Consensus recommendations for systematic evaluation of drug-drug interaction evidence for clinical decision support.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare organizations, compendia, and drug knowledgebase vendors use varying methods to evaluate and synthesize evidence on drug-drug interactions (DDIs). This situation has a negative effect on electronic prescribing and medication information systems that warn clinicians of potentially harmful medication combinations. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to provide recommendations for systematic evaluation of evidence for DDIs from the scientific literature, drug product labeling, and regulatory documents. METHODS: A conference series was conducted to develop a structured process to improve the quality of DDI alerting systems. Three expert workgroups were assembled to address the goals of the conference. The Evidence Workgroup consisted of 18 individuals with expertise in pharmacology, drug information, biomedical informatics, and clinical decision support. Workgroup members met via webinar 12 times from January 2013 to February 2014. Two in-person meetings were conducted in May and September 2013 to reach consensus on recommendations. RESULTS: We developed expert consensus answers to the following three key questions. (i) What is the best approach to evaluate DDI evidence? (ii) What evidence is required for a DDI to be applicable to an entire class of drugs? (iii) How should a structured evaluation process be vetted and validated? CONCLUSION: Evidence-based decision support for DDIs requires consistent application of transparent and systematic methods to evaluate the evidence. Drug compendia and clinical decision support systems in which these recommendations are implemented should be able to provide higher-quality information about DDIs.

The role and education of the veterinary pharmacist.

OBJECTIVE: To define the role and education of the traditional pharmacist who supports the needs of the veterinarian (hereafter referred to as veterinary pharmacist) and a pharmacist who practices solely in veterinary pharmacy (here after referred to as veterinary pharmacy specialist). METHODS: The Delphi technique involving 7 panels of 143 experts was employed to reach consensus on the definition of the roles and education of the veterinary pharmacist and veterinary pharmacy specialist. RESULTS: The veterinary pharmacy specialist's role included dispensing medications, complying with regulations, advocating for quality therapeutic practices, and providing consultative services, research, and education. The perceived role of the veterinary pharmacist was viewed as being somewhat narrower. Compared to veterinary pharmacists, a more in-depth education in veterinary medicine was viewed as essential to the role development of veterinary pharmacy specialists. CONCLUSIONS: The authors hope their research will promote widespread awareness of the emerging field of veterinary pharmacy and encourage schools to offer increased access to clinically relevant professional training programs.