Drug utilization, rationality, and cost analysis of antimicrobial medicines in a tertiary care teaching hospital of Northern India: A prospective, observational study

• Published in: Indian journal of pharmacology Vol. 52; no. 3; pp. 179 - 188
• Main Authors: Bimba, H, Roy, Vandana, Batta, Angelika, Daga, Mradul
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Pondicherry Wolters Kluwer India Pvt. Ltd 01-05-2020; Medknow Publications and Media Pvt. Ltd; Medknow Publications & Media Pvt. Ltd; Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
• Subjects: Bacterial infections; Cloxacillin; Drugs; Expenditures; Health aspects; Hospital patients; Medical economics; Medicine; Metronidazole; Microbial drug resistance; Observational studies; Rationality; Surgery; Tazobactam; Tinidazole; India; expenditure; drug utilization; rationality; Antimicrobials; prescription pattern
• ISSN: 0253-7613; 1998-3751
• DOI: 10.4103/ijp.IJP_225_19

BACKGROUND: The burden of bacterial infections is huge and grossly under-represented in the current health-care system. Inappropriate use of antimicrobial medicines (AMMs) poses a potential hazard to patients by causing antibiotic resistance. This study was conducted to assess the: (i) AMM consumption and use patterns in patients attending the outpatients and inpatients of Medicine and Surgery departments of the hospital. (ii) Appropriateness of the AMM in the treatment prescribed, and (iii) cost incurred on their use in admitted patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: An observational, prospective study was conducted among inpatients and outpatients of the Medicine and Surgery departments of a tertiary care hospital of northern India. Analysis of 2128 prescriptions and 200 inpatient records was performed using a predesigned format. The use of AMMs was reviewed using anatomical therapeutic chemical classification and defined daily doses (DDDs). To evaluate the expenditure incurred on AMMs, ABC analysis was performed.
RESULTS: AMMs were prescribed to 37.9% outpatients and 73% of admitted patients. The percentage encounters with AMMs was 40.6% (medicine) and 25.6% (surgery) outpatients. The total DDDs/100 patient days of AMMs in medicine and surgery were 3369 and 2247. Bacteriological evidence of infection and AMM sensitivity was present in only 8.5% of cases. Over 90% of AMMs were prescribed from the hospital essential medicines list. Most of the AMMs were administered parenterally (64.9%). Multiple AMMs were prescribed more to inpatients (84.2% vs. 4.2% outpatients). Overall, expenditure on AMM was 33% of the total cost of treatment on medicine. ABC analysis showed that 74% of the expenditure was due to newer, expensive AMM, which constituted only 9% of the AMM used. The AMM therapy was found to be appropriate in 88% of cases as per Kunin's criteria for rationality.
CONCLUSION: AMMs are being commonly prescribed without confirmation of AMM sensitivity in the hospital. A large proportion of expenditure is being incurred on expensive AMM used in a few number of patients. There is a need for developing a policy for rational use of AMM in the health facility.