The use of a clinical decision support tool to assess the risk of QT drug-drug interactions in community pharmacies

Berger, F.A.; Sijs, H. van der; Gelder, T. van; Bemt, P.M.L.A. van den

doi:doi:10.1177/2042098621996098

Introduction: The handling of drug-drug interactions regarding QTc-prolongation (QT-DDIs) is not well defined. A clinical decision support (CDS) tool will support risk management of QT-DDIs. Therefore, we studied the effect of a CDS tool on the proportion of QT-DDIs for which an intervention was considered by pharmacists.Methods: An intervention study was performed using a pre- and post-design in 20 community pharmacies in The Netherlands. All QT-DDIs that occurred during a before- and after-period of three months were included. The impact of the use of a CDS tool to support the handling of QT-DDIs was studied. For each QT-DDI, handling of the QT-DDI and patient characteristics were extracted from the pharmacy information system. Primary outcome was the proportion of QT-DDIs with an intervention. Secondary outcomes were the type of interventions and the time associated with handling QT-DDIs. Logistic regression analysis was used to analyse the primary outcome.Results: Two hundred...Show moreIntroduction: The handling of drug-drug interactions regarding QTc-prolongation (QT-DDIs) is not well defined. A clinical decision support (CDS) tool will support risk management of QT-DDIs. Therefore, we studied the effect of a CDS tool on the proportion of QT-DDIs for which an intervention was considered by pharmacists.Methods: An intervention study was performed using a pre- and post-design in 20 community pharmacies in The Netherlands. All QT-DDIs that occurred during a before- and after-period of three months were included. The impact of the use of a CDS tool to support the handling of QT-DDIs was studied. For each QT-DDI, handling of the QT-DDI and patient characteristics were extracted from the pharmacy information system. Primary outcome was the proportion of QT-DDIs with an intervention. Secondary outcomes were the type of interventions and the time associated with handling QT-DDIs. Logistic regression analysis was used to analyse the primary outcome.Results: Two hundred and forty-four QT-DDIs pre-CDS tool and 157 QT-DDIs post-CDS tool were included. Pharmacists intervened in 43.0% and 35.7% of the QT-DDIs pre- and post-CDS tool respectively (odds ratio 0.74; 95% confidence interval 0.49-1.11). Substitution of interacting agents was the most frequent intervention. Pharmacists spent 20.8 +/- 3.5 min (mean +/- SD) on handling QT-DDIs pre-CDS tool, which was reduced to 14.9 +/- 2.4 min (mean +/- SD) post-CDS tool. Of these, 4.5 +/- 0.7 min (mean +/- SD) were spent on the CDS tool.Conclusion: The CDS tool might be a first step to developing a tool to manage QT-DDIs via a structured approach. Improvement of the tool is needed in order to increase its diagnostic value and reduce redundant QT-DDI alerts.Show less

Leiden University Scholarly Publications

View statistics

Documents

In Collections

The use of a clinical decision support tool to assess the risk of QT drug-drug interactions in community pharmacies