Comparison of eight screening tools to detect interactions between herbal supplements and oncology agents

Abstract

Patients with cancer are increasingly using herbal supplements, unaware that supplements can interact with oncology treatment. Herb-drug interaction management is critical to ensure optimal treatment outcomes. Several screening tools exist to detect drug-drug interactions, but their performance to detect herb-drug interactions is not known. This study compared the performance of eight drug-drug interaction screening tools to detect herb-drug interaction with anti-cancer agents. The herb-drug interaction detection performance of four subscription (Micromedex, Lexicomp, PEPID, Facts & Comparisons) and free (Drugs.com, Medscape, WebMD, RxList) drug-drug interaction tools was assessed. Clinical relevance of each herb-drug interaction was determined using Natural Medicine and each drug-drug interaction tool. Descriptive statistics were used to calculate sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value. Linear regression was used to compare performance between subscription and free tools. All tools had poor sensitivity (<0.20) for detecting herb-drug interaction. Lexicomp had the highest positive predictive value (0.98) and best overall performance score (0.54), while Medscape was the best performing free tool (0.52). The worst subscription tools were as good as or better than the best free tools, and as a group subscription tools outperformed free tools on all metrics. Using an average subscription tool would detect one additional herb-drug interaction for every 10 herb-drug interactions screened by a free tool. Lexicomp is the best available tool for screening herb-drug interaction, and Medscape is the best free alternative; however, the sensitivity and performance for detecting herb-drug interaction was far lower than for drug-drug interactions, and overall quite poor. Further research is needed to improve herb-drug interaction screening performance.