02
2020
accepted:
29
04
2020
entrez:
6
6
2020
pubmed:
6
6
2020
medline:
6
6
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Drug-disease interactions negatively affect the benefit/risk ratio of drugs for specific populations. In these conditions drugs should be avoided, adjusted, or accompanied by extra monitoring. The motivation for many drug-disease interactions in the Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) is sometimes insufficiently supported by (accessible) evidence. As a consequence the translation of SmPC to clinical practice may lead to non-specific recommendations. For the translation of this information to the real world, it is necessary to evaluate the available knowledge about drug-disease interactions, and to formulate specific recommendations for prescribers and pharmacists. The aim of this paper is to describe a standardized method how to develop practice recommendations for drug-disease interactions by literature review and expert opinion. The development of recommendations for drug-disease interactions will follow a six-step plan involving a multidisciplinary expert panel (1). The scope of the drug-disease interaction will be specified by defining the disease and by describing relevant effects of this drug-disease interaction. Drugs possibly involved in this drug-disease interaction are selected by checking the official product information, literature, and expert opinion (2). Evidence will be collected from the official product information, guidelines, handbooks, and primary literature (3). Study characteristics and outcomes will be evaluated and presented in standardized reports, including preliminary conclusions on the clinical relevance and practice recommendations (4). The multidisciplinary expert panel will discuss the reports and will either adopt or adjust the conclusions (5). Practice recommendations will be integrated in clinical decision support systems and published (6). The results of the evaluated drug-disease interactions will remain up-to-date by screening new risk information, periodic literature review, and (re)assessments initiated by health care providers. The practice recommendations will result in advices for specific DDSI. The content and considerations of these DDSIs will be published and implemented in all Clinical Decision Support Systems in the Netherlands. The recommendations result in professional guidance in the context of individual patient care. The professional will be supported in the decision making in concerning pharmacotherapy for the treatment of a medical problem, and the clinical risks of the proposed medication in combination with specific diseases.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Drug-disease interactions negatively affect the benefit/risk ratio of drugs for specific populations. In these conditions drugs should be avoided, adjusted, or accompanied by extra monitoring. The motivation for many drug-disease interactions in the Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) is sometimes insufficiently supported by (accessible) evidence. As a consequence the translation of SmPC to clinical practice may lead to non-specific recommendations. For the translation of this information to the real world, it is necessary to evaluate the available knowledge about drug-disease interactions, and to formulate specific recommendations for prescribers and pharmacists. The aim of this paper is to describe a standardized method how to develop practice recommendations for drug-disease interactions by literature review and expert opinion.
METHODS
METHODS
The development of recommendations for drug-disease interactions will follow a six-step plan involving a multidisciplinary expert panel (1). The scope of the drug-disease interaction will be specified by defining the disease and by describing relevant effects of this drug-disease interaction. Drugs possibly involved in this drug-disease interaction are selected by checking the official product information, literature, and expert opinion (2). Evidence will be collected from the official product information, guidelines, handbooks, and primary literature (3). Study characteristics and outcomes will be evaluated and presented in standardized reports, including preliminary conclusions on the clinical relevance and practice recommendations (4). The multidisciplinary expert panel will discuss the reports and will either adopt or adjust the conclusions (5). Practice recommendations will be integrated in clinical decision support systems and published (6). The results of the evaluated drug-disease interactions will remain up-to-date by screening new risk information, periodic literature review, and (re)assessments initiated by health care providers.
ACTIONABLE RECOMMENDATIONS
UNASSIGNED
The practice recommendations will result in advices for specific DDSI. The content and considerations of these DDSIs will be published and implemented in all Clinical Decision Support Systems in the Netherlands.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS
The recommendations result in professional guidance in the context of individual patient care. The professional will be supported in the decision making in concerning pharmacotherapy for the treatment of a medical problem, and the clinical risks of the proposed medication in combination with specific diseases.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32499701
doi: 10.3389/fphar.2020.00707
pmc: PMC7243438
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
707Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 van Tongeren, Harkes-Idzinga, van der Sijs, Atiqi, van den Bemt, Draijer, Hiel, Kerremans, Kremers, de Leeuw, Olthoff, Pham, Valentijn-Robertz, Tsoi, Wichers, de Wit and Borgsteede.
Références
Drug Saf. 2005;28(12):1131-9
pubmed: 16329715
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2016 Jan;25(1):82-9
pubmed: 26602064
Med Decis Making. 2011 May-Jun;31(3):432-6
pubmed: 21191122
Oncologist. 2019 Jan;24(1):96-102
pubmed: 30413668
JAMA. 2014 Aug 20;312(7):693-4
pubmed: 25003609
PLoS One. 2012;7(8):e41601
pubmed: 22870234
JAMA. 2007 Mar 21;297(11):1233-40
pubmed: 17374817
BMJ. 2015 Mar 11;350:h949
pubmed: 25762567
Front Pharmacol. 2019 Sep 17;10:1031
pubmed: 31607904
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2006 Mar-Apr;13(2):138-47
pubmed: 16357358
N Engl J Med. 2013 Jan 3;368(1):6-8
pubmed: 23281971
Drug Saf. 2000 Sep;23(3):245-53
pubmed: 11005706
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2017 Jan;24(1):54-59
pubmed: 27107437
Home Healthc Now. 2017 May;35(5):285-287
pubmed: 28471797
Clin Ther. 2011 Mar;33(3):305-14
pubmed: 21459447
Int J Clin Pharm. 2018 Aug;40(4):806-822
pubmed: 30136054
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014 May-Jun;21(3):487-91
pubmed: 24166725
Arch Intern Med. 2009 Feb 9;169(3):305-11
pubmed: 19204222
Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2014 Mar;70(3):313-8
pubmed: 24306496
Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2007 Nov;64(5):668-79
pubmed: 17578481
J Clin Pharm Ther. 2017 Apr;42(2):228-233
pubmed: 28111765
Clin Ther. 2006 Aug;28(8):1133-1143
pubmed: 16982290
BMJ Open. 2016 Oct 12;6(10):e012991
pubmed: 27733414
Ann Pharmacother. 2013 Oct;47(10):1272-9
pubmed: 24259691