Drug use evaluation (DUE) of ceftriaxone: A quality metric in a pediatric hospital.

Q3 Medicine JAMMI Pub Date : 2020-10-11 eCollection Date: 2020-10-01 DOI:10.3138/jammi-2019-0026
Clara Delorme, Isabelle Viel-Thériault, Tassnim Moradipour, Nicole Le Saux
{"title":"Drug use evaluation (DUE) of ceftriaxone: A quality metric in a pediatric hospital.","authors":"Clara Delorme,&nbsp;Isabelle Viel-Thériault,&nbsp;Tassnim Moradipour,&nbsp;Nicole Le Saux","doi":"10.3138/jammi-2019-0026","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Ceftriaxone is frequently used as empiric therapy because of its broad spectrum and dosing characteristics. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the appropriateness of ceftriaxone therapy among hospitalized children using drug use evaluation (DUE) methodology.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Hospitalized patients who received one or fewer dose of intravenous ceftriaxone at Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario between January 1, 2018, and June 30, 2018, were identified. Duration was defined as empiric if 72 or less and definitive if more than 72 hours. Two infectious disease physicians reviewed the charts and rated appropriateness using a previously developed scale.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 276 ceftriaxone courses in 248 patients (mean age 6.0 y) were reviewed. Of these, 153 (55.4%) were assessed as definitively or possibly indicated. The most common reason for inappropriate empiric use was an overly broad spectrum. Of the 120 courses given empirically for which there was no indication, the three most common reasons were lower respiratory infections (51; 42.5%), head and neck infections (18; 15.0%), and intra-abdominal infections (15; 12.5%). Of the 39 (14.1%) courses of ceftriaxone that were given for more than 72 hours, 14 (35.9%) met criteria for a definitive or possible indication.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Ceftriaxone is still overused as empiric therapy. Although 85% of courses were discontinued after three doses, 14% were continued for longer than 72 hours, with approximately one-third ultimately meeting an indication. DUE using Canadian pediatric and local guidelines criteria is useful to identify clinical presentations for which narrower spectrum antimicrobials should be used.</p>","PeriodicalId":36782,"journal":{"name":"JAMMI","volume":" ","pages":"139-144"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3138/jammi-2019-0026","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAMMI","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3138/jammi-2019-0026","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/10/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: Ceftriaxone is frequently used as empiric therapy because of its broad spectrum and dosing characteristics. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the appropriateness of ceftriaxone therapy among hospitalized children using drug use evaluation (DUE) methodology.

Methods: Hospitalized patients who received one or fewer dose of intravenous ceftriaxone at Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario between January 1, 2018, and June 30, 2018, were identified. Duration was defined as empiric if 72 or less and definitive if more than 72 hours. Two infectious disease physicians reviewed the charts and rated appropriateness using a previously developed scale.

Results: A total of 276 ceftriaxone courses in 248 patients (mean age 6.0 y) were reviewed. Of these, 153 (55.4%) were assessed as definitively or possibly indicated. The most common reason for inappropriate empiric use was an overly broad spectrum. Of the 120 courses given empirically for which there was no indication, the three most common reasons were lower respiratory infections (51; 42.5%), head and neck infections (18; 15.0%), and intra-abdominal infections (15; 12.5%). Of the 39 (14.1%) courses of ceftriaxone that were given for more than 72 hours, 14 (35.9%) met criteria for a definitive or possible indication.

Conclusion: Ceftriaxone is still overused as empiric therapy. Although 85% of courses were discontinued after three doses, 14% were continued for longer than 72 hours, with approximately one-third ultimately meeting an indication. DUE using Canadian pediatric and local guidelines criteria is useful to identify clinical presentations for which narrower spectrum antimicrobials should be used.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
头孢曲松药物使用评价(DUE):儿科医院的质量指标。
背景:头孢曲松由于其广谱和给药特点,经常被用作经经验治疗。本研究的目的是采用药物使用评价(DUE)方法评价头孢曲松治疗在住院儿童中的适宜性。方法:对2018年1月1日至2018年6月30日期间在安大略省东部儿童医院接受一剂或更少剂量静脉注射头孢曲松的住院患者进行分析。持续时间定义为经验,如果72小时或更少,确定,如果超过72小时。两名传染病医生审查了这些图表,并使用先前开发的量表对适当性进行了评分。结果:248例患者(平均年龄6.0岁)共276个头孢曲松疗程。其中153例(55.4%)被评估为明确或可能指征。不恰当的经验性使用最常见的原因是频谱过于宽泛。在经验给出的120个疗程中,没有指征,三个最常见的原因是下呼吸道感染(51;42.5%),头颈部感染(18%;15.0%)和腹腔内感染(15;12.5%)。在给予头孢曲松超过72小时的39个疗程(14.1%)中,14个疗程(35.9%)符合明确或可能适应证的标准。结论:头孢曲松作为经验性治疗仍存在滥用现象。虽然85%的疗程在三次剂量后停止,但14%的疗程持续超过72小时,约三分之一的患者最终达到适应症。使用加拿大儿科和地方指南标准有助于确定应使用窄谱抗菌素的临床表现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
JAMMI
JAMMI Medicine-Infectious Diseases
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
48
期刊最新文献
A case report of Capnocytophaga canimorsus meningitis with failure of ceftriaxone therapy. Impact of climate change on amoeba and the bacteria they host. Shifting the antibiotic rhetoric in children from 'just in case' to 'disclose the risk': Has the time come? Carriage of Haemophilus influenzae serotype A in children: Canadian Immunization Research Network (CIRN) study. Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy as the presenting feature in a patient with occult low-count monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1