Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Scientific Reports logoLink to Scientific Reports
. 2021 Mar 17;11:6089. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-85586-8

Potential drug-drug interactions of antiretrovirals and antimicrobials detected by three databases

Pornpun Vivithanaporn 1, Teetat Kongratanapasert 2, Bovornpat Suriyapakorn 3, Pichayut Songkunlertchai 3, Patpicha Mongkonariyawong 3, Patanachai K Limpikirati 4, Phisit Khemawoot 1,5,✉
PMCID: PMC7971054  PMID: 33731842

Abstract

Standard treatment for HIV infection involves a combination of antiretrovirals. Additionally, opportunistic infections in HIV infected patients require further antimicrobial medications that might cause drug-drug interactions (DDIs). The objective of this study was to to compare the recognition of DDIs between antiretrovirals and antimicrobials by three proprietary databases and evaluate their concordance. 114 items of antiretrovirals and antimicrobials from the National List of Essential Medicines of Thailand 2018 were used in the study. However, 21 items were not recognised by Micromedex, Drugs.com, and Liverpool HIV interactions. Only 93 items were available for the detection of potential DDIs by the three databases. Potential DDIs detected from the three databases included 292 pairs. Liverpool showed the highest number of DDIs with 285 pairs compared with 259 pairs by drugs.com and 133 pairs by Micromedex. Regarding the severity classifications, Liverpool reported 10% Contraindicated; Micromedex reported 14% contraindicated and 59% major; Drugs.com reported 21% major. The Fleiss’ kappa agreements were fair to poor among the three databases, higher agreement was observed for DDIs classified as severe. This study highlights the need to harmonize the evaluation and interpretation of DDI risk in order to produce standardized information to support prescribers.

Subject terms: Health care, Medical research

Introduction

The human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is a lentivirus that causes HIV infection and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS)1,2. HIV infection can result in the deterioration of the immune system and lead to opportunistic infections3,4. Therefore, antiretroviral therapy (ART) has been introduced for HIV treatment in order to maintain the immunity of HIV infected patients5,6. Consequently, several drug-drug interactions (DDIs) and adverse events have been reported in the combination of ART7,8. These DDIs can interfere with antiretroviral efficacy, safety, and patient compliance, and thereby lead to treatment failure9,10. Additionally, the progression of HIV infection can lead to opportunistic infections for which further medications would be prescribed11,12. The addition of antimicrobials for opportunistic infections may increase the risk of DDIs13,14. There is a challenge in the selection of drug regimens to maximise the efficacy and minimise the toxicity of ART and antimicrobial usage in HIV patients.

Recently, electronic DDIs databases were introduced to determine potential DDIs in the prescription of HIV infected patients15,16. The most popular database for healthcare providers seems to be Micromedex, provided by IBM Corp., USA. This database is subject to annual subscription fees, either individually or institutionally. In contrast, Drugs.com is a free online database, favoured by patients to identify potential DDIs, as well as some pharmacists who do not subscribe to the paid database. However, several reports have mentioned that the potential DDIs detected by Micromedex and Drugs.com have low to moderate agreement17,18. This has resulted in differences in the identification and management of DDIs. Interestingly, there is a specialised database commonly used to determine DDIs of HIV medicines in HIV community. Liverpool HIV interaction database focused mainly on HIV drugs was selected into this study in order to determine the ability and agreement of the three electronic databases in detecting potential DDIs of antiretrovirals and antimicrobials in the national list of essential medicines of Thailand (NLEM, 2018). Furthermore, the ability and agreement of the databases was considered in order to find the most suitable information for health care providers and HIV patients to optimise drug regimens.

Materials and methods

Drug selection

All antiretrovirals and antimicrobials were selected from the NLEM of Thailand 201819. This study was conducted from 1 to 31 October 2020. Of the 645 total items, only 114 items were antiretrovirals and antimicrobials. However, 21 items were not recognised by one of the three databases, Micromedex (diethylcarbamazine, fusidic acid, protionamide, and sulbactam), Drugs.com (delamanid, diethylcarbamazine, fusidic acid, protionamide, and sulbactam), and Liverpool (artesunate, cefoperazone, cefoxitin, cefuroxime, colistimethate, dicloxacillin, fosfomycin, fusidic acid, micafungin, neomycin, netilmicin, norfloxacin, peramivir, protionamide, roxithromycin, saturated solution of potassium iodide, sulbactam, trimethoprim, and tuberculin purified protein derivative). Only 93 items were included for the determination of potential DDIs by Micromedex, Drugs.com, and Liverpool HIV interactions (Fig. 1S and Table 1S). Ethical approval and consent were not required for this study, patient assessment and confidential information were not conducted in this study.

Databases

The Micromedex database used in this study was provided by IBM Corp., USA. This database was accessed under the copyright license of Chulalongkorn University (2020). Drugs.com is a free online database powered by four independent leading medical-information suppliers: American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, Cerner Multum, Micromedex, and Lexicomp. In total, 93 items of antiretrovirals and antimicrobials were inputted into the database on 15 October 2020, in order to determine potential DDIs among antiretrovirals and antimicrobials. Micromedex reported information on onset, severity, documentation, probable mechanism, summary, literature, clinical management, and references. Drugs.com reported potential DDIs with information on severity, description, management, and references. The Liverpool HIV interactions reported severity, quality of evidence, summary and description with references. Severity classification of potential DDIs determined by the three databases was shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Severity classification of potential DDIs determined by the three databases.

Severity Micromedex Drugs.com Liverpool
Contraindicated The drugs are contraindicated for concurrent use N/A Do not coadminister
Major The interaction may be life-threatening and/or require medical intervention to minimize or prevent serious adverse effects Highly clinically significant and includes combinations that should be avoided as the risk of the interaction outweighs the benefit N/A
Moderate The interaction may result in exacerbation of the patient’s condition and/or require an alteration in therapy Moderately clinically significant and includes combinations that should be avoided and used only under special circumstances Potential interaction
Minor The interaction would have limited clinical effects. Manifestations may include an increase in the frequency or severity of the side effects but generally would not require a major alteration in therapy Minimally clinically significant, i.e. with minimal risk, but an alternative drug and steps taken to circumvent the interaction risk Potential weak interaction
Open in a new tab

N/A, not applicable.

Documentation of DDIs

Micromedex classifies DDIs as excellent documentation when controlled studies have established the existence of the interaction; good documentation is defined as a strong suggestion that the interaction exists, but well-controlled studies are lacking. With fair documentation, the information is poor, but pharmacologic considerations have led clinicians to suspect that the interaction exists, or the documentation is good for a pharmacologically similar drug. Drugs.com did not provide information of documentation in their database. The Liverpool documentation was reported as quality of evidence. High quality is data obtained from a randomised, controlled interaction trial with clinical or validated surrogate endpoints. Moderate is obtained from crossover or parallel, steady state pharmacokinetics (PK) study with area under curves (AUCs). Low and very low are other kinds of information, e.g., editorial comments, animal studies, case reports without AUCs.

Data analysis

Data were entered and analysed with SPSS for windows version 22.0 (SPSS Inc., USA). Categorical variables were reported as the number and percentage. The agreement in the category of DDIs provided by the three-drug interaction databases was compared using Fleiss’ kappa. A kappa value varies between −1 and 1, with 1 indicating perfect agreement, −1 indicating perfect disagreement, and 0 indicating agreement expected by chance20. The interpretation of kappa values was interpreted using qualitative descriptors: intraclass correlation values > 0.80 are ‘almost perfect’; 0.61–0.80, ‘substantial’; 0.41–0.60, ‘moderate’; 0.21–0.40, ‘fair’; 0.00–0.20, ‘slight’; and < 0.00, ‘poor’21. The p-value is calculated for the kappa, with a p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Among the 93 items analysed, 292 pairs of potential DDIs were detected. Micromedex reported 133 pairs, Drugs.com reported 259 pairs, and Liverpool reported 285 pairs. Of 133 pairs reported by Micromedex, 78 pairs (58.65%) were major severities. Drugs.com reported moderate severity for 177 (68.34%); meanwhile, Liverpool reported potential interactions or moderate severity for 201 (70.53%), as shown in Fig. 1. Interestingly, we found that contraindicated and major severity DDIs had a higher tendency for good and excellent documentation than moderate and minor DDIs.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

The severity of the potential DDIs characterised by Micromedex, Drugs.com, and Liverpool.

Of the 292 pairs detected by the three databases, similar severity, especially contraindicated and major, was found for 26 pairs (Table 2). For example, coadministration of atazanavir and nevirapine was characterised as contraindicated by Micromedex, major by Drugs.com, and do not coadminister by Liverpool. CYP3A4 inhibition by atazanavir and CYP3 induction by nevirapine were determined as pharmacokinetic-based mechanisms (Table 2S). Among these serious potential DDI pairs, pharmacokinetic-based DDIs had a 65% share, with CYP induction or inhibition as the main mechanisms. Meanwhile, 35% were pharmacodynamic-based DDIs, with QT-interval prolongation as the lead mechanism (Fig. 2).

Table 2.

Drug pairs for which there is a good concordance in DDI severity grading across databases (contraindicate or major by three database).

Databases DDIs paired lists

Micromedex—Contraindicated/major

Drugs.com—Major

Liverpool—Do not coadminister

 1. Atazanavir—Nevirapine
2. Atazanavir—Rifampicin
3. Darunavir—Rifampicin
4. Didanosine—Ribavirin
5. Didanosine—Stavudine
6. Efavirenz—Bedaquiline
7. Efavirenz—Erythromycin
8. Efavirenz—Ketoconazole
9. Efavirenz—Mefloquine
10. Efavirenz—Moxifloxacin
11. Efavirenz—Quinine
12. Efavirenz—Voriconazole
13. Lopinavir + Ritonavir—Bedaquiline
14. Lopinavir + Ritonavir—Chloroquine
15. Lopinavir + Ritonavir—Efavirenz
16. Lopinavir + Ritonavir—Moxifloxacin
17. Lopinavir + Ritonavir—Rifampicin
18. Nevirapine—Rifampicin
19. Rilpivirine—Efavirenz
20. Rilpivirine—Moxifloxacin
21. Rilpivirine—Rifampicin
22. Ritonavir—Ketoconazole
23. Ritonavir—Quinine
24. Ritonavir—Rifampicin
25. Ritonavir—Voriconazole
26. Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate—Didanosine
Open in a new tab

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Mechanisms of serious potential DDIs determined by the three databases.

Surprisingly, there are a large number of DDIs with poor concordance in severity grading across the three databases, e.g., minor or none by Micromedex and Drugs.com versus do not administer or potential interactions by Liverpool database (76 DDI pairs). For example, coadministration of Atazanavir and azithromycin was reported as minor or none by Micromedex and Drugs.com, meanwhile Liverpool database determined as potential interaction. This discordance might be due to the quality of evidence of this potential DDI was very low, and coadministration has never been studied. Both compounds could develop QT prolongation and atazanavir shows inhibitory effect on efflux transporters that responsible for azithromycin elimination. Therefore, atazanavir could potentially increase azithromycin exposure, leading to the increased risk for QT prolongation. This information might lead to the discrepancy in potential DDI classification among databases (Table 3).

Table 3.

Drugs pairs with poor concordance in DDI severity grading across databases.

Databases DDIs paired lists

MicromedexMinor or None

Drugs.com—Minor or None

Liverpool—Do not coadminister or Potential interaction

 1. Abacavir—Peginterferon alfa-2a
2. Abacavir—Peginterferon alfa-2b
3. Atazanavir—Azithromycin
4. Atazanavir—Ciprofloxacin
5. Atazanavir—Mebendazole
6. Atazanavir—Ofloxacin
7. Atazanavir—Pentamidine
8. Atazanavir—Praziquantel
9. Atazanavir—Primaquine
10. Atazanavir—Ribavirin
11. Darunavir—Clindamycin
12. Darunavir—Mebendazole
13. Darunavir—Metronidazole
14. Darunavir—Moxifloxacin
15. Darunavir—Voriconazole
16. Didanosine—Amikacin
17. Didanosine—Amphotericin B
18. Didanosine—Capreomycin
19. Didanosine—Cidofovir
20. Didanosine—Doxycycline
21. Didanosine—Flucytosine
22. Didanosine—Lamivudine
23. Didanosine—Para-aminosalicylic acid
24. Didanosine—Pyrazinamide
25. Didanosine—Pyrimethamine
26. Didanosine—Tetracycline
27. Efavirenz—Clindamycin
28. Efavirenz—Doxycycline
29. Efavirenz—Primaquine
30. Efavirenz—Sofosbuvir + Ledipasvir
31. Emtricitabine—Flucytosine
32. Emtricitabine—Peginterferon alfa-2a
33. Emtricitabine—Peginterferon alfa-2b
34. Emtricitabine—Sulfadiazine
35. Lamivudine—Flucytosine
36. Lamivudine—Peginterferon alfa-2a
37. Lamivudine—Peginterferon alfa-2b
38. Lamivudine—Sulfadiazine
39. Lopinavir + Ritonavir—Praziquantel
40. Lopinavir + Ritonavir—Sofosbuvir + Ledipasvir
41. Nevirapine—Clindamycin
42. Nevirapine—Doxycycline
43. Nevirapine—Griseofulvin
44. Nevirapine—Primaquine
45. Rilpivirine—Didanosine
46. Rilpivirine—Griseofulvin
47. Ritonavir—Darunavir
48. Ritonavir—Mefloquine
49. Ritonavir—Praziquantel
50. Ritonavir—Sofosbuvir + Ledipasvir
51. Stavudine—Amikacin
52. Stavudine—Amphotericin B
53. Stavudine—Ampicillin
54. Stavudine—Capreomycin
55. Stavudine—Cefotaxime
56. Stavudine—Cephalexin
57. Stavudine—Cidofovir
58. Stavudine—Flucytosine
59. Stavudine—Para-aminosalicylic acid
60. Stavudine—Pentamidine
61. Stavudine—Sulfadiazine
62. Stavudine—Sulfamethoxazole + Trimethoprim
63. Tenofovir—Piperacillin + Tazobactam
64. Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate—Clarithromycin
65. Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate—Itraconazole
66. Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate—Ketoconazole
67. Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate—Peginterferon alfa-2a
68. Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate—Peginterferon alfa-2b
69. Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate—Sulfadiazine
70. Zidovudine—Albendazole
71. Zidovudine—Mebendazole
72. Zidovudine—Nitrofurantoin
73. Zidovudine—Primaquine
74. Zidovudine—Sulfadiazine
75. Zidovudine—Sulfamethoxazole + Trimethoprim
76. Zidovudine—Vancomycin
Open in a new tab

The agreement among the severity reports of the three databases, as determined by Fleiss’ kappa value, was 0.129 (0.127 to 0.132, p < 0.001), which was considered to be a slight agreement among the three databases, as detailed in Table 4. While the agreement between two databases, Micromedex and Drugs.com, for the determination of all potential DDIs was 0.160 (0.156 to 0.165, p < 0.001), indicated slight agreement. Higher severity DDIs showed tendency for better agreement among databases.

Table 4.

Agreement among three drug-interaction databases.

Category Kappa 95% CI p-value Strength of agreement
Minor − 0.010 − 0.013 to − 0.007 0.84 Poor
Moderate 0.243 0.240 to 0.246  < 0.001 Fair
Major − 0.090 − 0.093 to − 0.087 0.072 Poor
Contraindicated 0.349 0.346 to 0.352  < 0.001 Fair
Open in a new tab

Discussion

Antiretroviral combinations are a standard regimen for the treatment of HIV infected patients. Combination of antiretroviral drugs increase antiretroviral activity and reduces the risk of acquiring resistance22,23. Antiretroviral drugs have a high potential for drug-drug interactions which can occur with comedications used to treat for instance opportunistic infections24,25. In recent years, several online databases have been developed to determine potential DDIs. The present study selected three common databases, including Micromedex, Drugs.com, and Liverpool database, to determine the potential DDIs of antiretrovirals and antimicrobials available in the NLEM of Thailand 2018. Among 93 medicines included in this study, there were approximately 8,000 pairs of medicines. However, only 3–4% (292/8,000 pairs) could develop potential DDIs as determined by the three databases, compared with 18–20% (1,285/7,000 pairs) of potential DDIs in metabolic syndrome medications described in our previous report18. Even though the percentage of potential DDIs among antiretrovirals and antimicrobials was lower than that found for metabolic syndrome medications, the degree of severity seemed to be higher. Approximately 70% (97/133 pairs) of potential DDIs among antiretrovirals and antimicrobials were classified as contraindicated or major by Micromedex. Meanwhile, only 20% (155/724 pairs) of potential DDIs in metabolic syndrome medications were determined as contraindicated or major by Micromedex. Therefore, potential DDIs of antiretrovirals and antimicrobials should be taken into consideration regarding the clinical impact related to both treatment failure and serious adverse events.

Among 292 pairs of potential DDIs, there were 26 pairs of major concerns. The three databases reported that these 26 pairs are contraindicated or major DDIs. Most of these serious DDIs have mechanisms related to CYP induction or inhibition and QT interval prolongation. Among the antiretroviral combinations in ART, protease inhibitors seemed to be the most troublesome class of medicines with moderate to strong CYP inhibition, and a less degree of CYP induction. For example, ritonavir is an enzyme inducer of CYP1A2 and CYP2C; meanwhile, it is an enzyme inhibitor of CYP3A4 and CYP2D626. Induction and inhibition of CYPs could interfere with the metabolism of commonly available medicines because CYPs are the major drug-metabolising enzymes; approximately 50% of the top 200 prescribed drugs were biotransformed by CYPs27. Besides, non-nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors such as Efavirenz is a moderate inducer of CYP3A4 whereas nevirapine is a moderate-weak inducer, which might reduce exposure of concomitant drugs if they are a substrate of CYP3A4. Avoidance of CYP overlapping antiretroviral combinations or therapeutic drug monitoring would be useful to prevent further complications with antiretroviral usage in HIV patients.

In the case of bacterial infections, the addition of antibacterials to ART seems to raise precaution for two groups of medicines, i.e. macrolides and quinolones. Erythromycin and clarithromycin have moderate to strong CYP inhibitory properties, and a class effect with QT-interval prolongation, which might lead to cardiac arrhythmia. Quinolones also showed similar properties to macrolides, especially CYP inhibition and QT-interval prolongation28. Therefore, coadministration of these antibacterials should be exempted from concomitant use with protease inhibitors and non-nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors. Beta-lactam antibacterials seemed to be the better choice for coadministration with protease inhibitors or non-nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors. Because most beta-lactams have good water solubility and minimal CYP biotransformation, they are mainly excreted via the kidney. Interestingly, the standard treatment of mycobacterial infections, e.g., tuberculosis, needs a combination of three to five antimycobacterials to eradicate the pathogen and prevent long-term resistance. Rifampicin is a potent CYP inducer; meanwhile, ethambutol is a CYP inhibitor; these two drugs are the backbone of the standard treatment for tuberculosis in Thailand29. It is based on the fact that enzyme inhibition could occur immediately after administration, whereas enzyme induction need more time for protein expression. Therefore, rifampicin is likely to have delay and stronger induction effect compared with rapidly inhibitory effect of ethambutol. In this case, therapeutic drug monitoring would be useful if adverse events or treatment failure were observed from any suspected drugs.

Fungal infections in HIV patients can range from mild to severe. Azole derivatives seemed to be the most popular antifungals due to good safety profiles and convenient dosage forms, i.e. intravenous, oral, and topical preparations. These azole antifungals have excellent inhibitory properties to fungal CYP450s and to a lesser extent to human CYP450s. Itraconazole and posaconazole are more potent inhibitors of human CYP3A4 compared with fluconazole and voriconazole. Also, fluconazole and voriconazole are strong inhibitors of CYP2C9 and CYP2C19. Therefore, coadministration of azole antifungals and some protease inhibitors or non-nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors would be careful with potential DDIs. Alternative antifungals against specific pathogens or therapeutic drug monitoring would be possible choices to manage the potential DDIs between antifungals and antiretrovirals.

Optimistically, the majority of antivirals against opportunistic infections are nucleoside analogues e.g., ganciclovir, acyclovir. These compounds are endowed with fairly high water solubility owing to the heterocyclic base and sugar in their structures. There is thus no need for CYP biotransformation and these drugs are predominantly eliminated through renal excretion. Therefore, potential DDIs, especially pharmacokinetic-based interactions, are not likely to arise via CYP inhibition or induction. In addition, anti-hepatitis B and C drugs also show similar results compared with those from the aforementioned antivirals. Tenofovir and sofosbuvir are nucleotide analogues that contain base, sugar and phosphate moieties in their structures. Actually, high water solubility can be expected in tandem with minimal biotransformation via hepatic CYP enzymes, but these antiviral agents might be substrate of some transporters during excretion. Organic anion transporters are important for renal tubular secretion of guanine containing antivirals, e.g., ganciclovir, acyclovir. In addition, sofosbuvir and other NS5A inhibitors were reported as substrates of some efflux transporters, e.g., p-glycoprotein. These drugs can be victims of DDIs via inhibition or induction of drug transporters. Further information in antiviral DDIs via transmembrane transports are urgently required for database development.

Management of potential DDIs among antiretrovirals and antimicrobials is a crucial step in HIV treatment. The three databases were able to detect serious DDIs with contraindicated and major severity. Alternative drugs with different pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic pathways seem to be appropriate options30. Other possible management involves close monitoring and dose adjustment to prevent adverse events31. Therefore, patient consultation and physician communication should be stressed to improve awareness of significant potential DDIs. These actions would be useful to prevent treatment failure and improve patient compliance with HIV treatment. One limitation of this study is the inclusion of antiretrovirals and antimicrobials, only drugs on the NLEM of Thailand 2018 were included, which did not cover all available drugs in each class. Additionally, the three databases might update information frequently, so during different search periods might provide different results. The difference between the drug interaction databases might be caused by the use of different references, unique rating priorities, and display formats32. Difference sources of references could be resulting in different severity classification and inconsistency among databases has been reported33. Not finding a comedication does not mean that there is no risk of DDIs. Combination of antibacterials or antivirals with similar metabolic pathways and toxicity meachnisms could lead to serious potential DDIs. Careful determination of potential DDIs by multiple databases and consideration for their agreement is necessary. Currently, there are no standard criteria for defining potential DDIs, resulting in complex interpretation of the results34,35. Therefore, a method to standardise DDIs information is required and the use of more than one database may be necessary.

Conclusion

A large number of potential DDIs were detected among antiretrovirals and antimicrobials used for opportunistic infection in the National List of Essential Medicines of Thailand 2018. Liverpool database showed the highest number of potential DDIs. DDIs with high severity as classified by contraindicated or major had better agreement value among the three databases. CYP induction or inhibition and QT prolongation were leading causes of serious potential DDIs. The observed poor agreement among databases highlights the need to harmonize the evaluation and interpretation of DDI risk in order to produce standardized information to support prescribers.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Information (31KB, docx)

Acknowledgments

All authors are sincerely grateful to Prof. Somnuek Sungkanuparph, Assoc.Prof. Chankit Putthilerpong, and Dr. Nattaphong Rattanavirotkul for resourceful suggestions and thorough reviews of this manuscript. This work was supported by a Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Chulalongkorn University, grant for pharmaceutical science research (Phar2563-RG012).

Abbreviations

AIDS

Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome

ART

Antiretroviral therapy

AUCs

Area under curves

CYPs

Cytochrome P450s

DDIs

Drug-drug interactions

HIV

Human immunodeficiency virus

NLEM

National list of essential medicine

PD

Pharmacodynamics

PK

Pharmacokinetics

UGTs

Uridine glucuronosyl transferases

Author contributions

Conceptualization; Pornpun Vivithanaporn, Teetat Kongratanapasert, Bovornpat Suriyapakorn, Phisit Khemawoot Data collection; Pornpun Vivithanaporn, Teetat Kongratanapasert DDI analysis; Pichayut Songkunlertchai, Patpicha Mongkonariyawong, Teetat Kongratanapasert Statistical analysis; Bovornpat Suriyapakorn, Teetat Kongratanapasert Draft preparation; Pornpun Vivithanaporn, Teetat Kongratanapasert, Bovornpat Suriyapakorn, Pichayut Songkunlertchai, Patpicha Mongkonariyawong, Patanachai K. Limpikirati, Phisit Khemawoot Review and editing; Pornpun Vivithanaporn, Bovornpat Suriyapakorn, Patanachai K. Limpikirati, Phisit Khemawoot.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Footnotes

Publisher's note

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

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1038/s41598-021-85586-8.

References

  • 1.Levy JA. Pathogenesis of human immunodeficiency virus infection. Microbiol Rev. 1993;57:183–289. doi: 10.1128/MR.57.1.183-289.1993. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Richey LE, Halperin J. Acute human immunodeficiency virus infection. Am. J. Med. Sci. 2013;345:136–142. doi: 10.1097/MAJ.0b013e31825d4b88. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Sabin CA, Lundgren JD. The natural history of HIV infection. Curr. Opin. HIV AIDS. 2013;8:311–317. doi: 10.1097/COH.0b013e328361fa66. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Solomon FB, Angore BN, Koyra HC, Tufa EG, Berheto TM, Admasu M. Spectrum of opportunistic infections and associated factors among people living with HIV/AIDS in the era of highly active anti-retroviral treatment in Dawro Zone hospital: a retrospective study. BMC Res. Notes. 2018;11:604. doi: 10.1186/s13104-018-3707-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Prabhu S, Harwell JI, Kumarasamy N. Advance HIV: diagnosis, treatment, and prevention. Lancet HIV. 2019;6:e540–e551. doi: 10.1016/S2352-3018(19)30189-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Saag MS, Benson CA, Gandhi RT, Hoy JF, Landovitz RJ, Mugavero MJ, Sax PE, Smith DM, Thompson MA, Buchbinder SP, Del Rio C, Eron JJ, Jr, Fätkenheuer G, Günthard HF, Molina JM, Jacobsen DM, Volberding PA. Antiretroviral drugs for treatment and prevention of HIV infection in adults: 2018 recommendations of the International Antiviral Society-USA Panel. JAMA. 2018;320:379–396. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.8431. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Yiu P, Nguyen NN, Holodniy M. Clinically significant drug interactions in younger and older human immunodeficiency virus-positive patients receiving antiretroviral therapy. Pharmacotherapy. 2011;31:480–489. doi: 10.1592/phco.31.5.480. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Patel N, Borg P, Haubrich R, McNicholl I. Analysis of drug-drug interactions among patients receiving antiretroviral regimens using data from a large open-source prescription database. Am. J. Health Syst. Pharm. 2018;75:1132–1139. doi: 10.2146/ajhp170613. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Cantudo-Cuenca MR, Jiménez-Galán R, Almeida-Gonzalez CV, Morillo-Verdugo R. Concurrent use of comedications reduces adherence to antiretroviral therapy among HIV-infected patients. J. Manag. Care Spec. Pharm. 2014;20:844–850. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2014.20.8.844. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Seden K, Khoo SH, Back D, Byakika-Kibwika P, Lamorde M, Ryan M, et al. Global patient safety and antiretroviral drug-drug interactions in the resource-limited setting. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2013;68:1–3. doi: 10.1093/jac/dks346. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Keiser O, Tweya H, Braitstein P, Dabis F, MacPhail P, Boulle A, et al. Mortality after failure of antiretroviral therapy in sub-Saharan Africa. Trop. Med. Int. Health. 2010;15:251–258. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3156.2009.02445.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Enderis BO, Hebo SH, Debir MK, Sidamo NB, Shimber MS. Predictors of time to first line antiretroviral treatment failure among adult patients living with HIV in Public Health Facilities of Arba Minch Town, Southern Ethiopia. Ethiop. J. Health Sci. 2019;29:175–186. doi: 10.4314/ejhs.v29i2.4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Vadlapatla RK, Patel M, Paturi DK, Pal D, Mitra AK. Clinically relevant drug–drug interactions between antiretrovirals and antifungals. Expert Opin. Drug Metab. Toxicol. 2014;10:561–580. doi: 10.1517/17425255.2014.883379. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Chastain DB, Franco-Paredes C, Stover KR. Addressing antiretroviral therapy-associated drug-drug interactions in patients requiring treatment for opportunistic infections in low-income and resource-limited settings. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2017;57:1387–1399. doi: 10.1002/jcph.978. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Santos WM, Secoli SR, Padoin SM. Potential drug interactions in patients given antiretroviral therapy. Rev. Lat. Am. Enfermagem. 2016;24:e2832. doi: 10.1590/1518-8345.1193.2832. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Oreagba IA, Usman SO, Oshikoya KA, Akinyede A, Agbaje E, Opanuga O, et al. Clinically significant drug-drug interaction in a large antiretroviral treatment centre in Lagos, Nigeria. J. Popul. Ther. Clin. Pharmacol. 2019;26:e1–e19. doi: 10.22374/1710-6222.26.1.1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Ramos GV, Guaraldo L, Japiassú AM, Bozza FA. Comparison of two databases to detect potential drug-drug interactions between prescriptions of HIV/AIDS patients in critical care. J. Clin. Pharm. Ther. 2015;40:63–67. doi: 10.1111/jcpt.12222. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Suriyapakorn B, Chairat P, Boonyoprakarn S, Rojanarattanangkul P, Pisetcheep W, Hunsakunachai N, et al. Comparison of potential drug-drug interactions with metabolic syndrome medications detected by two databases. PLoS ONE. 2019;14:e0225239. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0225239. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.National Drug Committee. National List of Essential Medicines 2019. Available: http://ndi.fda.moph.go.th/Drug_national (2019).
  • 20.Fleiss JL. Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychol. Bull. 1971;76:378–382. doi: 10.1037/h0031619. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–174. doi: 10.2307/2529310. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Palella FJ, Jr, Delaney KM, Moorman AC, Loveless MO, Fuhrer J, Satten GA, et al. Declining morbidity and mortality among patients with advanced human immunodeficiency virus infection. HIV Outpatient Study Investigators. N. Engl. J. Med. 1998;338:853–860. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199803263381301. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Mocroft A, Ledergerber B, Katlama C, Kirk O, Reiss P, d’Arminio Monforte A, Knysz B, et al. Decline in the AIDS and death rates in the EuroSIDA study: an observational study. Lancet. 2003;362:22–29. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)13802-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Stader F, Kinvig H, Battegay M, Khoo S, Owen A, Siccardi M, Marzolini C. Analysis of clinical drug-drug interaction data to predict magnitudes of uncharacterized interactions between antiretroviral drugs and comedications. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2018;62:e00717–e718. doi: 10.1128/AAC.00717-18. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Seden K, Boffito M, Khoo S. Drug Interactions and the role of pharmacokinetic trials in guiding choices in first-line HIV therapy in low-income and middle-income countries. Curr. Opin. HIV AIDS. 2017;12:377–382. doi: 10.1097/COH.0000000000000384. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Walubo A. The role of cytochrome P450 in antiretroviral drug interactions. Expert Opin. Drug. Metab. Toxicol. 2007;3:583–598. doi: 10.1517/17425255.3.4.583. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Wilkinson GR. Drug metabolism and variability among patients in drug response. N. Engl. J. Med. 2005;352:2211–2221. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra032424. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Shah RR. The significance of QT interval in drug development. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2002;54:188–202. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2125.2002.01627.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Department of Medical Services. Clinical Practice Guideline of Tuberculosis Treatment in Thailand. Available: http://www.thoracicsocietythai.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/CPG-TB2018.pdf (2018).
  • 30.Kiang TK, Wilby KJ, Ensom MH. Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Drug Interactions Associated with Antiretroviral Drugs. 1. ADIS; 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Goodlet KJ, Zmarlicka MT, Peckham AM. Drug–drug interactions and clinical considerations with co-administration of antiretrovirals and psychotropic drugs. CNS Spectr. 2019;24:287–332. doi: 10.1017/S109285291800113X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Kongsholm GG, Nielsen AK, Damkier P. Drug interaction databases in medical literature: transparency of ownership, funding, classification algorithms, level of documentation, and staff qualifications. A systematic review. Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2015;71:1397–1402. doi: 10.1007/s00228-015-1943-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Roblek T, Vaupotic T, Mrhar A, Lainscak M. Drug–drug interaction software in clinical practice: a systematic review. Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2015;71:131–142. doi: 10.1007/s00228-014-1786-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Tilson H, Hines LE, McEvoy G, Weinstein DM, Hansten PD, Matuszewski K, et al. Recommendations for selecting drug-drug interactions for clinical decision support. Am. J. Health Syst. Pharm. 2016;73:576–585. doi: 10.2146/ajhp150565. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Romagnoli KM, Nelson SD, Hines L, Empey P, Boyce RD, Hochheiser H. Information needs for making clinical recommendations about potential drug–drug interactions: a synthesis of literature review and interviews. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 2017;17:21. doi: 10.1186/s12911-017-0419-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary Information (31KB, docx)

Articles from Scientific Reports are provided here courtesy of Nature Publishing Group

RESOURCES