Drug Utilization Evaluation of Cefoperazone/Sulbactam in a General Hospital
Main Article Content
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the utilization of cefoperazone/sulbactam within a general hospital in terms of the appropriateness of indications, patterns of use, treatment outcomes and to determine drug cost from inappropriate use of this drug with no clinical benefit in patients. Method: This study was a retrospective descriptive study. The researcher collected data from medical records of inpatients receiving cefoperazone/sulbactam during October 2013 to March 2014 in a general hospital. The researcher evaluated the utilization of cefoperazone/sulbactam against the guidelines derived from the literatures, and calculated drug cost from inappropriate use from the amount of drugs prescribed inconsistently to the guidelines and numbers of patients with inappropriate use of this drug with no clinical benefit as judged by physicians. Results: Cefoperazone/Sulbactam was prescribed to 142 patients during the study period. The use of drug was classified as document therapy in 79 patients (55.63%), empirical therapy in 51 patients (35.91%), and empirical to documented therapy in 12 patients (8.45%). In term of indication, prescribing of this drug agreed with the indication criteria in 107 cases (75.35%). In term of outcome, 79 case (56.33%) improved or cured, 47 (33.09%) died and 15 (10.56%) was undetermined because the patients refused further treatment. The cost of drug use inconsistent to the guideline and with no clinical benefit in patients was 303,434 baht within the 6 months period of study. Conclusion: Cefoperazone/Sulbactam usage in the study hospital is appropriate at a moderate level. However, measure to control the use should be continued, together with information provision to physicians in order to increase the guideline adherence, reduce drug resistance and promote drug safety in patients.
Article Details
ผลการวิจัยและความคิดเห็นที่ปรากฏในบทความถือเป็นความคิดเห็นและอยู่ในความรับผิดชอบของผู้นิพนธ์ มิใช่ความเห็นหรือความรับผิดชอบของกองบรรณาธิการ หรือคณะเภสัชศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยสงขลานครินทร์ ทั้งนี้ไม่รวมความผิดพลาดอันเกิดจากการพิมพ์ บทความที่ได้รับการเผยแพร่โดยวารสารเภสัชกรรมไทยถือเป็นสิทธิ์ของวารสารฯ
References
2. Dejsirilert S, Tienggrim S, Sawanpanyalert P, Aswapokee N, Malathum K. Antimicrobial resistance of Acinetobater baumannii: Six years of National Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance Thailand (NARST) Surveillance. J Med Assoc Thai 2009; 92(Suppl 4): S34-S45.
3. Choi JY, Park YS, Kim CO, Park YS, Yoon HJ, Shin SY et al. Mortality risk factors of Acinetobacter baumannii bacteremia. Intern Med J 2005; 35: 599-603.
4. Eriksen HM, Iversen BG, Aavitsland P. Prevalence of nosocomial infections in hospitals in Norway, 2002 and 2003. J Hosp Infect 2005; 60: 40-5.
5. Surasarang K, Narksawat K, Danchivijitr S, Siripannichgon K, Sujirarat D, Roungrungrueng Y et al. Risk factors for Multi-Drug Resistant Acinetobacter baumannii nosocomial infection. J Med Assoc Thai 2007; 90: 1633-9.
6. Smolyakov R, Borer A, Riesenberg K, Schlaeffer F, Alkan M, Porath A, et al. Nosocomial multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii bloodstream infection: risk factors and outcome with ampicillin-sulbactam treatment. J Hosp Infect 2003; 54: 32-8.
7. Chaiwarith R, Mahatthanaphak S, Boonchoo M, Supparatpinyo K, Sirisanthana T. Pandrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii at Maharaj Nakorn Chiang Mai Hospital. J Infect Dis Antimicrob Agents 2005; 22: 1-8.
8. วิษณุ ธรรมลิขิตกุล. Appropriate use of beta–lactams.ใน: สมบัติ ลีลาสุภาศรี, สถาพร ปิติวิเชียรเลิศ, กิตติ ตระกุลฮุน, ธนะพันธ์ พิบูลบรรณกิจ, บรรณาธิการ.Current practice in common infection disease.กรุงเทพฯ: สวิชาญการพิมพ์; 2543. หน้า 38-41.
9. พรรณพิศ สุวรรณกูล. Beta-lactam antibiotics. ใน:พรรณพิศ สุวรรณกุล, ธีรพงษ์ ตัณฑวิเชียร, บรรณาธิการ. Update in antimicrobial agents and vaccinations. กรุงเทพฯ: บีบี.การพิมพ์และบรรจุภัณฑ์; 2544. หน้า 31-40.
10. Gilbert DN, Moellering RC, Ellopoulos GM, Sande MA. The Sanford guide to antimicrobial therapy, 3rd ed. Sperryville, VA: Antimicrobial Therapy. 2007.