Cargando…
Evaluating drug-drug interaction information in NDF-RT and DrugBank
BACKGROUND: There is limited consensus among drug information sources on what constitutes drug-drug interactions (DDIs). We investigate DDI information in two publicly available sources, NDF-RT and DrugBank. METHODS: We acquire drug-drug interactions from NDF-RT and DrugBank, and normalize the drugs...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4426554/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25964850 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13326-015-0018-0 |
_version_ | 1782370600238448640 |
---|---|
author | Peters, Lee B Bahr, Nathan Bodenreider, Olivier |
author_facet | Peters, Lee B Bahr, Nathan Bodenreider, Olivier |
author_sort | Peters, Lee B |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: There is limited consensus among drug information sources on what constitutes drug-drug interactions (DDIs). We investigate DDI information in two publicly available sources, NDF-RT and DrugBank. METHODS: We acquire drug-drug interactions from NDF-RT and DrugBank, and normalize the drugs to RxNorm. We compare interactions between NDF-RT and DrugBank and evaluate both sources against a reference list of 360 critical interactions. We compare the interactions detected with NDF-RT and DrugBank on a large prescription dataset. Finally, we contrast NDF-RT and DrugBank against a commercial source. RESULTS: DrugBank drug-drug interaction information has limited overlap with NDF-RT (24-30%). The coverage of the reference set by both sources is about 60%. Applied to a prescription dataset of 35.5M pairs of co-prescribed systemic clinical drugs, NDF-RT would have identified 808,285 interactions, while DrugBank would have identified 1,170,693. Of these, 382,833 are common. The commercial source Multum provides a more systematic coverage (91%) of the reference list. CONCLUSIONS: This investigation confirms the limited overlap of DDI information between NDF-RT and DrugBank. Additional research is required to determine which source is better, if any. Usage of any of these sources in clinical decision systems should disclose these limitations. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13326-015-0018-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4426554 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-44265542015-05-12 Evaluating drug-drug interaction information in NDF-RT and DrugBank Peters, Lee B Bahr, Nathan Bodenreider, Olivier J Biomed Semantics Research Article BACKGROUND: There is limited consensus among drug information sources on what constitutes drug-drug interactions (DDIs). We investigate DDI information in two publicly available sources, NDF-RT and DrugBank. METHODS: We acquire drug-drug interactions from NDF-RT and DrugBank, and normalize the drugs to RxNorm. We compare interactions between NDF-RT and DrugBank and evaluate both sources against a reference list of 360 critical interactions. We compare the interactions detected with NDF-RT and DrugBank on a large prescription dataset. Finally, we contrast NDF-RT and DrugBank against a commercial source. RESULTS: DrugBank drug-drug interaction information has limited overlap with NDF-RT (24-30%). The coverage of the reference set by both sources is about 60%. Applied to a prescription dataset of 35.5M pairs of co-prescribed systemic clinical drugs, NDF-RT would have identified 808,285 interactions, while DrugBank would have identified 1,170,693. Of these, 382,833 are common. The commercial source Multum provides a more systematic coverage (91%) of the reference list. CONCLUSIONS: This investigation confirms the limited overlap of DDI information between NDF-RT and DrugBank. Additional research is required to determine which source is better, if any. Usage of any of these sources in clinical decision systems should disclose these limitations. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13326-015-0018-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2015-05-11 /pmc/articles/PMC4426554/ /pubmed/25964850 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13326-015-0018-0 Text en © Peters et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2015 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Peters, Lee B Bahr, Nathan Bodenreider, Olivier Evaluating drug-drug interaction information in NDF-RT and DrugBank |
title | Evaluating drug-drug interaction information in NDF-RT and DrugBank |
title_full | Evaluating drug-drug interaction information in NDF-RT and DrugBank |
title_fullStr | Evaluating drug-drug interaction information in NDF-RT and DrugBank |
title_full_unstemmed | Evaluating drug-drug interaction information in NDF-RT and DrugBank |
title_short | Evaluating drug-drug interaction information in NDF-RT and DrugBank |
title_sort | evaluating drug-drug interaction information in ndf-rt and drugbank |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4426554/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25964850 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13326-015-0018-0 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT petersleeb evaluatingdrugdruginteractioninformationinndfrtanddrugbank AT bahrnathan evaluatingdrugdruginteractioninformationinndfrtanddrugbank AT bodenreiderolivier evaluatingdrugdruginteractioninformationinndfrtanddrugbank |