Comparative assessment of four drug interaction compendia
Article first published online: 7 DEC 2006
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
Volume 63, Issue 6, pages 709–714, June 2007
How to Cite
Vitry, A. I. (2007), Comparative assessment of four drug interaction compendia. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 63: 709–714. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2006.02809.x
- Issue published online: 7 DEC 2006
- Article first published online: 7 DEC 2006
- Received 12 October 2005Accepted19 September 2006Published OnlineEarly7 December 2006
- drug information;
- drug interaction
To assess the consistency of inclusion and grading of major drug interactions for 50 drugs in four leading international drug interaction compendia.
Four international drug interaction compendia were compared: the drug interactions appendix of the British National Formulary, the interaction supplement in the French drug compendium Vidal, and two US drug interaction compendia, Drug Interaction Facts and the Micromedex (Drug-Reax) program. Major interactions were defined as potentially hazardous in BNF or with the warning ‘contraindication’ or ‘avoid’ in Vidal or with the significance grading 1 or 2 in DIF. Major interactions for a list of 50 drugs were searched in all four compendia.
A total of 1264 interactions meeting the inclusion criteria were identified for these 50 drugs. After deletion of 169 duplicates, 1095 interactions were included in the analysis. Of the drug interactions classified as major in any one compendium between 14% and 44% were not listed in the other compendia. The grading systems used for the severity and the quality of the supporting evidence in Micromedex and DIF were inconsistent.
There is a lack of consistency in the inclusion and grading of drug interactions of major significance for 50 drugs across the four drug compendia examined. This may reflect the lack of standardization of the terminology used to classify drug interactions and the lack of good epidemiological evidence on which to base the assessment of the clinical relevance of drug interactions.