
==== Front
Arch Public Health
Arch Public Health
Archives of Public Health
0778-7367
2049-3258
BioMed Central London

1381
10.1186/s13690-024-01381-7
Research
Recognizing and preventing unacknowledged prescribing errors associated with polypharmacy
Gentile Giovanna 12
Casale Antonio Del 34
De Luca Ottavia 2
Salerno Gerardo 12
Spirito Sara 1
Regiani Martina 5
Regiani Matteo 5
Preissner Saskia 6
Rocco Monica 78
Preissner Robert 9
Simmaco Maurizio 12
Borro Marina marina.borro@uniroma1.it

12
1 Via di Grottarossa 1035/1039, Rome, 00189 Italy
2 grid.18887.3e 0000000417581884 Laboratory of Clinical Biochemistry, Advanced Molecular Diagnostic Unit, Sant’Andrea University Hospital, Via di Grottarossa 1035/1039, Rome, 00189 Italy
3 https://ror.org/02be6w209 grid.7841.a Department of Dynamic and Clinical Psychology and Health Studies, Faculty of Medicine and Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, Roma, 00189 Italy
4 grid.18887.3e 0000000417581884 Unit of Psychiatry, Sant’Andrea University Hospital, Via di Grottarossa 1035/1039, Rome, 00189 Italy
5 grid.7841.a Faculty of Medicine and Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, Roma, 00189 Italy
6 grid.7468.d 0000 0001 2248 7639 Department Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Berlin Institute of Health, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany
7 https://ror.org/02be6w209 grid.7841.a Department of Medical-Surgical Sciences and Translational Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, 00189 Italy
8 grid.18887.3e 0000000417581884 Unit of Anaesthesia, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, Sant’Andrea University Hospital, Via di Grottarossa 1035/1039, Rome, 00189 Italy
9 https://ror.org/001w7jn25 grid.6363.0 0000 0001 2218 4662 Structural Bioinformatics Group, Institute for Physiology, Charité-University Medicine Berlin, 10117 Berlin, Germany
4 9 2024
4 9 2024
2024
82 14622 1 2024
23 8 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
Background

Prescribing errors put an enormous burden on health and the economy, claiming implementation of effective methods to prevent/reduce them. Polypharmacy regimens (five or more drugs) are highly prone to unacknowledged prescribing errors, since the complex network of drug-drug interactions, guidelines and contraindications is challenging to be adequately evaluated in the prescription phase, especially if different doctors are involved. Clinical decision support systems aimed at polypharmacy evaluation may be crucial to recognize and correct prescribing errors.

Methods

A commercial clinical decision support system (Drug-PIN®) was applied to estimate the frequency of unrecognized prescribing errors in a group of 307 consecutive patients accessing the hospital pre-admission service of the Sant’Andrea Hospital of Rome, Italy, in the period April-June 2023. Drug-PIN® is a two-step system, first scoring the risk (low, moderate or high) associated with a certain therapy-patient pair, then allowing therapy optimization by medications exchanges. We defined prescribing errors as cases where therapy optimization could achieve consistent reduction of the Drug-PIN® calculated risk.

Results

Polypharmacy was present in 205 patients, and moderate to high risk for medication harm was predicted by Drug-PIN® in 91 patients (29.6%). In 58 of them (63.7%), Drug-PIN® guided optimization of the therapy could be achieved, with a statistically significant reduction of the calculated therapy-associated risk score. Patients whose therapy cannot be improved have a statistically significant higher number of used drugs. Considering the overall study population, the rate of avoidable prescribing errors was 18.89%.

Conclusions

Results suggest that computer-aided evaluation of medication-associated harm could be a valuable and actionable tool to identify and prevent prescribing errors in polypharmacy. We conducted the study in a Hospital pre-admission setting, which is not representative of the general population but represents a hotspot to intercept fragile population, where a consistent fraction of potentially harmful polypharmacy regimens could be promptly identified and corrected by systematic use of adequate clinical decision support tools.

Keywords

Medication errors
Prescribing errors
Polypharmacy
Drug-drug interactions
Drug-PIN®
issue-copyright-statement© BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2024
==== Body
pmc Text box 1. Contributions to the literature	
• Polypharmacy, defined as the simultaneous use of five or more drugs, is associated with increased rates of adverse drug reactions, hospitalization, poor adherence and compliance.	
• The medication harm associated with polypharmacy represents a serious social and economic burden.	
• Novel approaches using bioinformatics decision support tools to improve appropriate prescription of polypharmacy are presently actionable. They are expected to improve significantly the efficacy and the safety of polypharmacy.	

Background

The World Health Organization (WHO) initiative “Medication Without Harm” [1], launched in 2017, highlights the urgency to reduce the burden of patient’s injury related to medication errors (MEs).

MEs have been defined by the US National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention [2] as “any preventable event that may cause or lead to inappropriate medication use or patient harm while the medication is in the control of the health-care professional, patient, or consumer. Such events may be related to professional practice, health care products, procedures, and systems, including prescribing, order communication, product labelling, packaging, and nomenclature, compounding, dispensing, distribution, administration, education, monitoring, and use.”

Although the rate of MEs varies in different settings, and just a minor fraction causes patient harm, they have been claimed as a non-registered cause of lethal events estimated to be the third cause of death in the USA [3]. In the clinical environment, MEs have been reported to affect up to 50% of prescriptions during hospitalization, to increase healthcare costs by billions of dollars annually, and to occur at increased rates in older people, fragile patients, and polypharmacy regimens (e.g. including five or more drugs) [4–6]. The WHO identified three main critical areas of intervention to reduce harmful MEs, which are the transition of care phase, high-risk situations (such as infancy/elderly) and polypharmacy [1].

Prescription errors (PEs) in polypharmacy are peculiar MEs which may remain unacknowledged by basic inspection of the medication regimen, reducing the appropriateness of the treatment. Defining the optimal drug combination for each patient is complicated by the wide network of pharmacological indications, contraindications and potential drug-drug interactions (DDIs) [7–9]. DDIs happen when a drug alters the pharmacokinetic and/or the pharmacokinetic profile of co-administered drugs, and are mainly due to multiple molecular effects played on human proteins acting as drug targets, drug transporters and drug metabolizing enzymes (DMEs), mainly the cytochrome P450 (CYP450) enzymes [10]. CYP450s are key effectors of DDIs, since drugs can induce/inhibit their drug metabolizing activity, affecting the circulating level of substrate drugs.

Since so many interacting variables determine the appropriateness of polypharmacy, bioinformatics support is needed to consistently screen and interpret a huge bulk of drug-related information, including thousands of potential DDIs. Otherwise, PEs causing inappropriate treatment would likely remain unacknowledged, until a patient’s injury is recorded.

Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) aimed at reliable and pre-emptive estimation of polypharmacy are increasingly available. They apply specifically developed algorithms and automated knowledgebase consultation to generate prescription warnings and to guide informed drug selection and co-prescription [11–13]. It is noteworthy to note that inappropriate drug combinations often is caused by prescriptions from two or more specialists engaged in caring for the same patient, with poor doctor-doctor and doctor-patient communication. To ensure proper poly-pharmacy evaluation and harmonization, it is recommended to perform systematic medication reconciliation (MedRec), that is, the process of accurately compiling the medication history of a patient and comparing the list(s) of prescribed drugs with the list of used drugs, including over-the-counter medications and dietary supplements [14–18].

We previously tested the clinical utility of the Drug-PIN® system, a CDSS developed to evaluate and improve the polypharmacy appropriateness supporting informed drug selection, finding improved clinical outcomes in patients whose polypharmacy prescription was Drug-PIN®-guided [19–21]. Drug-PIN® is based on a deep-learning algorithm performing a multi-pass analysis and increasing the polynomial order of calculation for each factor added to the patient’s record [22, 23]. The algorithm integrates data from different knowledgebase (clinical recommendations, drug labels and DDIs profiles), patient data as demographics (age, gender), habits (smoking, alcohol and caffeine consumption), clinical history (co-morbidities, hepatic/renal function) and pharmacogenomic data, if available. Reference sources used by the algorithm include the PRISCUS list and the Beers criteria, reporting age-related recommendations for drug prescription [24, 25]. Given the list of used drugs and the patient’s data, the Drug-PIN® algorithm generates a numerical index, representing a theoretical therapy-associated risk score (TARS): the greater the TARS, the higher the risk of medication harm, intended as inefficacy and/or safety. According to TARS values, medication regimens are classified as low, moderate or high risk of medication harm for a given patient. In the case of moderate or high-risk therapies, the CDSS allows the selection of alternative drugs from a ranked list of medications fitting the same therapeutic group, thus enabling therapy improvement (e.g. a TARS reduction).

In this study, we used Drug-PIN® in the frame of a formal MedRec process ongoing at the University Hospital Sant’Andrea of Rome, with the aim to evaluate the rate of unacknowledged PEs detectable by the system (defining PEs as the fraction of therapies with moderate- or high- TARS) and the fraction of such PEs which could be prevented by Drug-PIN®-guided polypharmacy selection. The study retrospectively analyzed medication regimens in 307 consecutive patients accessing the hospital pre-admission service, preceding their elective hospital admissions.

Methods

Study design and population

This is a retrospective, observational study analyzing anonymized data collected from 307 consecutive patients accessing the pre-admission service of the University Hospital Sant’Andrea of Rome, Italy, from April to June 2023. The hospital pre-admission process consists of an in-person patient appointment within two to three weeks before the elective (planned) hospital admission. During the appointment, nurses/doctors collect information about patient’s current health status and medical condition, perform medication reconciliation, make the preanesthetic assessment, conduct tests such as basic metabolic blood tests, blood pressure test, electrocardiogram, and inform the patient about the programmed medical procedures. Data anonymization by data masking has been performed by appointed authorized personnel dedicated to the pre-admission service.

The patient data collected for the study were: gender, age, body mass index (BMI), the complete list of used drugs obtained by the MedRec process and biochemical parameters obtained at the pre-admission blood sampling: glomerular filtration rate (GFR), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST).

Medications evaluation/optimization by Drug-PIN®

The commercial software Drug-PIN® was used to calculate a therapy-associated risk score (TARS). Briefly, the risk of inefficacy/toxicity of a given therapy is obtained by inserting available patient data (gender, age, BMI, GFR, ALT, AST) and the list of used drugs. The TARS value is associated with a risk class as follows: low-risk (LR, TARS < 50); moderate-risk (MR, 50 ≤ TARS < 70); high-risk (HR, TARS ≥ 70). This first-pass step also produces a more detailed report listing age-related contraindications, other major contraindications (as duplicate prescriptions and not recommended co-prescriptions), warnings related to impaired renal/hepatic function and the drugs-CYP450 interaction profile (e.g. substrate, inducer, inhibitor) involved in the medication regimen.

In the second step, the inputted medication regimen can be optimized by exchanging a drug with an alternative medication within the same therapeutic class. Exchanging drugs, the TARS is updated, and the best medication regimen can be defined by reiterating the drug-exchanging step until achieving the lower TARS. The clinician performing optimization can preliminarily set eventual drugs not to substitute for.

Statistics

Data were analyzed using the SPSS software version 27 (IBM Statistics). The normality of continuous data were assessed by the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. As data were non-normally distributed, they were reported as median and inter-quartile range (IQR) and analyzed by non-parametric testing. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was applied to analyze differences between TARS values, before and after therapy optimization. The Kruskall-Wallis test was applied to analyze differences between patients whose TARS could be reduced by Drug-PIN® therapy optimization and patients whose TARS could not be reduced.

All patients were also categorized, according to TARS values, as patients with low-risk (LR), moderate-risk (MR) or high-risk (HR) for therapy-associated harm (TARS < 50, 50 ≤ TARS < 70, TARS ≥ 70, respectively). Frequencies of categorical variables were analyzed by χ-square testing. Post-hoc power calculation was performed using the online calculator ClinCalc.com [26].

Results

The study analyzed anonymized data from 307 patients’ records consecutively collected at the hospital pre-admission service of the Sant’Andrea University Hospital of Rome, Italy. Most patients (63.8%) had planned access to surgical areas, whereas the remaining patients had planned access to other wards including internal medicine, cardiology, gastroenterology, neurology, and urology.

Continuous data were non-normally distributed and thus analyzed by non-parametric testing. Table 1 reports patient characteristics in the overall cohort and in groups of patients stratified according to TARS value calculated by Drug-PIN®, as follows: low risk (LR group, TARS < 50); moderate risk (MR, 50 ≤ TARS < 70); high risk (HR, TARS ≥ 70). No statistically significant differences in gender distribution among LR, MR and HR groups (χ-square testing) were detected.

Table 1 Comparison of patient characteristics and number of used drugs in subjects classified as LR, MR or HR by Drug-PIN® therapy evaluation. Data are reported as median and inter-quartile range (IQR). Data were collected at the Sant’Andrea Hospital of Rome, Italy, during pre-admission service from April to June 2023

Risk group	Gender	Age (IQR)	BMI (IQR)	GFR (IQR)	AST (U/l) (IQR)	ALT (U/l) (IQR)	Drugs (IQR)	
LR (N = 216)	M: 47.4%	66 (58–73)	26.2 (23-30.8)	89.4 (74.8–99.1)	24 (20–29)	22 (17-31.5)	5 (4–6)	
MR (N = 37)	M: 62.2%	73 (65.5–78)	26.2 (24.3–32.1)	79.3 (65.1–87.4)	25 (20-29.5)	18 (14–25)	7 (7–9)	
HR (N = 54)	M: 50%	73.5 (66–80)	28 (24.7–30.8)	66.3 (45.2–84)	24 (19-30.5)	19 (13–31)	9.5 (8-12.2)	
Overall (N = 307)	M: 49.8%	68 (61–75)	26.4 (23.4–31.1)	84.5 (67.7–95.2)	24 (20-29.7)	21.5 (15–29)	6 (4–8)	
BMI: body mass index; GFR: glomerular filtration rate; AST: aspartate aminotransferase; ALT: alanine aminotransferase

Polypharmacy (≥ 5 drugs) was present in 205 patients (66.8%). All therapies including < 5 drugs were classified by Drug-PIN® as LR except for 2 therapies (both including 4 drugs) classified as MR. Among polypharmacies, 116 (56.58%) were classified as LR, 35 (17.07%) as MR and 54 (26.34%) as HR. Comparing LR, MR and HR patients, a statistically significant difference in median age, glomerular filtration rate (GFR) and number of used drugs has been detected by the Kruskall-Wallis test (p < 0.001), as expected (Table 1).

Drug-PIN®-guided optimization was performed for all therapies scored as MR and HR (thus considered potentially harmful). In this group of patients, including 91 of 307 patients (29.6%), optimization reduced the median TARS from a value of 79.5 (IQR: 61.9-104.1) to a value of 55.6 (IQR: 33.1–94.9), a statistically significant change (Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test, p < 0.001).

Table 2 shows two examples of polypharmacy optimization. The medication regimen of patient 1 was classified as high risk (TARS = 74.77) and was composed of 7 drugs, including cholecalciferol and calcitriol, both forms of vitamin D. The Drug-PIN® report highlighted that such co-prescription has major contraindications due to toxicity of excess vitamin D [27]. Further, the report showed multiple interactions of each medication with the same metabolic enzyme: all of them affect the CYP450 isoform 3A4, 6 medications affect the 3A5 isoform, 4 medications affect the 2C19 isoform and 3 medications affect the 2C9 and 2D6 isoforms. The TARS was lowered to 22.47 by exchanging the cholesterol-lowering drug simvastatin with pitavastatin and the proton pump inhibitor esomeprazole with roxatidine, and deprescribing cholecalciferol, thus decreasing the number of CYP450s engaged by multiple drugs and removing major contraindications.

The polypharmacy taken by patient 2 was classified as moderate risk (TARS = 74.77) and was composed of 6 drugs, including four antihypertensive medications (amlodipine, bisoprolol, valsartan, hydrochlorothiazide). In this medication regimen, the Drug-PIN® report highlighted a moderate contraindication for bisoprolol and valsartan co-prescription, due to a possible increase of blood potassium [28]. Further, 4 drugs are shown to inhibit the CYP450 isoforms involved in bisoprolol metabolism. Selection of alternative drugs, as shown in Table 2, lowered the TARS to 17.3, thanks to the elimination of contrasting drug-CYP450 interactions.

Table 2 Examples of TARS minimization using Drug-PIN® guided medication exchange/deprescription. The reported polypharmacies concern two subjects accessing the pre-admission service, Sant’Andrea Hospital of Rome, Italy, in the period April-June 2023

Patient 1 (Female, aged 66, BMI: 33.3, creatinine: 0.72 mg/dl; ALT: 19 U/L; AST: 19 U/L)	TARS	
Polypharmacy	Cortisone	Levothyroxine	Amitriptyline	Simvastatin	Esomeprazole	Calcitriol	Cholecalciferol	74.66	
Drug-PIN-

optimized

polypharmacy

	Cortisone	Levothyroxine	Amitriptyline	Pitavastatin	Roxatidine	Calcitriol	eliminated	22.47	
Patient 2 (Female, aged 74, BMI: 27.3, creatinine: 0.70 mg/dl; ALT: 61 U/L; AST: 38 U/L)		
Polypharmacy	Acetylsalicylic

acid

	Hydrochlorothiazide	Bisoprolol	Amlodipine	Atorvastatin	Valsartan		56.75	
Drug-PIN-

optimized

polypharmacy

	Acetylsalicylic

acid

	Hydrochlorothiazide	Celiprolol	Lacidipine	Pitavastatin	Olmesartan

Medoxomil

		17.3	
BMI: body mass index; AST: aspartate aminotransferase; ALT: alanine aminotransferase

Figure 1 (panel A) shows the distribution of the risk group before and after therapy optimization: 63.7% (N = 58) of MR and HR therapies could be improved, changing the patient’s classification to a lower risk class (MR to LR and HR to MR or LR class), whereas 36.3% (N = 33) therapies could not be improved at all.

We further evaluated if gender, age, BMI, GFR, ALT, AST and the number of used drugs were eventually associated with unsuccessful TARS minimization, finding a statistically significant association between unsuccessful polypharmacy optimization and a higher number of drugs, with a median of 11 drugs (IQR: 8.5–15) compared to a median of 8 (IQR: 7–9) in the group where TARS were effectively reduced (p < 0.001) (Fig. 1, Panel B).

The prevalence of the most prescribed medications in the group of polypharmacies associated with successful optimization did not differ significantly from the prevalence observed in the group of polypharmacies which could not be optimized (Fig. 2), except for ramipril and gabapentin, though post-hoc power calculation shown that the sample size has reduced statistical power (< 0.8) for the mentioned drugs.

Fig. 1 Panel A: changes in risk class distribution, expressed as a percentage of the total, after CDSS-guided therapy adjustment. Panel B: box plot showing the difference in the number of used drugs between patients whose therapy could be improved and patients whose therapy could not be improved. Patients’ therapies were recorded, from April to June 2023, at the pre-admission service, Sant’Andrea Hospital of Rome, Italy

Fig. 2 The prevalence of the top prescribed medications in the polypharmacy group is associated with successful optimization compared to the polypharmacy group, which could not be optimized. Patients’ therapies were recorded, from April to June 2023, at the pre-admission service, Sant’Andrea Hospital of Rome, Italy

Discussion

Patient harm due to the administration of pharmacological treatments is a well-recognized factor impairing the quality and efficiency of healthcare systems. The implementation of well-designed organizational models, aimed to minimize the occurrence of inadequate drugs’ prescribing/administration, is the leading strategy to limit the MEs-associated burden. Thus, healthcare systems are developing surveillance programs aimed at identifying and recording MEs, enabling root cause analysis and problem-solving activities [14–18].

MedRec emerged as a simple but powerful tool to detect specific types of MEs, as transcription errors, discrepancies, missing route/dose/frequency, omissions [17, 18], and should be applied at every transition phase of patient care, when frequent changes in therapy may increase the error rate. However, MedRec activities have limited potential to identify more complex and hidden types of error, such as inappropriate prescription due to drug-drug interactions or poor adherence to indications and contraindications. Bioinformatics support to drug selection, especially in the case of polypharmacy, may greatly contribute to contrast this kind of PEs. Clearly, an integrated strategy using complementary approaches is needed to identify and avoid different sources of MEs, occurring during different phases of the medication process.

In this study, we sought to evaluate the potential utility of a CDSS system aimed at identifying and correcting PEs. The commercial Drug-PIN® software evaluates different factors contributing to the patient-specific therapy-associated risk and allows therapy optimization by medication exchange. In the Drug-PIN® classification system, the MR represents a category where moderate medication problems are detected, that is MR patients deserve careful monitoring and proper communication about the correct use of drugs, since they may be at increased risk of unsafety/inefficacy. Also, MR patients can easily switch to the HR class adding more medications. Concerning HR patients, they can be considered as subjects requiring therapy adjustment, possibly de-prescribing and at least, a closer monitoring of treatment efficacy/safety, since a major risk for medication harm is present.

We found that about 30% of the analyzed patients/therapies were classified as moderate or high risk by Drug-PIN® and that most of them could theoretically be improved by Drug-PIN® – guided therapy optimization. To roughly estimate the significance of this observation for public health, we can calculate the number of potentially inappropriate pharmacological treatments which could be identified by our healthcare structure using bioinformatics support for drug prescription. The Sant’Andrea Hospital of Rome counts about 14,000 ordinary admissions/per year, thus systematic evaluation and optimization of medication regimens could identify and correct thousands of PEs annually. Public and private healthcare structures may act as a capillary network intercepting inappropriate prescriptions in different target patient populations (elderly, chronic, acute, fragile), according to the delivered care service.

Although we detected a consistent fraction of MR and HR therapies which could not be improved, these patients may still gain benefits by closer monitoring prompted by the increased risk awareness. Anyway, it could be supposed that systematic use of polypharmacy prescription support tools may prospectively reduce the fraction of unfixable MR and HR therapies.

Since the causal relationship between the number of used drugs and the rate and severity of medication harms is widely demonstrated, in our vision of a systematic approach to PEs detection, the raw number of administered drugs could represent an “action alert” claiming the activation of a more accurate medication revision process and closer patient monitoring. In this scenario, MedRec and the mere listing of drugs, including over-the-country medications, could represent a first-line and easily actionable screening of the patient population at each level of care, to identify subjects who deserve pharmacological counselling and therapy improvement. Even if, presently, CDSSs performing therapy optimization are not widely diffused, it seems conceivable that few pharmacological counselling facilities could serve a lot of patients there addressed by a capillary, first-pass territorial screening. Considering the annual cost incurred by healthcare payers to front ADRs and MEs [6, 29–31], this strategy seems largely sustainable. Rather, different and serious barriers hamper the implementation of a diffuse system of pharmacological counselling integrated with MedRec activities. Key issues are poor (or absent) doctor-doctor communication, which limits the harmonization of prescriptions from different clinicians involved in treating co-morbidities, and the willingness of physicians to accept recommendations and suggestions about therapy changes by a CDSS. It is noteworthy to note that CDSSs just provide information and options to the clinicians, who retain the full prerogative to accept or decline such recommendations according to their unique knowledge of the patient history and needs.

Corrective actions toward cultural habits may be the strengthening of communication channels (as shared systems for electronic recording of patients’ history) and a broader application of MedRec activities but, above all, an evidence-based engagement of doctors is critical: educational programs focused on the multifaceted and interplaying phenomena of MEs, ADRs, DDIs and their impact on patient health, could greatly contribute to achieving doctors’ commitment to novel activities (as CDSS use), making clear that few time spent in doctor-doctor and doctor-patient relationships triggers a burst in the quality of care.

We would lastly comment on the main limit of the present study, that is the therapy optimization process was performed retrospectively, and the clinical effect of therapy optimization could not be recorded. Although some previous reports have shown the clinical efficacy of Drug-PIN® [20, 23], further comparative studies are needed to quantify the impact of CDSS-guided polypharmacy prescription. In particular, evaluating the performance of the process should involve, besides clinical outcome indicators, drug usage indicators (number of prescribed drugs, number of duplicate prescriptions, defined daily dose), patient indicators (adherence level, quality of life), doctors indicators (acceptance, satisfaction). The measured indicators should be representative of each defined level of care and each defined target population and should contribute to assessing the improvement in structure performance and, finally, in healthcare performance, thus supporting public health decision-making.

Conclusions

PEs represent a known burden for healthcare systems, and major efforts should be directed at eradicating the significant fraction of preventable MEs. In our opinion, the time is ripe to consider a more systematic use of CDSSs aimed to support appropriate drug selection in polypharmacy, also considering that their use can be centralized, reducing the costs. Integration of patient-sized polypharmacy evaluation/optimization in extensive MedRec programs could represent a major step toward the improvement of medication safety and efficacy. Comparative and cost-effectiveness studies are surely needed to demonstrate the clinical, societal and economic benefits of the proposed approach.

Acknowledgements

none.

Author contributions

Conceptualization, G.G, M.S. and M.B.; methodology, G.G., M.B., M.S. and R.P.; formal analysis, G.S. and M.B; investigation, A.D.C., S.S. and O.D.L.; resources, M.S., M.R.; data curation, S.P., Martina R. and Matteo R.; writing—original draft preparation, M.B.; writing—review and editing, all authors; visualization, G.S.; supervision, M.S., M.R.; project administration, M.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

not applicable.

Data availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Declarations

Competing interests

Professor Robert Preissner and Professor Maurizio Simmaco are members of the Advisory Board of Drug-PIN AG. The Drug-PIN AG is holder of the patent PCT/IB2019/052310. The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval and consent to participate

not applicable (data were anonymized).

Consent for publication

not applicable.

Funding

none.

Abbreviations

ALT alanine aminotransferase

AST aspartate aminotransferase

BMI body mass index

CDSS clinical decision support system

DDI rug-drug interaction

GFR glomerular filtration rate

HR high risk

IQR Inter-quartile range

LR low risk

ME medication error

MedRec medication reconciliation

MR moderate risk

TARS therapy-associated risk score

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
==== Refs
References

1. Medication Without Harm. Available online: https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/255263/WHO-HIS-SDS-2017.6-eng.pdf?sequence=1 (accessed on 01 December 2023).
2. What is a medication error? New York, NY: National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention. 2015 Available online: http://www.nccmerp.org/about-medication-errors (accessed 01 December 2023).
3. Makary MA Daniel M Medical error-the third leading cause of death in the US BMJ (Clinical Res ed) 2016 353 i2139 10.1136/bmj.i2139
Makary MA, Daniel M. Medical error-the third leading cause of death in the US. BMJ (Clinical Res ed). 2016;353:i2139. 10.1136/bmj.i2139.10.1136/bmj.i2139
4. Lewis PJ Dornan T Taylor D Tully MP Wass V Ashcroft DM Prevalence, incidence and nature of prescribing errors in hospital inpatients: a systematic review Drug Saf 2009 32 5 379 89 10.2165/00002018-200932050-00002 19419233
Lewis PJ, Dornan T, Taylor D, Tully MP, Wass V, Ashcroft DM. Prevalence, incidence and nature of prescribing errors in hospital inpatients: a systematic review. Drug Saf. 2009;32(5):379–89. 10.2165/00002018-200932050-00002.19419233 10.2165/00002018-200932050-00002
5. ECAMET-White-Paper-Call-to-Action. The Urgent Need to Reduce Medication Errors in Hospitals to Prevent Patient and Second Victim Harm. Available online: https://eaasm.eu/wp-content/uploads/ECAMET-White-Paper-Call-to-Action-March-2022-v2.pdf (accessed on 16 July 2024).
6. Elliott RA Camacho E Jankovic D Sculpher MJ Faria R Economic analysis of the prevalence and clinical and economic burden of medication error in England BMJ Qual Saf 2021 30 2 96 105 10.1136/bmjqs-2019-010206 32527980
Elliott RA, Camacho E, Jankovic D, Sculpher MJ, Faria R. Economic analysis of the prevalence and clinical and economic burden of medication error in England. BMJ Qual Saf. 2021;30(2):96–105. 10.1136/bmjqs-2019-010206.32527980 10.1136/bmjqs-2019-010206
7. Bian J Li Q Li J Yang N Zhang W Mei D Zhong M Miao L Lu X Jiang L Du G Gao S Jiang X Lu J Yan B Kong F Chen Y Zhen J Represent the guideline expert group from the Pharmaceutical Affairs Commission of the Chinese Hospital Association. Guideline for the evaluation of prescription appropriateness Ann Transl Med 2021 9 16 1352 10.21037/atm-20-7502 34532489
Bian J, Li Q, Li J, Yang N, Zhang W, Mei D, Zhong M, Miao L, Lu X, Jiang L, Du G, Gao S, Jiang X, Lu J, Yan B, Kong F, Chen Y, Zhen J. Represent the guideline expert group from the Pharmaceutical Affairs Commission of the Chinese Hospital Association. Guideline for the evaluation of prescription appropriateness. Ann Transl Med. 2021;9(16):1352. 10.21037/atm-20-7502. PMID: 34532489; PMCID: PMC8422117.34532489 10.21037/atm-20-7502
8. Gentile G De Luca O Del Casale A Salerno G Simmaco M Borro M Frequencies of combined dysfunction of Cytochromes P450 2C9, 2C19, and 2D6 in an Italian cohort: suggestions for a more appropriate medication prescribing process Int J Mol Sci 2023 24 16 12696 10.3390/ijms241612696 37628884
Gentile G, De Luca O, Del Casale A, Salerno G, Simmaco M, Borro M. Frequencies of combined dysfunction of Cytochromes P450 2C9, 2C19, and 2D6 in an Italian cohort: suggestions for a more appropriate medication prescribing process. Int J Mol Sci. 2023;24(16):12696. 10.3390/ijms241612696. PMID: 37628884; PMCID: PMC10454797.37628884 10.3390/ijms241612696
9. O’Shea J Ledwidge M Gallagher J Keenan C Ryan C Pharmacogenetic interventions to improve outcomes in patients with multimorbidity or prescribed polypharmacy: a systematic review Pharmacogenomics J 2022 22 2 89 99 10.1038/s41397-021-00260-6 35194175
O’Shea J, Ledwidge M, Gallagher J, Keenan C, Ryan C. Pharmacogenetic interventions to improve outcomes in patients with multimorbidity or prescribed polypharmacy: a systematic review. Pharmacogenomics J. 2022;22(2):89–99. 10.1038/s41397-021-00260-6. Epub 2022 Feb 22. Erratum in: Pharmacogenomics J. 2022;: PMID: 35194175; PMCID: PMC8975737.35194175 10.1038/s41397-021-00260-6
10. Lee J Beers JL Geffert RM Jackson KD A review of CYP-Mediated drug interactions: mechanisms and in Vitro Drug-Drug Interaction Assessment Biomolecules 2024 14 1 99 10.3390/biom14010099 38254699
Lee J, Beers JL, Geffert RM, Jackson KD. A review of CYP-Mediated drug interactions: mechanisms and in Vitro Drug-Drug Interaction Assessment. Biomolecules. 2024;14(1):99. 10.3390/biom14010099.38254699 10.3390/biom14010099
11. Jiang H Lin Y Ren W Fang Z Liu Y Tan X Lv X Zhang N Adverse drug reactions and correlations with drug-drug interactions: a retrospective study of reports from 2011 to 2020 Front Pharmacol 2022 13 923939 10.3389/fphar.2022.923939 36133826
Jiang H, Lin Y, Ren W, Fang Z, Liu Y, Tan X, Lv X, Zhang N. Adverse drug reactions and correlations with drug-drug interactions: a retrospective study of reports from 2011 to 2020. Front Pharmacol. 2022;13:923939. 10.3389/fphar.2022.923939.36133826 10.3389/fphar.2022.923939
12. Sae-Ang A Chairat S Tansuebchueasai N Fumaneeshoat O Ingviya T Chaichulee S Drug recommendation from diagnosis codes: classification vs. collaborative filtering approaches Int J Environ Res Public Health 2022 20 1 309 10.3390/ijerph20010309 36612631
Sae-Ang A, Chairat S, Tansuebchueasai N, Fumaneeshoat O, Ingviya T, Chaichulee S. Drug recommendation from diagnosis codes: classification vs. collaborative filtering approaches. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;20(1):309. 10.3390/ijerph20010309. PMID: 36612631; PMCID: PMC9819759.36612631 10.3390/ijerph20010309
13. Xiong G Yang Z Yi J Wang N Wang L Zhu H Wu C Lu A Chen X Liu S Hou T Cao D DDInter: an online drug-drug interaction database towards improving clinical decision-making and patient safety Nucleic Acids Res 2022 50 D1 D1200 7 10.1093/nar/gkab880 34634800
Xiong G, Yang Z, Yi J, Wang N, Wang L, Zhu H, Wu C, Lu A, Chen X, Liu S, Hou T, Cao D. DDInter: an online drug-drug interaction database towards improving clinical decision-making and patient safety. Nucleic Acids Res. 2022;50(D1):D1200–7. 10.1093/nar/gkab880. PMID: 34634800; PMCID: PMC8728114.34634800 10.1093/nar/gkab880
14. Patient safety network. Medication Reconciliation. Available online: https://psnet.ahrq.gov/primer/medication-reconciliation (accessed on 20 October 2023).
15. Ahsani-Estahbanati E Sergeevich Gordeev V Doshmangir L Interventions to reduce the incidence of medical error and its financial burden in health care systems: a systematic review of systematic reviews Front Med 2022 9 875426 10.3389/fmed.2022.875426
Ahsani-Estahbanati E, Sergeevich Gordeev V, Doshmangir L. Interventions to reduce the incidence of medical error and its financial burden in health care systems: a systematic review of systematic reviews. Front Med. 2022;9:875426. 10.3389/fmed.2022.875426.10.3389/fmed.2022.875426
16. Australian commission on safety and quality in healthcare. National Medication Management Plan. Available online: https://www.safetyandquality.gov.au/our-work/medication-safety/medication-reconciliation/national-medication-management-plan (accessed on 20 October 2023).
17. Care quality commission. Medicines reconciliation. Available online: https://www.cqc.org.uk/guidance-providers/adult-social-care/medicines-reconciliation-how-check-you-have-right-medicines (accessed on 20 October 2023).
18. Agency for healthcare research and quality. Medications at Transitions and Clinical Handoffs (MATCH) Toolkit for Medication Reconciliation. Available online: https://www.ahrq.gov/patient-safety/settings/hospital/match/chapter-3.html (accessed on 20 October 2023).
19. Borro M Gentile G Preissner SH Pomes LM Gohlke BO Del Casale A Eckert A Marchetti P Preissner S Preissner R Simmaco M Individualized drugs’ selection by evaluation of Drug Properties, Pharmacogenomics and Clinical parameters: performance of a Bioinformatic Tool compared to a clinically established counselling process Pharmacogenomics Personalized Med 2021 14 955 62 10.2147/PGPM.S316556
Borro M, Gentile G, Preissner SH, Pomes LM, Gohlke BO, Del Casale A, Eckert A, Marchetti P, Preissner S, Preissner R, Simmaco M. Individualized drugs’ selection by evaluation of Drug Properties, Pharmacogenomics and Clinical parameters: performance of a Bioinformatic Tool compared to a clinically established counselling process. Pharmacogenomics Personalized Med. 2021;14:955–62. 10.2147/PGPM.S316556.10.2147/PGPM.S316556
20. Del Casale A Pomes LM Bonanni L Fiaschè F Zocchi C Padovano A De Luca O Angeletti G Brugnoli R Girardi P Preissner R Borro M Gentile G Pompili M Simmaco M Pharmacogenomics-guided pharmacotherapy in patients with major depressive disorder or bipolar disorder affected by treatment-resistant depressive episodes: a long-term Follow-Up study J Personalized Med 2022 12 2 316 10.3390/jpm12020316
Del Casale A, Pomes LM, Bonanni L, Fiaschè F, Zocchi C, Padovano A, De Luca O, Angeletti G, Brugnoli R, Girardi P, Preissner R, Borro M, Gentile G, Pompili M, Simmaco M. Pharmacogenomics-guided pharmacotherapy in patients with major depressive disorder or bipolar disorder affected by treatment-resistant depressive episodes: a long-term Follow-Up study. J Personalized Med. 2022;12(2):316. 10.3390/jpm12020316.10.3390/jpm12020316
21. Salamone S Spirito S Simmaco M Unger M Preissner S Gohlke BO Eckert A Preissner R Prescription advice based on data of Drug-Drug-Gene Interaction of patients with polypharmacy Pharmacogenomics Personalized Med 2022 15 765 73 10.2147/PGPM.S368606
Salamone S, Spirito S, Simmaco M, Unger M, Preissner S, Gohlke BO, Eckert A, Preissner R. Prescription advice based on data of Drug-Drug-Gene Interaction of patients with polypharmacy. Pharmacogenomics Personalized Med. 2022;15:765–73. 10.2147/PGPM.S368606.10.2147/PGPM.S368606
22. https://www.drug-pin.com/the-science.html Last accessed 04th July 2024.
23. Occhipinti M Brambilla M Galli G Manglaviti S Giammaruco M Prelaj A Ferrara R De Toma A Proto C Beninato T Zattarin E Lo Russo G Gelibter AJ Simmaco M Preissner R Garassino MC De Braud F Marchetti P Evaluation of drug-drug interactions in EGFR-Mutated non-small-cell Lung Cancer patients during treatment with tyrosine-kinase inhibitors J Pers Med 2021 11 5 424 10.3390/jpm11050424 34069851
Occhipinti M, Brambilla M, Galli G, Manglaviti S, Giammaruco M, Prelaj A, Ferrara R, De Toma A, Proto C, Beninato T, Zattarin E, Lo Russo G, Gelibter AJ, Simmaco M, Preissner R, Garassino MC, De Braud F, Marchetti P. Evaluation of drug-drug interactions in EGFR-Mutated non-small-cell Lung Cancer patients during treatment with tyrosine-kinase inhibitors. J Pers Med. 2021;11(5):424. 10.3390/jpm11050424. PMID: 34069851; PMCID: PMC8157378.34069851 10.3390/jpm11050424
24. Mann NK Mathes T Sönnichsen A Pieper D Klager E Moussa M Thürmann PA Potentially inadequate medications in the Elderly: PRISCUS 2.0—First update of the PRISCUS List Deutsches Arzteblatt Int 2023 120 3 10 10.3238/arztebl.m2022.0377
Mann NK, Mathes T, Sönnichsen A, Pieper D, Klager E, Moussa M, Thürmann PA. Potentially inadequate medications in the Elderly: PRISCUS 2.0—First update of the PRISCUS List. Deutsches Arzteblatt Int. 2023;120:3–10. 10.3238/arztebl.m2022.0377.10.3238/arztebl.m2022.0377
25. By the 2023 American Geriatrics Society Beers Criteria Update Expert Panel American Geriatrics Society 2023 updated AGS Beers Criteria for potentially inappropriate medication use in older adults J Am Geriatr Soc 2023 71 7 2052 81 10.1111/jgs.18372 37139824
By the 2023 American Geriatrics Society Beers Criteria Update Expert Panel. American Geriatrics Society 2023 updated AGS Beers Criteria for potentially inappropriate medication use in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2023;71(7):2052–81. 10.1111/jgs.18372.37139824 10.1111/jgs.18372
26. ClinCalc.com Sample Size Calculator. https://clincalc.com/stats/samplesize.aspx Last accessed 04th July 2024.
27. https://www.drugs.com/interactions-check.php?drug_list=461-0,646-0 Last accessed 04th July 2024.
28. https://reference.medscape.com/drug-interactionchecker Last accessed 04th July 2024.
29. Slight SP Seger DL Franz C Wong A Bates DW The national cost of adverse drug events resulting from inappropriate medication-related alert overrides in the United States J Am Med Inf Association: JAMIA 2018 25 9 1183 8 10.1093/jamia/ocy066
Slight SP, Seger DL, Franz C, Wong A, Bates DW. The national cost of adverse drug events resulting from inappropriate medication-related alert overrides in the United States. J Am Med Inf Association: JAMIA. 2018;25(9):1183–8. 10.1093/jamia/ocy066.10.1093/jamia/ocy066
30. Bennett K Cahir C Sorensen J Costs associated with adverse drug reactions in an older population admitted to hospital: a prospective cohort study Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2023 79 10 1417 24 10.1007/s00228-023-03552-x 37615688
Bennett K, Cahir C, Sorensen J. Costs associated with adverse drug reactions in an older population admitted to hospital: a prospective cohort study. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2023;79(10):1417–24. 10.1007/s00228-023-03552-x.37615688 10.1007/s00228-023-03552-x
31. Choi I Lee SM Flynn L Kim CM Lee S Kim NK Suh DC Incidence and treatment costs attributable to medication errors in hospitalized patients Res Social Administrative Pharm 2016 12 3 428 37 10.1016/j.sapharm.2015.08.006
Choi I, Lee SM, Flynn L, Kim CM, Lee S, Kim NK, Suh DC. Incidence and treatment costs attributable to medication errors in hospitalized patients. Res Social Administrative Pharm. 2016;12(3):428–37. 10.1016/j.sapharm.2015.08.006.10.1016/j.sapharm.2015.08.006
