Home Impact of interactions between drugs and laboratory test results on diagnostic test interpretation – a systematic review
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Impact of interactions between drugs and laboratory test results on diagnostic test interpretation – a systematic review

  • Jasmijn A. van Balveren EMAIL logo , Wilhelmine P.H.G. Verboeket-van de Venne , Lale Erdem-Eraslan , Albert J. de Graaf ORCID logo , Annemarieke E. Loot , Ruben E.A. Musson , Wytze P. Oosterhuis , Martin P. Schuijt , Heleen van der Sijs , Rolf J. Verheul , Holger K. de Wolf , Ron Kusters , Rein M.J. Hoedemakers and on behalf of the Dutch Society for Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, task group ‘SMILE’: Signaling Medication Interactions and Laboratory test Expert system
Published/Copyright: October 17, 2018

Abstract

Intake of drugs may influence the interpretation of laboratory test results. Knowledge and correct interpretation of possible drug-laboratory test interactions (DLTIs) is important for physicians, pharmacists and laboratory specialists. Laboratory results may be affected by analytical or physiological effects of medication. Failure to take into account the possible unintended influence of drug use on a laboratory test result may lead to incorrect diagnosis, incorrect treatment and unnecessary follow-up. The aim of this review is to give an overview of the literature investigating the clinical impact and use of DLTI decision support systems on laboratory test interpretation. Particular interactions were reported in a large number of articles, but they were fragmentarily described and some papers even reported contradictory findings. To provide an overview of information that clinicians and laboratory staff need to interpret test results, DLTI databases have been made by several groups. In a literature search, only four relevant studies have been found on DLTI decision support applications for laboratory test interpretation in clinical practice. These studies show a potential benefit of automated DLTI messages to physicians for the correct interpretation of laboratory test results. Physicians reported 30–100% usefulness of DLTI messages. In one study 74% of physicians sometimes even refrained from further additional examination. The benefit of decision support increases when a refined set of clinical rules is determined in cooperation with health care professionals. The prevalence of DLTIs is high in a broad range of combinations of laboratory tests and drugs and these frequently remain unrecognized.

  1. Declaration of interest statement: The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. The authors received financial support from the Quality Foundation of the Dutch Medical Specialists (SKMS).

  2. Author contributions: All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.

  3. Research funding: Quality Foundation of the Dutch Medical Specialists (SKMS), grant number: 42678870.

  4. Employment or leadership: None declared.

  5. Honorarium: None declared.

  6. Competing interests: The funding organisation(s) played no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the report for publication.

References

1. Zwaan L, Singh H. The challenges in defining and measuring diagnostic error. Diagnosis (Berl) 2015;2:97–103.10.1515/dx-2014-0069Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

2. Whiting PF, Davenport C, Jameson C, Burke M, Sterne JA, Hyde C, et al. How well do health professionals interpret diagnostic information? A systematic review. BMJ Open 2015;5:e008155.10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008155Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

3. Ferraro S, Braga F, Panteghini M. Laboratory medicine in the new healthcare environment. Clin Chem Lab Med 2016;54:523–33.10.1515/cclm-2015-0803Search in Google Scholar PubMed

4. Plebani M. Diagnostic errors and laboratory medicine – causes and strategies. EJIFCC 2015;26:7–14.Search in Google Scholar

5. Hallworth MJ, Epner PL, Ebert C, Fantz CR, Faye SA, Higgins TN, et al. Current evidence and future perspectives on the effective practice of patient-centered laboratory medicine. Clin Chem 2015;61:589–99.10.1373/clinchem.2014.232629Search in Google Scholar PubMed

6. Plebani M. Clinical laboratories: production industry or medical services? Clin Chem Lab Med 2015;53:995–1004.10.1515/cclm-2014-1007Search in Google Scholar PubMed

7. Yao H, Rayburn ER, Shi Q, Gao L, Hu W, Li H. FDA-approved drugs that interfere with laboratory tests: a systematic search of US drug labels. Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci 2017;54:1–17.10.1080/10408363.2016.1191425Search in Google Scholar PubMed

8. Vlasveld LT, van ’t Wout J, Castel A. False elevation of chromogranin A due to proton pump inhibitors. Neth J Med 2011;69:207.Search in Google Scholar

9. Delanaye P, Mariat C, Cavalier E, Maillard N, Krzesinski JM, White CA. Trimethoprim, creatinine and creatinine-based equations. Nephron Clin Pract 2011;119:c187–93.10.1159/000328911Search in Google Scholar PubMed

10. Perera NJ, Stewart PM, Williams PF, Chua EL, Yue DK, Twigg SM. The danger of using inappropriate point-of-care glucose meters in patients on icodextrin dialysis. Diabet Med 2011;28:1272–6.10.1111/j.1464-5491.2011.03362.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

11. Young DS. Effects of drugs on clinical laboratory tests, 5th ed. Washington: American Association of Clinical Chemistry, 2000.Search in Google Scholar

12. Neubert A, Dormann H, Prokosch HU, Burkle T, Rascher W, Sojer R, et al. E-pharmacovigilance: development and implementation of a computable knowledge base to identify adverse drug reactions. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2013;1:69–77.10.1111/bcp.12127Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

13. Tolley CL, Slight SP, Husband AK, Watson N, Bates DW. Improving medication-related clinical decision support. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2018;75:239–46.10.2146/ajhp160830Search in Google Scholar PubMed

14. Aronson J. Meyler’s side effects of drugs: the international encyclopedia of adverse drug reactions and interactions, 16th ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, 2015.Search in Google Scholar

15. Geerts AF, De Koning FH, Egberts TC, De Smet PA, Van Solinge WW. Information comparison of the effects of drugs on laboratory tests in drug labels and Young’s book. Clin Chem Lab Med 2012;50:1765–8.10.1515/cclm-2012-0034Search in Google Scholar

16. Young DS. Effects of drugs on clinical laboratory tests. Ann Clin Biochem 1997;34:579–81.10.1177/000456329703400601Search in Google Scholar

17. Tryding N, Tufvesson C, Sonntag O. Drug effects in clinical chemistry, 7th ed. Stockholm: Apotheksbolaget, 1996.Search in Google Scholar

18. Groves WE, Gajewski WH. Use of a clinical laboratory computer to warn of possible drug interference with test results. Comput Programs Biomed 1978;8:275–82.10.1016/0010-468X(78)90035-1Search in Google Scholar

19. McNeely MD. Computerized interpretation of laboratory tests: an overview of systems, basic principles and logic techniques. Clin Biochem 1983;16:141–6.10.1016/S0009-9120(83)93962-0Search in Google Scholar

20. Kailajärvi M, Takala T, Gronroos P, Tryding N, Viikari J, Irjala K, et al. Reminders of drug effects on laboratory test results. Clin Chem 2000;46:1395–400.10.1093/clinchem/46.9.1395Search in Google Scholar

21. Friedman RB, Young DS, Beatty ES. Automated monitoring of drug-test interactions. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1978;24:16–21.10.1002/cpt197824116Search in Google Scholar PubMed

22. Young DS, Thomas DW, Friedman RB. Computer listing of the effects of drugs on laboratory data. J Clin Pathol 1972;25: 984–8.10.1136/jcp.25.11.984Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

23. Gronroos P, Irjala K, Forsstrom JJ. Coding drug effects on laboratory tests for health care information systems. Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care 1995:449–53.Search in Google Scholar

24. Gronroos P, Irjala K, Heiskanen J, Torniainen K, Forsstrom JJ. Using computerized individual medication data to detect drug effects on clinical laboratory tests. Scand J Clin Lab Invest Suppl 1995;222:31–6.10.3109/00365519509088448Search in Google Scholar PubMed

25. Gronroos PE, Irjala KM, Selen GP, Forsstrom JJ. Computerized monitoring of potentially interfering medication in thyroid function diagnostics. Int J Clin Monit Comput 1997;14:255–9.10.1007/BF03356571Search in Google Scholar PubMed

26. van Roon EN, Flikweert S, le Comte M, Langendijk PN, Kwee-Zuiderwijk WJ, Smits P, et al. Clinical relevance of drug-drug interactions: a structured assessment procedure. Drug Saf 2005;28:1131–9.10.2165/00002018-200528120-00007Search in Google Scholar PubMed

27. van der Sijs H, Aarts J, Vulto A, Berg M. Overriding of drug safety alerts in computerized physician order entry. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2006;13:138–47.10.1197/jamia.M1809Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

28. Newe A, Wimmer S, Neubert A, Becker L, Prokosch HU, Beckmann MW, et al. Towards a computable data corpus of temporal correlations between drug administration and lab value changes. PLoS One 2015;10:e0136131.10.1371/journal.pone.0136131Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

Received: 2018-08-21
Accepted: 2018-09-21
Published Online: 2018-10-17
Published in Print: 2018-11-27

©2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Editorial
  3. Observing an analyzer’s operational life cycle: a useful management tool for clinical laboratories
  4. Reviews
  5. Personalized laboratory medicine: a patient-centered future approach
  6. Circular RNAs: a new class of biomarkers as a rising interest in laboratory medicine
  7. Mini Review
  8. Impact of interactions between drugs and laboratory test results on diagnostic test interpretation – a systematic review
  9. Opinion Paper
  10. Uncertainty in measurement and total error: different roads to the same quality destination?
  11. Guidelines and Recommendations
  12. Joint EFLM-COLABIOCLI Recommendation for venous blood sampling
  13. General Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine
  14. Evidence for the positive impact of ISO 9001 and ISO 15189 quality systems on laboratory performance – evaluation of immunohaematology external quality assessment results during 19 years in Austria
  15. Effects of high-dose, intravenous lipid emulsion on laboratory tests in humans: a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, clinical crossover trial
  16. Commutability of the certified reference materials for the standardization of β-amyloid 1-42 assay in human cerebrospinal fluid: lessons for tau and β-amyloid 1-40 measurements
  17. Failure rate prediction of equipment: can Weibull distribution be applied to automated hematology analyzers?
  18. Evaluation of serum alkaline phosphatase measurement through the 4-year trueness verification program in China
  19. Increased serum concentrations of soluble ST2 predict mortality after burn injury
  20. The clinical significance of borderline results of the Elia CTD Screen assay
  21. Reference Values and Biological Variations
  22. Reference intervals for 33 biochemical analytes in healthy Indian population: C-RIDL IFCC initiative
  23. Cancer Diagnostics
  24. BCL2L12 improves risk stratification and prediction of BFM-chemotherapy response in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia
  25. Cardiovascular Diseases
  26. The correlation between glucose fluctuation from self-monitored blood glucose and the major adverse cardiac events in diabetic patients with acute coronary syndrome during a 6-month follow-up by WeChat application
  27. Diabetes
  28. Impact of blood cell counts and volumes on glucose concentration in uncentrifuged serum and lithium-heparin blood tubes
  29. Letters to the Editor
  30. Standard process-oriented workflow introduces pre-analytical error when used in large study sample batches
  31. Comparison of three staining methods in the automated digital cell imaging analyzer Sysmex DI-60
  32. Detection of Plasmodium falciparum using automated digital cell morphology analyzer Sysmex DI-60
  33. Serum ischemia-modified albumin concentration may reflect long-term hypoxia in chronic respiratory disease: a pilot study
  34. Wet absorptive microsampling at home for HbA1c monitoring in diabetic children
  35. Serum endocan levels in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a potential role in the evaluation of susceptibility to exacerbation
  36. Analytical and clinical validation of the new Roche Elecsys Vitamin D Total II assay
  37. Analytical validation of two second generation thyroglobulin immunoassays (Roche and Thermo Fisher)
  38. Omission of preservatives during 24-h of urine collection for the analysis of fractionated metanephrines enhance patient convenience
  39. Transient monoclonal gammopathy in a 2-year-old child with combined viral and bacterial infection
  40. Nephelometric assay of urine free light chains: an alternative and early clinical test for Bence-Jones protein quantification
  41. Congress Abstracts
  42. Congress of Laboratory Medicine and Clinical Chemistry 7th Annual Meeting of the Austrian Society for Laboratory Medicine and Clinical Chemistry (ÖGLMKC)
  43. 50th National Congress of the Italian Society of Clinical Biochemistry and Clinical Molecular Biology (SIBioC – Laboratory Medicine)
  44. Revolution drives Evolution – from measuring to understanding: Annual meeting of Swiss Society of Clinical Chemistry (SSCC) in Bern, November 15-16 2018
Downloaded on 26.10.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/cclm-2018-0900/html
Scroll to top button