If you call up the first example on the start page of the application, the following overview is displayed for the pharmacological review.
The safety score here is only 6% of a maximum of 100%. In this case, percentage points are deducted due to possible risks due to the three risk categories pharmacokinetics, scores and adverse drug reactions.
The fields marked in green symbolize the normal value. In the pharmacokinetics section, a color change on the right indicates an increase in exposure and the one on the left indicates a decrease in exposure. The current value is indicated by a white border around the color field.
For aripripzol one recognizes a broader relevant risk area, symbolized by the color area yellow to dark red. The exposure to aripiprazole can vary considerably because of the possible influence on exposure not only due to the other drugs but also due to individual pharmacogenetic parameters. If the questions in the Findings section are also answered, the risk can be assessed precisely. In addition, a clear increase in exposure to triazolam can be seen in this combination. Click on the blue information symbol to get a precise explanation of the expected change in exposure.
The symbol ⚠️ marks substances with a narrow therapeutic range.
These scores can change depending on the patient’s individual factors. In the visualization you can see that the selected combination of substances has an influence both on the prolongation of the QTc time and on the anticholinergic system. By clicking on the information symbol, further information on the calculation of the scores can be viewed.
Risk of adverse drug events
In addition to the desired effects, there are also unwanted effects with the substances. The three most common side effects are clearly presented here. Further described side effects are summarized below in the chapter.
Based on the existing medication, the extent to which a change would improve the safety score is calculated for possible alternatives. In this case, switching from aripiprazole to asenapine would improve the score (+ 44%). This can make sense, for example, if the relevant genotypes of the patient are not known.
It can also be seen that switching from triazolam to zolpidem would further improve the safety score in this case (+ 24%).
These simple measures significantly improved the patient’s risk of adverse drug reactions. These suggestions are intended to support the doctor in his therapeutic decisions, whereby, depending on the constellation of further risk factors of the patient, additional considerations must be taken into account.