|
|
|
||||||||||
Research Articles |
This article provides a historic overview of drug interaction screening and reviews 19 studies that have sought to measure the frequency of drug interactions. Differences in study designs, methodologies, and definitions contribute to considerable variation in the reported incidence rates, which ranged from 2.2 to 70.3 percent for all potential drug interactions. The percentage of patients actually experiencing symptoms that could be attributed to a drug interaction, however, ranged from 0 to 11.1 percent. The relative importance of drug interactions as a clinical problem remains unclear. Screening programs that do more than simply identify large numbers of patients who receive potentially interacting drug combinations without indicating which subpopulations of these individuals are likely to be harmed by the drugs have not yet been developed.
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
T. L Humphries, N. Carroll, E. A Chester, D. Magid, and B. Rocho Evaluation of an Electronic Critical Drug Interaction Program Coupled with Active Pharmacist Intervention Ann. Pharmacother., December 1, 2007; 41(12): 1979 - 1985. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. Mahmood, D. C. Malone, G. H. Skrepnek, J. Abarca, E. P. Armstrong, J. E. Murphy, A. J. Grizzle, Y. Ko, and R. L. Woosley Potential drug-drug interactions within Veterans Affairs medical centers Am. J. Health Syst. Pharm., July 15, 2007; 64(14): 1500 - 1505. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. C. Malone, D. S. Hutchins, H. Haupert, P. Hansten, B. Duncan, R. C. Van Bergen, S. L. Solomon, and R. B. Lipton Assessment of potential drug-drug interactions with a prescription claims database Am. J. Health Syst. Pharm., October 1, 2005; 62(19): 1983 - 1991. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C. C. Peng, P. A. Glassman, L. E. Trilli, J. Hayes-Hunter, and C. B. Good Incidence and Severity of Potential Drug-Dietary Supplement Interactions in Primary Care Patients: An Exploratory Study of 2 Outpatient Practices Arch Intern Med, March 22, 2004; 164(6): 630 - 636. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||