Ability of online drug databases to assist in clinical decision-making with infectious disease therapies

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Infectious disease (ID) is a dynamic field with new guidelines being adopted at a rapid rate. Clinical decision support tools (CDSTs) have proven beneficial in selecting treatment options to improve outcomes. However, there is a dearth of information on the abilities of CDSTs, such as drug information databases. This study evaluated online drug information databases when answering infectious disease-specific queries.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Eight subscription drug information databases: American Hospital Formulary Service Drug Information (AHFS), Clinical Pharmacology (CP), Epocrates Online Premium (EOP), Facts & Comparisons 4.0 Online (FC), Lexi-Comp (LC), Lexi-Comp with AHFS (LC-AHFS), Micromedex (MM), and PEPID PDC (PPDC) and six freely accessible: DailyMed (DM), DIOne (DIO), Epocrates Online Free (EOF), Internet Drug Index (IDI), Johns Hopkins ABX Guide (JHAG), and Medscape Drug Reference (MDR) were evaluated for their scope (presence of an answer) and completeness (on a 3-point scale) in answering 147 infectious disease-specific questions. Questions were divided among five classifications: antibacterial, antiviral, antifungal, antiparasitic, and vaccination/immunization. Classifications were further divided into categories (e.g., dosage, administration, emerging resistance, synergy, and spectrum of activity). Databases were ranked based on scope and completeness scores. ANOVA and Chi-square were used to determine differences between individual databases and between subscription and free databases.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Scope scores revealed three discrete tiers of database performance: Tier 1 (82-77%), Tier 2 (73-65%) and Tier 3 (56-41%) which were significantly different from each other (p < 0.05). The top tier performers: MM (82%), MDR (81%), LC-AHFS (81%), AHFS (78%), and CP (77%) answered significantly more questions compared to other databases (p < 0.05). Top databases for completeness were: MM (97%), DM (96%), IDI (95%), and MDR (95%). Subscription databases performed better than free databases in all categories (p = 0.03). Databases suffered from 37 erroneous answers for an overall error rate of 1.8%.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Drug information databases used in ID practice as CDSTs can be valuable resources. MM, MDR, LC-AHFS, AHFS, and CP were shown to be superior in their scope and completeness of information, and MM, AHFS, and MDR provided no erroneous answers. There is room for improvement in all evaluated databases.</p

Clinical decision support tools: analysis of online drug information databases

BACKGROUND: Online drug information databases are used to assist in enhancing clinical decision support. However, the choice of which online database to consult, purchase or subscribe to is likely made based on subjective elements such as history of use, familiarity, or availability during professional training. The purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical decision support tools for drug information by systematically comparing the most commonly used online drug information databases. METHODS: Five commercially available and two freely available online drug information databases were evaluated according to scope (presence or absence of answer), completeness (the comprehensiveness of the answers), and ease of use. Additionally, a composite score integrating all three criteria was utilized. Fifteen weighted categories comprised of 158 questions were used to conduct the analysis. Descriptive statistics and Chi-square were used to summarize the evaluation components and make comparisons between databases. Scheffe's multiple comparison procedure was used to determine statistically different scope and completeness scores. The composite score was subjected to sensitivity analysis to investigate the effect of the choice of percentages for scope and completeness. RESULTS: The rankings for the databases from highest to lowest, based on composite scores were Clinical Pharmacology, Micromedex, Lexi-Comp Online, Facts & Comparisons 4.0, Epocrates Online Premium, RxList.com, and Epocrates Online Free. Differences in scope produced three statistical groupings with Group 1 (best) performers being: Clinical Pharmacology, Micromedex, Facts & Comparisons 4.0, Lexi-Comp Online, Group 2: Epocrates Premium and RxList.com and Group 3: Epocrates Free (p < 0.05). Completeness scores were similarly stratified. Collapsing the databases into two groups by access (subscription or free), showed the subscription databases performed better than the free databases in the measured criteria (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Online drug information databases, which belong to clinical decision support, vary in their ability to answer questions across a range of categories

Clinically relevant safety issues associated with St. John's wort product labels

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>St. John's wort (SJW), used to treat depression, is popular in the USA, Canada, and parts of Europe. However, there are documented interactions between SJW and prescription medications including warfarin, cyclosporine, indinavir, and oral contraceptives. One source of information about these safety considerations is the product label. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinically relevant safety information included on labeling in a nationally representative sample of SJW products from the USA.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Eight clinically relevant safety issues were identified: drug interactions (SJW-HIV medications, SJW-immunosupressants, SJW-oral contraceptives, and SJW-warfarin), contraindications (bipolar disorder), therapeutic duplication (antidepressants), and general considerations (phototoxicity and advice to consult a healthcare professional (HCP)). A list of SJW products was identified to assess their labels. Percentages and totals were used to present findings.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of the seventy-four products evaluated, no product label provided information for all 8 evaluation criteria. Three products (4.1%) provided information on 7 of the 8 criteria. Four products provided no safety information whatsoever. Percentage of products with label information was: SJW-HIV (8.1%), SJW-immunosupressants (5.4%), SJW-OCPs (8.1%), SJW-warfarin (5.4%), bipolar (1.4%), antidepressants (23.0%), phototoxicity (51.4%), and consult HCP (87.8%). Other safety-related information on labels included warnings about pregnancy (74.3%), lactation (64.9%), discontinue if adverse reaction (23.0%), and not for use in patients under 18 years old (13.5%). The average number of <it>a priori </it>safety issues included on a product label was 1.91 (range 0–8) for 23.9% completeness.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The vast majority of SJW products fail to adequately address clinically relevant safety issues on their labeling. A few products do provide an acceptable amount of information on clinically relevant safety issues which could enhance the quality of counseling by HCPs and health store clerks. HCPs and consumers may benefit if the FDA re-examined labeling requirements for dietary supplements.</p

Effects of a Caffeine-Containing Energy Drink on Simulated Soccer Performance

[Background] To investigate the effects of a caffeine-containing energy drink on soccer performance during a simulated game. A second purpose was to assess the post-exercise urine caffeine concentration derived from the energy drink intake. [Methodology/Principal Findings] Nineteen semiprofessional soccer players ingested 630±52 mL of a commercially available energy drink (sugar-free Red Bull®) to provide 3 mg of caffeine per kg of body mass, or a decaffeinated control drink (0 mg/kg). After sixty minutes they performed a 15-s maximal jump test, a repeated sprint test (7×30 m; 30 s of active recovery) and played a simulated soccer game. Individual running distance and speed during the game were measured using global positioning satellite (GPS) devices. In comparison to the control drink, the ingestion of the energy drink increased mean jump height in the jump test (34.7±4.7 v 35.8±5.5 cm; P<0.05), mean running speed during the sprint test (25.6±2.1 v 26.3±1.8 km · h−1; P<0.05) and total distance covered at a speed higher than 13 km · h−1 during the game (1205±289 v 1436±326 m; P<0.05). In addition, the energy drink increased the number of sprints during the whole game (30±10 v 24±8; P<0.05). Post-exercise urine caffeine concentration was higher after the energy drink than after the control drink (4.1±1.0 v 0.1±0.1 µg · mL−1; P<0.05). [Conclusions/significance] A caffeine-containing energy drink in a dose equivalent to 3 mg/kg increased the ability to repeatedly sprint and the distance covered at high intensity during a simulated soccer game. In addition, the caffeinated energy drink increased jump height which may represent a meaningful improvement for headers or when players are competing for a ball

Polypharmacy among anabolic-androgenic steroid users: A descriptive metasynthesis

Background: As far as we are aware, no previous systematic review and synthesis of the qualitative/descriptive literature on polypharmacy in anabolic-androgenic steroid(s) (AAS) users has been published. Method: We systematically reviewed and synthesized qualitative/descriptive literature gathered from searches in electronic databases and by inspecting reference lists of relevant literature to investigate AAS users' polypharmacy. We adhered to the recommendations of the UK Economic and Social Research Council's qualitative research synthesis manual and the PRISMA guidelines. Results: A total of 50 studies published between 1985 and 2014 were included in the analysis. Studies originated from 10 countries although most originated from United States (n = 22), followed by Sweden (n = 7), England only (n = 5), and the United Kingdom (n = 4). It was evident that prior to their debut, AAS users often used other licit and illicit substances. The main ancillary/supplementary substances used were alcohol, and cannabis/cannabinoids followed by cocaine, growth hormone, and human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), amphetamine/meth, clenbuterol, ephedra/ephedrine, insulin, and thyroxine. Other popular substance classes were analgesics/opioids, dietary/nutritional supplements, and diuretics. Our classification of the various substances used by AAS users resulted in 13 main groups. These non-AAS substances were used mainly to enhance the effects of AAS, combat the side effects of AAS, and for recreational or relaxation purposes, as well as sexual enhancement. Conclusions: Our findings corroborate previous suggestions of associations between AAS use and the use of other licit and illicit substances. Efforts must be intensified to combat the debilitating effects of AAS-associated polypharmacy

Drug information resources used by nurse practitioners and collaborating physicians at the point of care in Nova Scotia, Canada: a survey and review of the literature

BACKGROUND: Keeping current with drug therapy information is challenging for health care practitioners. Technologies are often implemented to facilitate access to current and credible drug information sources. In the Canadian province of Nova Scotia, legislation was passed in 2002 to allow nurse practitioners (NPs) to practice collaboratively with physician partners. The purpose of this study was to determine the current utilization patterns of information technologies by these groups of practitioners. METHODS: Nurse practitioners and their collaborating physician partners in Nova Scotia were sent a survey in February 2005 to determine the frequency of use, usefulness, accessibility, credibility, and current/timeliness of personal digital assistant (PDA), computer, and print drug information resources. Two surveys were developed (one for PDA users and one for computer users) and revised based on a literature search, stakeholder consultation, and pilot-testing results. A second distribution to nonresponders occurred two weeks following the first. Data were entered and analysed with SPSS. RESULTS: Twenty-seven (14 NPs and 13 physicians) of 36 (75%) recipients responded. 22% (6) returned personal digital assistant (PDA) surveys. Respondents reported print, health professionals, and online/electronic resources as the most to least preferred means to access drug information, respectively. 37% and 35% of respondents reported using "both print and electronic but print more than electronic" and "print only", respectively, to search monograph-related drug information queries whereas 4% reported using "PDA only". Analysis of respondent ratings for all resources in the categories print, health professionals and other, and online/electronic resources, indicated that the Compendium of Pharmaceuticals and Specialties and pharmacists ranked highly for frequency of use, usefulness, accessibility, credibility, and current/timeliness by both groups of practitioners. Respondents' preferences and resource ratings were consistent with self-reported methods for conducting drug information queries. Few differences existed between NP and physician rankings of resources. CONCLUSION: The use of computers and PDAs remains limited, which is also consistent with preferred and frequent use of print resources. Education for these practitioners regarding available electronic drug information resources may facilitate future computer and PDA use. Further research is needed to determine methods to increase computer and PDA use and whether these technologies affect prescribing and patient outcomes