Clinical significance of available drug information resources regarding drug-drug interactions: An audit from a tertiary care cancer centre in India.
1
Pharmacy Practicle, Dr D Y Patil vidyapeeth, Pune, India
2
Medical Oncology, Advanced Centre for Treatment, Research and Education in Cancer (ACTREC), Tata memorial centre (TMC), Navi Mumbai, India
Popul. Med. 2026;8(Supplement Supplement 1):
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION:
Drug-drug interactions (DDIs) are common in oncology due to polypharmacy and may reduce efficacy/increase toxicity. Despite widespread use of multiple drug interaction resources, poor agreement exists. This study evaluated the clinical relevance of five resources and strategies to improve consistency in DDI management.
METHODS:
A prescription audit was conducted between 15th Aug 2025 to 31st Oct 2025 using five Drug Information (DI) resources, i.e. Micromedex®, UpToDate®, DrugBank Interaction Checker (DBIC), Drugs.com Drug Interaction Checker (DDIC) and Medscape.com Drug Interaction Checker (MDIC). A Scope score was given by calculating the percentage of interactions captured by them. A higher Scope score reflects broader coverage of the DDIs. Each DI resource was also given a Completeness score describing severity, clinical information, mechanisms, and DDI management. The higher score indicated detailed and clinically useful information. We then derived our own recommendations based on the audit and literature search.
RESULTS:
Data of 80 patients were captured, i.e. 30 chemotherapy and 50 were combined chemo-nonchemotherapy medicines. We identified 185 DDIs, in which 16 were Anticancer-Anticancer, 55 were Anticancer-Non Anticancer, and 114 were Non Anticancer-Non Anticancer drug combinations. DBIC had the highest Scope score of 57%, followed by UpToDate (46%), while MDIC showed the lowest score i.e. 31%. DBIC clocked the highest completeness score of 99.7%, closely followed by UpToDate (98%), while DDIC fared poorly at 86%. According to our literature search, 34% (63/185) of DDIs were not clinically significant. DDIs were categorised into major, moderate, or minor, as per their severity, as mentioned in the DI resources. Cumulatively, 25% (27/108), 39% (57/147) and 39% (9/23) of major, moderate and minor interactions were clinically not significant, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS:
DI resources for DDIs are unreliable, especially in oncology settings. We formulated our own hospital-specific guide to manage the DDIs, and we recommend the same for everyone.
Drug-drug interactions (DDIs) are common in oncology due to polypharmacy and may reduce efficacy/increase toxicity. Despite widespread use of multiple drug interaction resources, poor agreement exists. This study evaluated the clinical relevance of five resources and strategies to improve consistency in DDI management.
METHODS:
A prescription audit was conducted between 15th Aug 2025 to 31st Oct 2025 using five Drug Information (DI) resources, i.e. Micromedex®, UpToDate®, DrugBank Interaction Checker (DBIC), Drugs.com Drug Interaction Checker (DDIC) and Medscape.com Drug Interaction Checker (MDIC). A Scope score was given by calculating the percentage of interactions captured by them. A higher Scope score reflects broader coverage of the DDIs. Each DI resource was also given a Completeness score describing severity, clinical information, mechanisms, and DDI management. The higher score indicated detailed and clinically useful information. We then derived our own recommendations based on the audit and literature search.
RESULTS:
Data of 80 patients were captured, i.e. 30 chemotherapy and 50 were combined chemo-nonchemotherapy medicines. We identified 185 DDIs, in which 16 were Anticancer-Anticancer, 55 were Anticancer-Non Anticancer, and 114 were Non Anticancer-Non Anticancer drug combinations. DBIC had the highest Scope score of 57%, followed by UpToDate (46%), while MDIC showed the lowest score i.e. 31%. DBIC clocked the highest completeness score of 99.7%, closely followed by UpToDate (98%), while DDIC fared poorly at 86%. According to our literature search, 34% (63/185) of DDIs were not clinically significant. DDIs were categorised into major, moderate, or minor, as per their severity, as mentioned in the DI resources. Cumulatively, 25% (27/108), 39% (57/147) and 39% (9/23) of major, moderate and minor interactions were clinically not significant, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS:
DI resources for DDIs are unreliable, especially in oncology settings. We formulated our own hospital-specific guide to manage the DDIs, and we recommend the same for everyone.
| eISSN: | 2654-1459 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
