Literature DB >> 10155606

Cephalosporin utilisation review and evaluation.

G M Misan1, C Dollman, D R Shaw, N Burgess.   

Abstract

The clinical misuse of drugs may result in preventable patient morbidity and mortality, costly remedial care, additional costs for diagnosis and management of iatrogenic disease and unnecessary wastage of healthcare resources. In recognition of this problem, drug utilisation evaluation (DUE) has been recommended as a method for identifying inappropriate or unnecessary drug use and for promoting rational therapy. Growing concern over the widespread misuse of antibiotics, together with the emergence of antimicrobial resistance and escalating expenditures, has resulted in antibiotics being the drugs most frequently chosen for DUE projects. Cephalosporin DUE is well documented as being successful for modifying cephalosporin use and for containing drug expenditure. Studies range from isolated projects to ongoing programmes that comprehensively evaluate cephalosporin use and the impact of corrective strategies. Sensible use of antibiotics requires a clear understanding of the infectious process, the clinical pharmacology of anti-infective agents and an appreciation of clinical and microbiological monitoring and assessment. Audit criteria that incorporate the above principles, and which are described in the studies reviewed in this article, will be useful for other investigators. Through its DUE programme, the Royal Adelaide Hospital has investigated the use of cephalosporins, including ceftriaxone, ceftazidime and cefoxitin. These reviews have resulted in improvements in cephalosporin use and significant cost savings. Alterations to cephalosporin use that were recommended following these reviews have not resulted in adverse changes to post-operative infection rates, clinical outcomes or adverse drug reactions. This experience, combined with that of other investigators, serves as a useful model for the promotion of rational and economical therapy with cephalosporins and other drug groups.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1995        PMID: 10155606     DOI: 10.2165/00019053-199508020-00003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics        ISSN: 1170-7690            Impact factor:   4.981


  127 in total

1.  PSRO: a hospital pharmacist's view.

Authors:  W H Hotaling
Journal:  Hosp Formul       Date:  1975-06

2.  Epidemiology of extended spectrum beta-lactamases.

Authors:  A Philippon; S Ben Redjeb; G Fournier; A Ben Hassen
Journal:  Infection       Date:  1989 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 3.553

3.  Reversible ceftriaxone-associated biliary pseudolithiasis in children.

Authors:  U B Schaad; J Wedgwood-Krucko; H Tschaeppeler
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1988-12-17       Impact factor: 79.321

4.  Concurrent review of cefuroxime use in a small community hospital.

Authors:  H J Mioduch
Journal:  Am J Hosp Pharm       Date:  1989-05

5.  Concurrent antibiotic-use review in a small hospital.

Authors:  M P Kerns; G E Meyer
Journal:  Am J Hosp Pharm       Date:  1986-06

6.  A study of antimicrobial misuse in a university hospital.

Authors:  D G Maki; A A Schuna
Journal:  Am J Med Sci       Date:  1978 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.378

7.  Drug use review: operational definitions.

Authors:  M H Stolar
Journal:  Am J Hosp Pharm       Date:  1978-01

8.  In vitro activity of ceftibuten against Haemophilus influenzae and Branhamella catarhallis.

Authors:  G V Doern
Journal:  Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis       Date:  1991 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.803

9.  Cost containment through restriction of cephalosporins.

Authors:  H L Britton; T L Schwinghammer; M J Romano
Journal:  Am J Hosp Pharm       Date:  1981-12

10.  Ceftazidime monotherapy for empiric treatment of febrile neutropenic patients: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  J W Sanders; N R Powe; R D Moore
Journal:  J Infect Dis       Date:  1991-11       Impact factor: 5.226

View more
  2 in total

1.  Using cost of infection as a tool to demonstrate a difference in prophylactic antibiotic efficacy: a prospective randomized comparison of the pharmacoeconomic effectiveness of ceftriaxone and cefotaxime prophylaxis in abdominal surgery.

Authors:  John C Woodfield; Andre M Van Rij; Ross A Pettigrew; Antje van der Linden; Donna Bolt
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 3.352

Review 2.  Place of parenteral cephalosporins in the ambulatory setting: clinical evidence.

Authors:  D Nathwani
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 9.546

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.