Background Little agreement exits between different drug interaction databases. Purpose To compare the frequency and severity of potential drug-drug interactions (DDIs) occurring in a haematological unit and detected by two drug interactions databases. Materials and methods A prospective, observational and descriptive study was carried out from November 2012 to February 2013. Twice a week, every patient’s treatment sheet was collected and screened through two drug interactions databases: Thomson Micromedex and Drug Interaction Facts. All potential DDIs identified were recorded and graded by their level of severity. Results Among 317 analysed treatment sheets, a total of 2373 potential DDIs were detected by the two databases. According to Micromedex, 1348 potential DDIs were found, counting 176 different pairs of drugs; of these DDIs, 64 were classified as contraindicated, 538 as major, 718 as moderate and 28 as minor. Regarding Drug Interaction Facts, 1025 potential DDIs were found, counting 124 different pairs of drugs; of these DDIs, 203 were classified as major, 537 as moderate and 285 as minor. There was a pool of 225 different pairs of drugs detected by both databases, irrespective of how many times these interactions appeared. Upon assessing the total number of pairs of drugs identified by the two databases, Micromedex identified 78.2% (176/225) and Drug Interaction Facts, 55.1% (124/225) of the potential interactions. Upon evaluation of the congruence of severity ratings between both databases, there was an agreement in 16.4% of the 225 pairs of drugs identified (37/225). Conclusions The lack of agreement between different databases shows how complicated it is to detect potentially significant drug interactions in clinical practice. No conflict of interest.

Background In recent years, many oral antineoplastic agents (OAAs) have appeared providing patient convenience. According to law, in the Autonomous Community of Región de Murcia (Spain), these drugs are dispensed at hospital pharmacies in the outpatient setting. Hospital pharmacists, because of their frequent contact with cancer patients on treatment with OAA, play a pivotal role in improving adherence and ensuring that medicines are taken correctly through oral and written information. Purpose To know patient satisfaction with pharmaceutical care (PC) through a survey in ambulatory cancer patients who take OAA. Materials and MethodsA Likert-type scale on patient satisfaction with PC was designed and run on every other week for six weeks. The survey was completed by patients in an anonymous and voluntary manner. It included 17 questions in 5 groups: demographical data, PC request, opinion about the information provided to them, consultation with the pharmacist and global satisfaction degree with PC. Only these 2 latest question groups were considered for the analysis, including 5 items: pharmacist accessibility, courtesy, professional competence, patient opinion about pharmacist utility and global satisfaction degree with PC. Survey internal consistency was measured with Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. Results This survey was completed by 57 patients (71.25% of the total; 53% men; 47% women). Answers to questions were graded with 5 points. For the items pharmacist accessibility, courtesy, professional competence, patient opinion about pharmacist utility and global satisfaction degree with PC, the mean plus/minus standard deviation values achieved were 4.53 ± 0.49, 4.53 ± 0.49, 4.29 ± 0.53, 4.29 ± 0.53 and 4.46 ± 0.53, respectively. Overall satisfaction extent was 88.33%. In this survey, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was 0.85, so we can say that this scale is trustworthy. Conclusions In this patient group, the degree of overall satisfaction with pharmaceutical care was satisfactory. Future surveys will be needed to cheque and improve our service. No conflict of interest.