Next Article in Journal
Management of Anticoagulation during Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Children
Previous Article in Journal
Recognizing the Emergent and Submerged Iceberg of the Celiac Disease: ITAMA Project—Global Strategy Protocol
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

A Prospective Study of Medication Surveillance of a Pediatric Tertiary Care Hospital in Lahore, Pakistan

1
Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Veterinary & Animal Sciences, Lahore 54000, Pakistan
2
School of Pharmacy, Monash University Malaysia, Bandar Sunway 47500, Malaysia
3
Faculty of Data Science and Information Technology, INTI International University, Nilai 71800, Malaysia
4
PAPRSB Institute of Health Sciences, Universiti Brunei Darussalam, Gadong BE1410, Brunei
5
Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Cyberjaya, Cyberjaya 63000, Malaysia
6
Faculty of Dentistry, University of Health Sciences, Lahore 54600, Pakistan
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Submission received: 11 April 2022 / Revised: 27 May 2022 / Accepted: 6 June 2022 / Published: 15 June 2022

Abstract

:
Purpose: Several studies have shown that polypharmacy is the main cause of drug interactions, and the prevalence and the level of the severity varied with the duration of stay in the hospital, sex and race of the patients. The aims of this investigation were to identify the drug-drug interactions in hospitalized pediatric patients associated with polypharmacy, and to categorize the drug interactions in pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic interactions according to their level of severity. Methods: A cross-sectional, prospective analytical study was performed at a pediatric tertiary care hospital in Lahore, Pakistan for the duration of 4 months, which included prescription orders for 300 patients. Data were collected from patient medical files about previous and current medication history. Drug interactions were analyzed using interaction checker on Medscape and categorized according to the severity levels. Results: Out of 300 patients, the occurrence of drug interactions was found in 157 (52.3%) patients, while in 143 (47.7%), no interaction was found. Among these interactions, 50.7% were pharmacodynamic interactions, and 49.30% were pharmacokinetic interactions. Eighty-one percent of prescription orders with drug interactions contained more than three drugs, and 11.9% of interactions were severe. The majority of interactions were of amikacin-vancomycin, piroxicam-captopril and captopril-ciprofloxacin. Conclusion: Most of the interactions were moderate among patients with multiple drug prescriptions. The drug interactions can be minimized by providing special patient monitoring and adequate management with prior knowledge of these drug interaction.

1. Introduction

Polypharmacy is one of the major reasons and the foremost vulnerability factor for drug-drug interactions (DDIs) in the tertiary health care setting [1]. There is no universal consensus on the definition of polypharmacy [2,3], but many researchers describe it as the concurrent use of 5 or more medications in a single prescription order [3,4]. Reasons for polypharmacy include multiple comorbidities, receiving advice from several physicians for the same disease at the same time, hospitalization and lack of education among the patients [5]. In any case, it leads to enhanced drug costs and compromised patient quality of life, but the most worrisome is the increased risk of adverse effects in patients due to the interaction of some of these co-prescribed medicines [5,6]. Decreasing the number of drugs per prescription can effectively lessen the adverse effects based on DDIs. However, sometimes in chronically ill patients with multiple comorbidities, polypharmacy cannot be avoided. Drug interactions, arising due to polypharmacy, can be minimized or managed when the prescribers and pharmacists have proper knowledge of action approach, pharmacogenomics, pharmacokinetics including absorption, elimination and metabolism of drugs as well as the clinical expertise to predict the risk factors. For instance, phenytoin is a drug inducer of CYP3A4 enzyme, which is responsible for metabolism of gefitinib [7]. As a result, its plasma concentration and pharmacological activity are reduced. Such types of interactions can be avoided by using alternative treatment options, dosage adjustments and spacing the time of administration of interacting drugs [6].
Generally, patients who experience adverse drug reactions (ADRs), have been taking many medicines simultaneously and have prolonged hospitalization. The chances of occurrence of an ADR episode have been reported to multiply by 1.14% with every additional medicine in the prescription [8]. Information regarding the occurrence of adverse drug reactions, prevention of medication errors and epidemiology in pediatric inpatient settings is scarce [9]. Health systems face distinct challenges in pediatric patients in terms of prescribing, dispensing, administering and monitoring medications. For example, as most of the pediatric dose calculations are based on patient’s body weight, prescribing medications generally requires rigorous calculations as compared to normal adults. Chances of error are also high as dispensing the pediatric medicine often requires dilution of stock solutions. Inability of younger patients to communicate with clinicians regarding possible mistakes in medicine administration could also be a problem in this regard. Several studies showed that polypharmacy was the main cause of drug interactions, and the prevalence and level of severity varied according to the duration of hospitalization, sex and race of the patients [9,10,11,12]. A study from Pakistan has reported that the prevalence of drug interactions was higher in cardiac patients and was dependent on age, gender and other diseases [13].
Most of the conducted studies regarding drug related problems are on adult patients, but pediatric and geriatric patients are at high risk of drug interactions because of compromised physiology and comorbidities. Thus, this study aimed to identify drug-drug interactions in hospitalized pediatric patients associated with polypharmacy and to categorize the drug interactions in pharmacokinetic (kinetics of drugs within the body) or pharmacodynamic (actions of drugs on the body) interactions according to their level of severity.

2. Methods

2.1. Study Design and Setting

This was a cross-sectional, prospective study carried out at one public pediatric tertiary care hospital in Lahore, Pakistan for the duration of four months, from 1 September to 31 December 2019. A structured data collection tool was finalized in a review of published literature by the research team. It comprised numbered items, and these items were shortlisted after consultation with the senior physicians practicing within the hospital. Moreover, any other information that was considered essential during data collection was noted regardless of the presence of this item in the data collection tool. Keeping in view the study objectives, an observational study design was recommended in the literature. A majority of studies investigating similar data have adopted a cross-sectional study design. In addition to allowing making solid recommendations, prospective data collection is preferred over retrospective data. The data were collected by reviewing the previous and current medication histories based on medical records of hospitalized pediatric patients who were admitted in different wards of the hospital. Drug interactions were analyzed by using the interaction checker on ‘Medscape drug interaction checker’, easily available online and accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME, Chicago IL, United States) (https://reference.medscape.com/drug-interactionchecker (accessed on 10 September 2021))and categorized according to severity level, i.e., severe, moderate and minor, as described by Medscape (https://reference.medscape.com/drug-interactionchecker (10 September 2022))or other research [14]. Samples were selected using a random number generator in Excel (Microsoft Office Professional Plus 2016). The inclusion criterion was in-patients undergoing treatment at different wards of the hospital. The maximum age limit was 14 years. None of the patients undergoing critical surgery or admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) were included in the study. As all of the patients were under 18, their guardians were guided through verbal and written literature and consent was obtained. A patient was excluded from the study if their guardian withdrew consent at any time during the study.

2.2. Ethical Consideration

The study was approved by the ethical committee of University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences (Ref. No. IPS/2018/11). Strict patient data confidentiality and compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki were observed.

2.3. Data Analysis

Baseline demographic data were presented using descriptive statistics with frequencies and percentages. Data analysis was performed using Microsoft Excel and SPSS (version 23.0). The distribution for each variable in all categories was examined by an analysis of frequencies and percentages.

3. Results

Data were collected from 300 hospitalized patient files that belonged to four different wards including medical, neurology, nephrology and cardiac wards of a tertiary care hospital. Of the patients, 38.6% were males, and 61.4% were females. The patients belonged to different age groups ranging from 1 month to 5 years (65.67%), 5.1 to 10 years (24%) and 10.1 to 14 years (10.34%). All patients were below 14 years of age (Figure 1).
A total of 434 drug interactions were found in the medical records using Medscape drug interaction checker and categorized according to severity level, i.e., severe, moderate and minor [14]. Most of the drug interactions were considered moderate (58.1%, 252/434), followed by minor (29.9%, 130/434) and severe (11.9%, 52/434). These interactions included different kinds of drug pairs as shown in Table 1. The highest percentage of DDIs was found to be for ceftriaxone and calcium gluconate combination (25%, severe). Ceftriaxone co-administration with phenytoin stood second in prevalence (13.5%, minor). It is worth mentioning that most of the drugs that showed DDIs belonged to anti-infective group, e.g., ceftriaxone, amikacin, vancomycin, ciprofloxacin, clarithromycin, moxifloxacin, clarithromycin and rifampicin. Anti-hypertensive agents including captopril (9.60%), losartan (5.80%), furosemide (3.80%), spironolactone (1.90%), etc. also showed greater numbers of DDIs. The remaining drugs that showed higher percentages of DDIs were analgesics, e.g., piroxicam and tramadol (Table 1).
After screening the patients’ medical records, it was found that more than half (52.3%, 157/300) had experienced DDIs, and more than 40% of those had only one drug interaction (Figure 2). As expected, the number of DDIs increased with an increase in the number of prescribed drugs. There were 32 prescriptions with one to three prescribed drugs, while the remainder had more drugs in each prescription.

4. Discussion

In the current study, 300 prescriptions were analyzed from pediatric patients; almost half (52.3%, 157/300) of the prescriptions were found to have caused drug-drug interactions. Most of the interactions were found to be moderate (58.1%); however, minor (29.9%) and severe (11.9%) interactions were also found. Pharmacodynamics-based interactions were prevalent compared to interactions based on drug pharmacokinetics. Most of the prescriptions (89.34%) included more than three drugs prescribed, and only 10.66% included 1–3 drugs per prescription. Polypharmacy and prospective drug-drug interactions have been a therapeutic challenge among inpatients [15]. Such investigations among pediatric inpatients have been lacking; therefore, the available data are sparse. In this context, our study was designed to analyze the prospective drug-drug interactions among pediatric patients in a tertiary care hospital. Reducing the polypharmacy, finding non-pharmacological possibilities, re-assessing the treatment options routinely, modifying dosage schedules, adjusting dosage and continuous monitoring for signs of effectiveness and toxicity could be possible approaches for minimizing DDIs.
The most frequent drug-drug interaction (25%, ceftriaxone and calcium gluconate) (Table 1) was categorized as severe and of the pharmacokinetic type. This interaction has also been previously reported in both pediatric and adult patients [16,17]. Co-administration of these drugs can lead to particulate precipitation with risk of end-organ damage. It has been recommended that comixing of calcium-containing IV solutions and ceftriaxone should be avoided to prevent the precipitation reactions. The second most prevalent interaction (13.5%, ceftriaxone with phenytoin) (Table 1) was categorized as minor and of the pharmacodynamic type. The concomitant therapy can displace phenytoin from conventional protein carriers in vitro and in vivo. This interaction has also been reported before [18,19] and could lead to increased serum phenytoin concentrations. It has been recommended to monitor free phenytoin concentration to avoid any toxic reactions in patients, especially in hypo-albuminemic situations [18].
Captopril co-administration with other drugs was found to be highly prevalent. Most drug-drug interactions were of the pharmacodynamic type and of moderate to severe levels (Table 1). Its interaction with piroxicam (9.60%), ciprofloxacin (7.70%) and losartan (5.80%) can interfere with the metabolism of other drugs and can lead to concentration-based toxicity events in these patients. Toxic piroxicam levels could result in gastro-intestinal symptoms, electrolyte imbalance, seizure, coagulopathy and bone marrow aplasia in pediatric patients [20]. Concurrent use of ciprofloxacin with captopril can lead to elevated serum ciprofloxacin levels and results in musculoskeletal (arthralgia) adverse events in children [21]. Toxic concentrations of losartan, due to coadministration with captopril, can also lead to pharmacodynamic synergism and unwanted events in both children and adults.
Anti-infective agents were identified as the most frequently prescribed drug-combination categories (Table 1, Sr. No. 3, 7, 10, 16 and 17). Most of these co-administrations could lead to severe drug-drug interactions and result in unwanted toxic events in the patients. The reason for pairing one anti-infective agent with another, similar drug could be the desire to achieve enhanced efficacy in patients with severe morbid conditions [14]. However, these drug interactions can result in unwanted toxic effects in critically ill patients, especially in children. Strong monitoring for dose adjustments and adverse effects and identifying possibilities for alternative therapies are recommended in these patients.
These facts and figures show that drug-drug interactions are a challenging problem in health care systems. There are several factors that contribute to the occurrence of potential drug-drug interactions in tertiary care settings. These include polypharmacy, non-availability of clinical pharmacists, and poor hospital and government policies regarding drug-drug interactions. Polypharmacy is one of the major reasons for DDIs in secondary and tertiary health care settings [15]. Decreasing the number of drugs per prescription can effectively lessen the incidence of DDIs [22]. However, sometimes in chronically ill patients with cardiovascular disorders or diabetes, polypharmacy cannot be avoided [23]. These interactions can be minimized when the prescribers and pharmacists have proper knowledge of the modes of action, pharmacogenomics, and pharmacokinetics, including absorption, elimination and metabolism of drugs as well as the clinical expertise to predict the risk factors. Hospital and community pharmacists can play a critical role in preventing DDIs by thoroughly reviewing the prescriptions at the hospital as well as community level. This can be achieved by designing proper screening systems and effective pharmaceutical care plans and individualizing the therapy for patients [24].
The current study does not depict the whole population; only a representative pediatric sample from one city in Pakistan was utilized. Similar studies can be planned in other cities belonging to different provinces of Pakistan in the future.

5. Conclusions

Our investigations provided preliminary data on the possibility of drug-drug interactions in pediatric inpatients in a tertiary health care hospital. They also identified highly prevalent drugs and drug categories that are mostly paired in prescriptions and can lead to unwanted adverse effects in patients. A future possible area of study could be drug-disease interactions in patients. Proper education, training, and a system of prescription monitoring can help in lessening such unwanted cases. That goal also demands the development of policies to prevent such events in future and better deal with the situation.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, H.A.N. and T.M.K.; Formal analysis, H.A.N., T.M.K., Q.A. and A.Q.B.; Investigation, T.M.K., Q.A., K.W.G. and K.S.L.; Methodology, H.A.N. and T.M.K.; Resources, K.W.G. and L.C.M.; Supervision, T.M.K.; Validation, K.W.G.; Writing—original draft, H.A.N., T.M.K. and Q.A.; Writing—review and editing, H.A.N., T.M.K., J.S.D., A.Q.B., L.C.M. and K.S.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences (Ref. No. IPS/2018/11).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all patients involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We thank the Head of Health Information Management Services and Medical Records Officer at the participating hospital for their assistance with data collection.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Obreli-Neto, P.R.; Nobili, A.; de Lyra, D.P., Jr.; Pilger, D.; Guidoni, C.M.; de Oliveira Baldoni, A.; Cruciol-Souza, J.M.; Freitas, A.L.d.; Tettamanti, M.; Gaeti, W.P.; et al. Incidence and predictors of adverse drug reactions caused by drug-drug interactions in elderly outpatients: A prospective cohort study. J. Pharm. Pharm. Sci. 2012, 15, 332–343. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Masnoon, N.; Shakib, S.; Kalisch-Ellett, L.; Caughey, G.E. What is polypharmacy? A systematic review of definitions. Biomed. Cent. Geriatr. 2017, 17, 230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Banerjee, A.; Mbamalu, D.; Ebrahimi, S.; Khan, A.A.; Chan, T.F. The prevalence of polypharmacy in elderly attenders to an emergency department-A problem with a need for an effective solution. Int. J. Emerg. Med. 2011, 4, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Halli-Tierney, A.D.; Scarbrough, C.; Carroll, D. Polypharmacy: Evaluating risks and deprescribing. Am. Acad. Fam. Physician 2019, 100, 32–38. [Google Scholar]
  5. Rambhade, S.; Chakarborty, A.; Shrivastava, A.; Patil, U.K.; Rambhade, A. A survey on polypharmacy and use of inappropriate medications. Toxicol. Int. 2012, 19, 68–73. [Google Scholar]
  6. Dookeeram, D.; Bidaisee, S.; Paul, J.F.; Nunes, P.; Robertson, P.; Maharaj, V.R.; Sammy, I. Polypharmacy and potential drug-drug interactions in emergency department patients in the Caribbean. Int. J. Clin. Pharm. 2017, 39, 1119–1127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Chhun, S.; Verstuyft, C.; Rizzo-Padoin, N.; Simoneau, G.; Becquemont, L.; Peretti, I.; Swaisland, A.; Wortelboer, R.; Bergmann, J.F.; Mouly, S. Gefitinib—Phenytoin interaction is not correlated with the 14 C-erythromycin breath test in healthy male volunteers. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2009, 68, 226–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Davies, E.C.; Green, C.F.; Taylor, S.; Williamson, P.R.; Mottram, D.R.; Pirmohamed, M. Adverse drug reactions in hospital in-patients: A prospective analysis of 3695 patient-episodes. Public Libr. Sci. One 2009, 4, e4439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Kaushal, R.; Bates, D.W.; Landrigan, C.; Mckenna, K.J.; Clapp, M.D.; Federico, F.; Goldmann, D.A. Medication Errors and Adverse Drug Events in Pediatric Inpatients. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 2001, 285, 2114–2120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Feinstein, J.; Dai, D.; Zhong, W.; Freedman, J.; Feudtner, C. Potential drug-drug interactions in infant, child, and adolescent patients in Children’s Hospitals. Pediatrics 2015, 135, e99-108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Swaminathan, S.; Rekha, B. Pediatric tuberculosis: Global overview and challenges. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2010, 50, S184–S194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Janchawee, B.; Owatranporn, T.; Mahatthanatrakul, W.; Chongsuvivatwong, V. Clinical drug interactions in outpatients of a university hospital in Thailand. J. Clin. Pharm. Ther. 2005, 30, 583–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Murtaza, G.; Khan, M.Y.G.; Azhar, S.; Khan, S.A.; Khan, T.M. Assessment of potential drug-drug interactions and its associated factors in the hospitalized cardiac patients. Saudi Pharm. J. 2016, 24, 220–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Patel, P.S.; Rana, D.A.; Suthar, J.V.; Malhotra, S.D.; Patel, V.J. A study of potential adverse drug-drug interactions among prescribed drugs in medicine outpatient department of a tertiary care teaching hospital. J. Basic Clin. Pharm. 2014, 5, 44–48. [Google Scholar]
  15. Sharifi, H.; Hasanloei, M.A.V.; Mahmoudi, J. Polypharmacy-induced drug-drug interactions; Threats to patient safety. Drug Res. 2014, 64, 633–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Steadman, E.; Raisch, D.W.; Bennett, C.L.; Esterly, J.S.; Becker, T.; Postelnick, M.; McKoy, J.M.; Trifilio, S.; Yarnold, P.R.; Scheetz, M.H. Evaluation of a potential clinical interaction between ceftriaxone and calcium. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2010, 54, 1534–1540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Noor, S.; Ismail, M.; Khadim, F. Potential drug-drug interactions associated with adverse clinical outcomes and abnormal laboratory findings in patients with malaria. Malar. J. 2020, 19, 316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Dasgupta, A.; Dennen, D.A.; Dean, R.; McLawhon, R.W. Displacement of phenytoin from serum protein carriers by antibiotics: Studies with ceftriazone, nafcillin, and sulfamethoxazole. Clin. Chem. 1991, 37, 98–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Kakkar, A.; Chilkoti, G.; Mohta, M.; Sethi, A.K.; Arora, M. Phenytoin induced sinoatrial bradyarrhythmia in the perioperative period. Indian J. Anaesth. 2013, 57, 628–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Macdougall, L.G.; Taylor-Smith, A.; Rothberg, A.D.; Thomson, P.D. Piroxicam poisoning in a 2-year-old child. A case report. South Afr. Med. J. 1984, 66, 31–33. [Google Scholar]
  21. Adefurin, A.; Sammons, H.; Jacqz-Aigrain, E.; Choonara, I. Ciprofloxacin safety in paediatrics: A systematic review. Arch. Dis. Child. 2011, 96, 874–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Kohler, G.I.; Bode-Boger, S.M.; Busse, R.; Hoopmann, M.; Welte, T.; Boger, R.H. Drug-drug interactions in medical patients: Effects of in-hospital treatment and relation to multiple drug use. Int. J. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 2000, 38, 504–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Nobili, A.; Garattini, S.; Mannucci, P.M. Multiple Diseases and Polypharmacy in the Elderly: Challenges for the Internist of the Third Millennium. J. Comorbidity 2011, 1, 28–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Chatsisvili, A.; Sapounidis, I.; Pavlidou, G.; Zoumpouridou, E.; Karakousis, V.A.; Spanakis, M.; Teperikidis, L.; Niopas, I. Potential drug-drug interactions in prescriptions dispensed in community pharmacies in Greece. Pharm. World Sci. 2010, 32, 187–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Occurrence of types of DDIs in examined prescriptions.
Figure 1. Occurrence of types of DDIs in examined prescriptions.
Pediatrrep 14 00038 g001
Figure 2. Distribution of patients/prescription orders on the basis of number of drug interactions reported (n = 157).
Figure 2. Distribution of patients/prescription orders on the basis of number of drug interactions reported (n = 157).
Pediatrrep 14 00038 g002
Table 1. Reported drug interaction pairs.
Table 1. Reported drug interaction pairs.
Sr. No.InteractionInteraction SeverityClinical OutcomesClass of InteractionPrevalence
1Ceftriaxone + calcium gluconateSevereFatal particulate precipitation in lungs and kidneys.Pharmacokinetic25%
2Ceftriaxone + phenytoinMinorCeftriaxone increases toxicity of phenytoin.Pharmacodynamic13.50%
3Amikacin + vancomycinModerateBoth increase nephrotoxicity.Pharmacodynamic9.60%
4Piroxicam + captoprilModeratePharmacodynamic antagonism increases toxicity.Pharmacodynamic9.60%
5Captopril + ciprofloxacin ModerateCaptopril increases toxicity of ciprofloxacin.Pharmacodynamic7.70%
6Losartan + captoprilSevereIncreases toxicity by pharmacodynamic synergism.Pharmacodynamic5.80%
7Piperacillin + vancomycinSevereIncreases nephrotoxicity and ototoxicity.Pharmacodynamic3.80%
8Furosemide + amikacinSevereIncrease toxicity by pharmacodynamic synergism.Pharmacodynamic3.80%
9Sodium bicarbonate + digoxinSevereSodium bicarbonate enhances the digoxin levels by increasing gastric pH.Pharmacokinetic3.80%
10Clarithromycin + moxifloxacinSevereClarithromycin and moxifloxacin both increase QTc interval.Pharmacodynamic3.80%
11Aspirin + spiranolactoneModerateAspirin decreases effect of spironolactone.Pharmacodynamic1.90%
12Carbamazepine + nitrazipamModerateCarbamazepine affects the hepatic/intestinal enzyme CYP3A4 metabolism and decreases the level or effect of diazepam.Pharmacokinetic1.90%
13Linezolid + tramadolSevereBoth increase serotonin level. Linezolid increases serotonin by inhibition of MAO.Pharmacodynamic1.90%
14Promethazine + clarithromycinSevereBoth increase QT interval.Pharmacodynamic1.90%
15Clarithromycin + hydrocortisoneSevereClarithromycin affects the hepatic/intestinal enzyme CYP3A4 metabolism and enhances the hydrocortisone level/effect. Pharmacokinetic1.90%
16Rifampicin + isoniazidSevereRifampicin increases toxicity of isoniazid.Pharmacokinetic1.90%
17Rifampicin + pyrazinamideSevereRifampicin increases toxicity of pyrazinamide.Pharmacodynamic1.90%
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Nawaz, H.A.; Khan, T.M.; Adil, Q.; Goh, K.W.; Ming, L.C.; Blebil, A.Q.; Lee, K.S.; Dhaliwal, J.S. A Prospective Study of Medication Surveillance of a Pediatric Tertiary Care Hospital in Lahore, Pakistan. Pediatr. Rep. 2022, 14, 312-319. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/pediatric14020038

AMA Style

Nawaz HA, Khan TM, Adil Q, Goh KW, Ming LC, Blebil AQ, Lee KS, Dhaliwal JS. A Prospective Study of Medication Surveillance of a Pediatric Tertiary Care Hospital in Lahore, Pakistan. Pediatric Reports. 2022; 14(2):312-319. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/pediatric14020038

Chicago/Turabian Style

Nawaz, Hafiz Awais, Tahir Mehmood Khan, Qendeel Adil, Khang Wen Goh, Long Chiau Ming, Ali Qais Blebil, Kah Seng Lee, and Jagjit Singh Dhaliwal. 2022. "A Prospective Study of Medication Surveillance of a Pediatric Tertiary Care Hospital in Lahore, Pakistan" Pediatric Reports 14, no. 2: 312-319. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/pediatric14020038

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop