ArticleBMC geriatrics2025
Potential drug-drug interactions among geriatric oncology patients: a retrospective study in Saudi Arabia.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Population pharmacokinetics modelling to predict DDI from zopiclone on clozapine in schizophrenia patients.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
- Risk prediction model for severe potential drug-drug interactions in colorectal cancer patients: a real-world data study.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDrug-drug interactions (DDIs) are significant causes of adverse drug reactions among patients with cancer. We aimed to identify the prevalence, severity, and predictors of potential DDIs among geriatric oncology patients.
methodsA cross-sectional, retrospective study was conducted at two tertiary medical centers. Geriatric patients (≥ 65 years) who were diagnosed with solid tumors and received outpatient prescriptions with a minimum of two drugs between January 2018 and December 2022 were included in the study. Patients' medications were screened for DDIs using Lexi-Interact. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression models were used to explore factors associated with DDIs.
resultsThe study included 247 geriatric patients with a mean age of 74.0 ± 7.3 years, and 48.6% of the patients were female. The most common type of cancer was gastrointestinal cancer (35.6%), followed by genitourinary cancer (20.6%), and 50.6% of the patients had metastasized tumors. Approximately one-half of the patients (49.0%) received anticancer therapy, and hormonal therapy (21.9%) or chemotherapy (16.6%) was the most common therapy. The mean number of medications used per patient was 6.9 ± 3.5. The majority of patients (79.4%) had at least one DDI, with a mean of 5.6 ± 5.3 DDIs per patient. Most of the interactions were classified as moderate (58.9%), and only 19.3% were classified as major. Multiple logistic regression revealed that females were more vulnerable to DDIs than their male counterparts were (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 37.4; 95% CI 4.13-338.3). The number of medications used was significantly associated with the risk of DDIs (AOR = 4.07; 95% CI 2.53-6.54). Compared with patients with gastrointestinal cancers, patients with breast or gynecologic cancers had lower odds of experiencing DDI (AOR = 0.02; 95% CI < 0.01-0.24 and AOR = 0.04; 95% CI < 0.01-0.29, respectively).
conclusionThis study revealed a high prevalence of DDIs among geriatric oncology patients, with most interactions classified as moderate. Female patients and patients taking multiple medications had a greater risk of experiencing DDIs. Routine screening for potential DDIs is essential for this vulnerable population, and the factors identified in this study should be carefully considered.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.