Abstract
Introduction
Although all implemented and ongoing initiatives, drug-drug interactions (DDIs) are still a global problem. Most published studies about DDIs in Saudi Arabia are carried out in hospital settings. In addition, assessing the knowledge of drug interactions in Saudi Arabia is limited. The aim of our study is to evaluate the knowledge of potential common drug-drug interactions among community pharmacists particularly in Saudi Arabia.
Methodology
A crosses-sectional study utilizing a self- administered questionnaire was conducted among community pharmacy in Riyadh city Saudi Arabia. DDIs' knowledge was assessed by 26 drug pairs. Community pharmacists were asked to select the DDIs as “contraindication”, “may be used together with monitoring”, “no interaction” and “not sure”.
Results
A total of 283 of community pharmacists completed the survey with response rate of 80.9%. Among the 26 drug pairs only 5 of them were identified correctly by most of the participants. To add more 3 out of the 5 pairs had a cutoff of less than 10% between the correct and wrong answer, meaning there still a majority that couldn't identify the correct answer. All the 26 pairs had a statistically significant difference between the correct and incorrect answer.
Conclusion
The results of this study showed that knowledge of community pharmacists about DDIs was inadequate. Community pharmacist should have specific courses in drug interactions to cover the most possible interactions that can be seen in this setting.
Keywords: Drug-drug interaction, Community pharmacist
1. Introduction
Although of the tremendous advance in technology and health sciences, drug interaction is still vexatious for the national health system, and it may lead to deleterious sequelae (Wong et al., 2010). It’s estimated that approximately 5% of the adverse effects in hospitals, and around 11% of the prescribed medications in the out-patient settings are attributed to potential drug interactions (Classen et al., 1997, Toivo et al., 2016). Nationally, about 0.6% of all hospital admissions were accounted for drug-drug interactions (DDIs) while in Saudi Arabia almost 7% of all hospital admissions due to drug-related problems were attributed to DDIs, most of these interactions happened among elderly population (Al-Arifi et al., 2014, Becker et al., 2007). The physiological changes that affect pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, and the high incidence of polypharmacy make elderly population vulnerable subjects for potential impact of drug interactions (Hohl et al., 2001).
Beside the DDIs, drug interactions can manifest as drug-disease, or drug-dietary/herbal supplement interactions (Food and Administration, 2011). St. John's wort, a widely used herbal supplement as an antidepressant, is associated with numerous drug interactions (Zhou and Lai, 2008). Also, drug interactions can be dose or time dependent interactions (Cohen et al., 2008, Schachter, 2005). For example, it’s highly recommended to limit the dose of simvastatin to 20 mg per day when co-administered with amlodipine or diltiazem to halt the incidence of myopathy (Schachter, 2005). It’s also recommended to separate the administration time of oral fluoroquinolones and oral divalent or trivalent cation-containing compounds to prevent the antibiotic failure (Cohen et al., 2008).
Many national clinical practical guidelines such as Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, American Headache Society, American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, American College of Gastroenterology and others provide recommendations regarding some of common drug interactions (Becker et al., 2007, Bhatt et al., 2008, Evans et al., 2010). In addition, several epidemiologic studies have shown the risk of harm with specific drug interactions and discussed the intensity of those kinds of interactions (Antoniou et al., 2010, Antoniou et al., 2011a, Antoniou et al., 2011b, Delaney et al., 2007, Fischer et al., 2010, Fralick et al., 2014, Juurlink et al., 2003). However, the knowledge and attitude towards drug interactions don’t appear to be studied sufficiently. The published studies were either evaluated the knowledge among only prescribers or interns (Hincapie et al., 2012, Ko et al., 2008). Pharmacists, especially in the community settings, are in the front lines to detect DDIs, but unfortunately, they were not the main target in these published studies. In addition, assessing the knowledge of drug interactions in Saudi Arabia seems missing. Evaluating and then improving the knowledge of potential common DDIs among community pharmacists (CPs) by implementing useful programs will limit the incidence of deleterious adverse effects, emergency visits, hospital admissions, and certainly health cost. The aim of our study was to evaluate the knowledge of potential common DDIs among community pharmacists particularly in Saudi Arabia.
2. Methods
2.1. Design
A cross-sectional study was conducted using a self-administered questionnaire. The questionnaire was carried over a period of 6 months from November 2014 to May 2015. This study involved all community pharmacy outlets (including chain and independent pharmacies) in Riyadh city, Saudi Arabia.
2.2. Sample selection
The online calculator (Raosoft Inc) was used to estimate the study sample size. According to a previous study, number of community pharmacies in Riyadh city in August 2013 reached 1700 pharmacies (Al-Arifi, 2013). This study used the rate tolerates of 5%, and 95% confidence levels to give 314 pharmacies. This study involved 350 community pharmacies by a stratified random sampling.
2.3. Survey questionnaire
The questionnaire used was consisted of two sections; the first section was related to demographic data and included age, length of experience and country of graduation. The second section was about assessing the knowledge of CPs about DDIs. The DDIs questionnaire was designed and developed from previous studies that assessed the knowledge of health care professionals about DDIs (Gilligan et al., 2011, Ko et al., 2008, Momo et al., 2006). The questionnaire consisted of 26 drug pairs, those pairs were the most common DDIs found in published literature (Gilligan et al., 2011, Ko et al., 2008, Momo et al., 2006). CPs were asked to classify the DDIs as “contraindication”, “may be used together with monitoring”, “no interaction” and “not sure”. Among the 26 drug pairs, nine were contraindicated (warfarin with cimetidine, sildenafil with isosorbide mononitrate, pimozide with ketoconazole, itraconazole with quinidine, methotrexate with probenecid, amiodarone with fluconazole, meperidine with phenelzine, alprazolam with itraconazole, and cprofloxacin with tizanidine). It also contained eleven drug pairs that can be used with monitoring and six drug pairs that had no known interactions. Any correct answer for the DDIs questions was given 1 point. Then scores were calculated by counting all the corrected answers with the maximum score of 26.
2.4. Ethical approval
The ethical approval was optioned from The King Saud University’s institutional review broad.
2.5. Data analysis
The data were entered into SPSS software version 24 for analysis. Both descriptive and analytic statistics were applied. For descriptive analysis, results were presented as numbers, percentages, and mean (±SD). The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to determine differences between CPs demographic data in knowledge scores at a significance level of 0.05.
3. Results
A total of 283 CPs returned the survey with response rate of 80.9%. About two-third of the participants were between 25 and 35 years old. About half of respondents have an experience in the field of pharmacy for less than 10 years. More than one-third of respondents have been graduated from schools of pharmacy in Egypt (Table1).
Table 1.
Demographic characteristics of the study participants (n = 283*).
| Demographic data | Number of participants | Percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Age | ||
| 25–35 | 182 | 64.3 |
| 36–45 | 80 | 28.3 |
| 46–55 | 12 | 4.2 |
| Years of practice | ||
| less than 10 years | 142 | 51.8 |
| 11–20 | 120 | 43.8 |
| 21–30 | 9 | 3.3 |
| 31–40 | 3 | 1.1 |
| Country of graduation | ||
| Egypt | 191 | 67.5 |
| Sudan | 7 | 2.5 |
| Yemen | 48 | 17 |
| Saudi Arabia | 11(3.9) | 3.9 |
| Others | 8(2.8) | 2.8 |
Numbers and percentage don’t add up to total (100%) due to missing data.
3.1. Knowledge of community pharmacist of DDIs
The responses of the 26 DDIs knowledge questions are summarized in Table 2. The study found that the lowest correct response of DDIs was between amiodarone and fluconazole (16.3%) and the highest was between sildenafil and isosorbide mononitrate (74.6%). In most of incorrect responses “may be used together with monitoring” were chose more by 8 times followed by “shouldn’t be used together” by 6 times.
Table 2.
Frequencies and percentages of respondents to potential DDIs*
| Drug –drug combinations | Shouldn’t be used together Contra indication) n(%) | May be used together with monitoring n(%) | No interactions n(%) | Not sure n(%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Warfarin and cimetidine | 169 (59.7) | 81 (28.6) | 21(7.4) | 12(4.2) |
| Sildenafil and isosorbide mononitrate | 211(74.6) | 64(22.6) | 6(2.1) | 2(0.7) |
| Conjugated estrogens and raloxifen | 66(23.3) | 112(39.6) | 77(27.2) | 28(9.9) |
| Fexofenadine HCL and metoprolol | 38(13.4) | 84(29.7) | 124(43.8) | 37(13.1) |
| Theophylline and ciprofloxacin | 113(39.9) | 99(35) | 53(18.7) | 18(6.4) |
| Pimozide and ketoconazole | 92(32.5) | 127(44.9) | 21(7.4) | 43(15.2) |
| Methyldopa and phenobarbital | 127(44.9) | 80(28.3) | 50(17.7) | 26(9.2) |
| Phenytoin and cimetidine | 148(52.3) | 87(30.7) | 23(8.1) | 25(8.8) |
| Itraconazole and quinidine | 107(37.8) | 105(37.) | 28(9.9) | 42(14.9) |
| Amiodarone and simvastatin | 72(25.4) | 122(43.1) | 63(22.3) | 26(9.2) |
| Methotrexate and probenecid | 60(21.2) | 120(42.4) | 54(19.1) | 47(16.7) |
| Diphenhydramine and warfarin | 45(15.9) | 122(43.1) | 87(30.7) | 29(10.2) |
| Raloxifene and alendronate | 30(10.6) | 120(42.4) | 91(32.2) | 39(13.8) |
| Warfarin and diflunisal | 82(29.0) | 106(37.5) | 31(11.0) | 64(22.6) |
| Amiodarone and fluconazole | 46(16.3) | 96(33.9) | 74(26.1) | 67(23.7) |
| Theophylline and omeprazole | 64(22.6) | 77(27.2) | 97(34.3) | 45(15.9) |
| Sulfinpyrazone and warfarin | 110(38.9) | 89(31.4) | 26(9.2) | 58(20.5) |
| Meperidine and phenelzine | 125(44.2) | 54(19.1) | 39(13.8) | 65(23.0) |
| Fluconazole and phenytoin | 109(38.5) | 107(37.8) | 44(15.5) | 23(8.1) |
| Warfarin and nortriptyline | 74(26.1) | 146(51.6) | 32(11.3) | 31(11) |
| Amoxicillin and acetaminophen with codeine | 18(6.4) | 52(18.4) | 197(69.6) | 16(5.7) |
| Digoxin and clarithromycin | 94(33.2) | 113(39.9) | 54(19.1) | 22(7.8) |
| Alprazolam and itraconazole | 72(25.4) | 107(37.8) | 60(21.2) | 44(15.5) |
| Dopamine and phenytoin | 76(26.9) | 114(40.3) | 36(12.7) | 57(20.1) |
| Ciprofloxacin and tizanidine | 70(24.7) | 91(32.2) | 57(20.1) | 65(23.0) |
| Cyclosporine and rifampicin | 102(36.0) | 88(31.1) | 39(13.8) | 54(19.1) |
Bold numbers are the corrected answers.
Unfortunately, among the 26 drug pairs, only five of them were identified correctly by most of the participants. To add more 3 out of the 5 pairs had a cutoff of less than 10% between the correct and wrong answer, meaning there still a majority that couldn’t identify the correct answer. All the 26 pairs had a statistically significant difference between the correct and incorrect answer (Table 3).
Table 3.
Comparison of correct rate in DDIs knowledge.
| Drug – drug combinations | Correct answer (%) | Incorrect answer (%) | P value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Warfarin and cimetidine | 59.7 | 40 0.3 | <0.0001 |
| Sildenafil and isosorbide mononitrate | 74.6 | 25.4 | <0.0001 |
| Conjugated estrogens and raloxifen | 27.2 | 72.8 | <0.0001 |
| Fexofenadine HCL and metoprolol | 43.8 | 56.2 | <0.0001 |
| Theophylline and ciprofloxacin | 35 | 65 | <0.0001 |
| Pimozide and ketoconazole | 32.5 | 67.5 | <0.0001 |
| Methyldopa and phenobarbital | 17.7 | 82.3 | <0.0001 |
| Phenytoin and cimetidine | 30.7 | 69.3 | <0.0001 |
| Itraconazole and quinidine | 37.8. | 62.2 | <0.0001 |
| Amiodarone and simvastatin | 43.1 | 56.9 | <0.0001 |
| Methotrexate and probenecid | 21.2 | 78.8 | <0.0001 |
| Diphenhydramine and warfarin | 30.7 | 69.3 | <0.0001 |
| Raloxifene and alendronate | 32.3 | 67.8 | <0.0001 |
| Warfarin and diflunisal | 37.5 | 62.5 | <0.0001 |
| Amiodarone and fluconazole | 16.3 | 83.7 | 0.0004 |
| Theophylline and omeprazole | 34.3 | 65.7 | <0.0001 |
| Sulfinpyrazone and warfarin | 31.4 | 68.6 | <0.0001 |
| Meperidine and phenelzine | 44.2 | 55.8 | <0.0001 |
| Fluconazole and phenytoin | 37.8 | 62.2 | <0.0001 |
| Warfarin and nortriptyline | 51.6 | 48.4 | <0.0001 |
| Amoxicillin and acetaminophen with codeine | 69.6 | 30.4 | <0.0001 |
| Digoxin and clarithromycin | 39.9 | 60.1 | <0.0001 |
| Alprazolam and itraconazole | 25.4 | 74.6 | <0.0001 |
| Dopamine and phenytoin | 40.3 | 59.7 | <0.0001 |
| Ciprofloxacin and tizanidine | 24.7 | 75.3 | <0.0001 |
| Cyclosporine and rifampicin | 31.1 | 68.9 | <0.0001 |
There were no significant differences were found between age groups, years of practice and country of graduation in knowledge score of DDIs (p > 0.05) as showed in Table 4.
Table 4.
differences between knowledge scores of CPs with their demographic characteristics.
| Variables | Mean (median) | P value |
|---|---|---|
| Age | ||
| 25–35 years | 8.12(7.5) | 0.74 |
| 36–45 years | 9.0(9.0) | |
| 46–55 years | 9.8(9.5) | |
| Practice | 0.12 | |
| Less than 10 years | 8.8(9) | |
| 11–20 | 9(9.5) | |
| 21–30 | 9.8(9) | |
| 31–40 | 13.(11) | |
| Country graduation | 0.874 | |
| Egypt | 8.7(8) | |
| Sudan | 9(9) | |
| Yemen | 9.3(9) | |
| Saudi Arabia | 9.1(10.5) | |
| Others | 9.4(9) | |
4. Discussion
Despite all implemented and ongoing initiatives, DDIs are still an international problem. Identifying any DDIs is varied based on the practice setting. In an inpatient setting for example, there are different tools that can help in identifying drug interactions and preventing their harm such as electronic systems and accessible scientific resources (Hazlet et al., 2001, Indermitte et al., 2007, Magnus et al., 2002). These tools are not available in most community pharmacies in Saudi Arabia. In addition, many medication safety standards are also not available in this setting yet in the country such as look-alike sound-alike and high alert medications list. The lack of electronic systems in community pharmacy setting has a serious impact on both medication and patient safety. Therefore, most of these medication safety standards are carried out by pharmacists’ knowledge only.
Based on this study findings, there is a significant lack of information about the major DDIs and other minor interactions. Despite the fact that most of these included medications in this study are available in community pharmacies, most of participated pharmacists could not identify these interactions nor prevent their potential harmful risk. An intervention study was conducted in United States among future health care professionals including pharmacists and medical students reported that they still did not identify potential DDIs after an educational session (Hincapie et al., 2012). Another cross-sectional study carried out in United States aimed to explore the impact of educational program on DDIs knowledge of health care professionals (medical students, pharmacy and nursing). It revealed that their knowledge scores before educational program were low where students did not classify all DDIs, but after intervention their knowledge scores significant improved (Harrington et al., 2011). Moreover, Yu et al. did survey in Singapore among prescribers to assess their knowledge about DDIs. The researchers concluded that prescribers did not identify potential DDIs. However, the lowest percentage was 18.2% for warfarin with cimetidine and the highest percentage of correct answer was 81.2% for paracetamol with amoxicillin (Ko et al., 2008). In addition, most of these medications can be dispense without a prescription, which diminishes the first safety line (the physician).
The need for an electronic system that can detect any DDIs or allergies is essential in the community pharmacy setting. By exploring the country’s transformation plan, e-prescription system will be introduced soon and along with that community pharmacies should have electronic systems that can provide different safety tools (Indermitte et al., 2007, Patel et al.,, Stock et al., 2008). In addition, community pharmacies should have specific courses in drug interactions to cover the most possible interactions that can be seen in this setting. Also, community pharmacists should complete specific number of continuous education hours in patient and medication safety in this setting annually. Furthermore, available and accessible scientific databases and resources should be available for all community pharmacists to check for interactions or any other safety or efficacy measurements. Further studies to investigate the impact of electronic systems and other safety requirements implementation in community pharmacies in Saudi Arabia are required to help improving patient and medication safety in this setting.
In conclusion, the results of this study showed that knowledge of community pharmacists about DDIs was inadequate. Further continues education and electronic systems can help CPs in detecting such interactions easily.
Acknowledgement
The authors are very greatful to the Deanship of Scientific Researsh and Research Center, College of Pharmacy, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Footnotes
Peer review under responsibility of King Saud University.
References
- Al-Arifi M., Abu-Hashem H., Al-Meziny M., Said R., Aljadhey H. Emergency department visits and admissions due to drug related problems at Riyadh military hospital (RMH), Saudi Arabia. Saudi Pharm. J. 2014;22(1):17–25. doi: 10.1016/j.jsps.2013.01.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Al-Arifi M.N. Availability and needs of herbal medicinal information resources at community pharmacy, Riyadh region, Saudi Arabia. Saudi Pharm. J. 2013;21(4):351–360. doi: 10.1016/j.jsps.2012.11.004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Antoniou T., Gomes T., Juurlink D.N., Loutfy M.R., Glazier R.H., Mamdani M.M. Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole–induced hyperkalemia in patients receiving inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin system: a population-based study. Arch. Intern. Med. 2010;170(12):1045–1049. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2010.142. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Antoniou T., Gomes T., Mamdani M.M., Juurlink D.N. Trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole-induced phenytoin toxicity in the elderly: a population-based study. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2011;71(4):544–549. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2010.03866.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Antoniou T., Gomes T., Mamdani M.M., Yao Z., Hellings C., Garg A.X., Juurlink D.N. Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole induced hyperkalaemia in elderly patients receiving spironolactone: nested case-control study. BMJ. 2011;343:d5228. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d5228. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Becker M.L., Kallewaard M., Caspers P.W., Visser L.E., Leufkens H.G., Stricker B.H. Hospitalisations and emergency department visits due to drug–drug interactions: a literature review. Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. 2007;16(6):641–651. doi: 10.1002/pds.1351. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bhatt D.L., Scheiman J., Abraham N.S., Antman E.M., Chan F.K., Furberg C.D., Harrington R.A. ACCF/ACG/AHA 2008 expert consensus document on reducing the gastrointestinal risks of antiplatelet therapy and NSAID use: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Task Force on Clinical Expert Consensus Documents. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2008;52(18):1502–1517. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2008.08.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Classen D.C., Pestotnik S.L., Evans R.S., Lloyd J.F., Burke J.P. Adverse drug events in hospitalized patients: excess length of stay, extra costs, and attributable mortality. JAMA. 1997;277(4):301–306. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Cohen K.A., Lautenbach E., Weiner M.G., Synnestvedt M., Gasink L.B. Coadministration of oral levofloxacin with agents that impair absorption: impact on antibiotic resistance. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 2008;29(10):975–977. doi: 10.1086/590666. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Delaney J.A., Opatrny L., Brophy J.M., Suissa S. Drug–drug interactions between antithrombotic medications and the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding. Can. Med. Assoc. J. 2007;177(4):347–351. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.070186. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Evans R.W., Tepper S.J., Shapiro R.E., Sun-Edelstein C., Tietjen G.E. The FDA Alert on serotonin syndrome with use of triptans combined with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors or selective serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors: American Headache Society Position Paper. Headache: J. Head Face Pain. 2010;50(6):1089–1099. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4610.2010.01691.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Fischer H.D., Juurlink D.N., Mamdani M.M., Kopp A., Laupacis A. Hemorrhage during warfarin therapy associated with cotrimoxazole and other urinary tract anti-infective agents: a population-based study. Arch. Intern. Med. 2010;170(7):617–621. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2010.37. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Food, U., Administration, D., 2011. Drug development and drug interactions. US FDA website.
- Fralick M., Macdonald E.M., Gomes T., Antoniou T., Hollands S., Mamdani M.M., Juurlink D.N. Co-trimoxazole and sudden death in patients receiving inhibitors of renin-angiotensin system: population based study. BMJ. 2014;349:g6196. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g6196. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Gilligan A.M., Warholak T.L., Murphy J.E., Hines L.E., Malone D.C. Pharmacy students’ retention of knowledge of drug-drug interactions. Am. J. Pharm. Edu. 2011;75(6):110. doi: 10.5688/ajpe756110. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Harrington A.R., Warholak T.L., Hines L.E., Taylor A.M., Sherrill D., Malone D.C. Healthcare professional students’ knowledge of drug-drug interactions. Am. J. Pharm. Edu. 2011;75(10):199. doi: 10.5688/ajpe7510199. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hazlet T.K., Lee T.A., Hansten P.D., Horn J.R. Performance of community pharmacy drug interaction software. J. Am. Pharm. Assoc. (1996) 2001;41(2):200–204. doi: 10.1016/s1086-5802(16)31230-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hincapie A.L., Warholak T.L., Hines L.E., Taylor A.M., Malone D.C. Impact of a drug-drug interaction intervention on pharmacy and medical students’ knowledge and attitudes: a 1-year follow-up. Res. Social Admin. Pharmacy. 2012;8(5):472–477. doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2011.11.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hohl C.M., Dankoff J., Colacone A., Afilalo M. Polypharmacy, adverse drug-related events, and potential adverse drug interactions in elderly patients presenting to an emergency department. Ann. Emerg. Med. 2001;38(6):666–671. doi: 10.1067/mem.2001.119456. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Indermitte J., Beutler M., Bruppacher R., Meier C., Hersberger K. Management of drug-interaction alerts in community pharmacies. J. Clin. Pharm. Ther. 2007;32(2):133–142. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2710.2007.00802.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Juurlink D.N., Mamdani M., Kopp A., Laupacis A., Redelmeier D.A. Drug-drug interactions among elderly patients hospitalized for drug toxicity. JAMA. 2003;289(13):1652–1658. doi: 10.1001/jama.289.13.1652. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ko Y., Malone D.C., Skrepnek G.H., Armstrong E.P., Murphy J.E., Abarca J., Woosley R.L. Prescribers’ knowledge of and sources of information for potential drug-drug interactions. Drug Saf. 2008;31(6):525–536. doi: 10.2165/00002018-200831060-00007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Magnus D., Rodgers S., Avery A. GPs' views on computerized drug interaction alerts: questionnaire survey. J. Clin. Pharm. Ther. 2002;27(5):377–382. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2710.2002.00434.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Momo K., Homma M., Kohda Y., Ohkoshi N., Yoshizawa T., Tamaoka A. Drug interaction of tizanidine and ciprofloxacin: case report. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 2006;80(6):717–719. doi: 10.1016/j.clpt.2006.08.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Patel, M., Reynolds, K., Belson, D. A toolset for E-prescribing implementation in independent pharmacies (prepared by RAND corporation under contract No. HHSA 290-2006-00017I, TO# 4, AHRQ Publication No. 11-0101-EF). Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
- Schachter M. Chemical, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of statins: an update. Fundam. Clin. Pharmacol. 2005;19(1):117–125. doi: 10.1111/j.1472-8206.2004.00299.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Stock, R., Mahoney, E. R., Gauthier, D., Center, L., Minniti, M., Scott, J., Nichols, L., 2008. Developing a community-wide electronic shared medication list. [PubMed]
- Toivo T.M., Mikkola J., Laine K., Airaksinen M. Identifying high risk medications causing potential drug–drug interactions in outpatients: a prescription database study based on an online surveillance system. Res. Social Admin. Pharm. 2016;12(4):559–568. doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2015.09.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Wong K., Yu S., Holbrook A. A systematic review of medication safety outcomes related to drug interaction software. J. Popul. Ther. Clin. Pharmacol. 2010;17(2):e243–e255. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Zhou S.-F., Lai X. An update on clinical drug interactions with the herbal antidepressant St John's wort. Curr. Drug Metab. 2008;9(5):394–409. doi: 10.2174/138920008784746391. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]