The Gap in Electronic Drug Information Resources: A Systematic Review

Assessment of the scope, completeness, and consistency of various drug information resources related to COVID-19 medications in pregnancy and lactation

BACKGROUND

Drug use in pregnancy and lactation is challenging. It becomes more challenging in pregnant and lactating women with certain critical clinical conditions such as COVID-19, because of inconsistent drug safety data. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the various drug information resources for the scope, completeness, and consistency of the information related to COVID-19 medications in pregnancy and lactation.

METHODS

Data related to COVID-19 medications from various drug information resources such as text references, subscription databases, and free online tools were used for the comparison. The congregated data were analyzed for scope, completeness, and consistency.

RESULTS

Scope scores were highest for Portable Electronic Physician Information Database (PEPID), Up-to-date, and drugs.com compared to other resources. The overall completeness scores were higher for Micromedex and drugs.com (p < 0.05 compared to all other resources). The inter-reliability analysis for overall components by Fleiss kappa among all the resources was found to be 'slight' (k < 0.20, p < 0.0001). The information related to the older drugs in most of the resources, provides in-depth details on various components such as pregnancy safety, clinical data related to lactation, the effect of the drug distribution into breast milk, reproductive potential/infertility risk and the pregnancy category/recommendations. However, the information related to these components for newer drugs was superficial and incomplete, with insufficient data and inconclusive evidence, which is a statistically significant observation. The strength of observer agreement for the various COVID-19 medications ranged from poor to fair and moderate for the various recommendation categories studied.

CONCLUSION

This study reports discrepancies in the information related to pregnancy, lactation, drug level, reproductive risk, and pregnancy recommendations among the resources directing to refer to more than one resource for information about the safe and quality use of medications in this special population.The present study also emphasizes the need for development of comprehensive, evidence-based, and precise information guide that can promote safe and effective drug use in this special population.

Evaluation of adverse drug reaction formatting in drug information databases

Objective:

The research evaluated the differences in formatting of adverse drug reaction (ADR) information in drug monographs in commonly used drug information (DI) databases.

Methods:

A cross-sectional analysis of formatting of ADR information for twenty commonly prescribed oral medications in seven commonly used DI databases was performed. Databases were assessed for presentation of ADR information, including presence of placebo comparisons, severity of ADR, onset of ADR, formatting of ADRs in percentile (quantitative) format or qualitative format, whether references were used to cite information, whether ADRs are grouped by organ system, and word count of the ADR section. Data were collected by two study investigators and discrepancies were resolved via consensus. Chi-square analyses and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used to evaluate for mean group differences in categorical and continuous data, respectively.

Results:

The seven DI databases varied significantly on each analyzed ADR variable, including variables known to impact interpretation such as placebo comparisons and qualitative versus quantitative formatting. Placebo comparisons were most common among monographs in Micromedex In-Depth Answers (70%) but were absent among monographs in Epocrates, Lexicomp, and Micromedex. Quantitative information was commonly used in most databases but was absent in Epocrates. Average word counts were higher in Clinical Pharmacology and Micromedex In-Depth answers compared to other databases.

Conclusion:

Substantial variation in ADR formatting exists between the most common DI databases. These differences may translate into alternative interpretations of medical information and, thus, impact clinical judgment. Further studies are needed to assess whether these differences impact clinical practice.

Adverse drug reactions in drug information databases: does presentation affect interpretation?

Objective

Formatting of adverse drug reaction (ADR) information differs among drug information (DI) resources and may impact clinical decision-making. The objective of this study was to determine whether ADR formatting impacts adverse event interpretation by pharmacy practitioners and students.

Methods

Participants were randomized to receive ADR information in a comparative quantitative (CQUANT), noncomparative quantitative (NQUANT), or noncomparative qualitative (NQUAL) format to interpret 3 clinical vignettes. Vignettes involved patients presenting with adverse events that varied in the extent to which they were associated with a medication. The primary outcome was interpretation of the likelihood of medication-induced adverse events on a 10-point Likert scale. Lower scoring on likelihood (i.e., ADR deemed unlikely) reflected more appropriate interpretation. Linear regression was performed to analyze the effects of ADR information format on the primary outcome.

Results

A total of 108 participants completed the study (39 students and 69 pharmacists). Overall, the CQUANT group had the lowest average likelihood compared to NQUAL (4.0 versus 5.4; p<0.01) and NQUANT (4.0 versus 4.9; p=0.016) groups. There was no difference between NQUAL and NQUANT groups (5.4 versus 4.9; p=0.14). In the final model, at least 2 years of postgraduate training (-1.1; 95% CI: -1.8 to -0.3; p<0.01) and CQUANT formatting (-1.3; 95% CI: -0.9 to -1.7; p<0.01) were associated with reduced likelihood.

Conclusions

Formatting impacts pharmacists' and pharmacy students' interpretation of ADR information. CQUANT formatting and at least two years of postgraduate training improved interpretation of adverse events.