评价非甾体抗炎药在三级设置的处方模式。

Viviane Khalil, Wei Wang, Lauren Charlson, Samantha Blackley
{"title":"评价非甾体抗炎药在三级设置的处方模式。","authors":"Viviane Khalil,&nbsp;Wei Wang,&nbsp;Lauren Charlson,&nbsp;Samantha Blackley","doi":"10.1097/XEB.0000000000000173","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Non steroidal anti-inflammatory agents (NSAIDS) are among the most commonly prescribed analgesics despite their adverse effect profile. The main objective of this pilot study is to assess the prescribing patterns of NSAIDs in an Australian hospital and to examine predictors for prescribing patterns.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A retrospective cross sectional study was conducted. Patients' gastrointestinal and cardiovascular comorbidities were recorded for stratifications according to international guidelines. Pharmacist input was recorded to examine its effect on NSAIDs' prescribing patterns. Appropriateness of prescribing patterns was determined according to published international prescribing guidelines for NSAIDs. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were conducted to determine predictors of patients' variables on prescribing patterns.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 300 patients were eligible to be included in the study. Fifty-five percentage of patients audited were prescribed NSAIDs according to the guidelines. There was an association between the type of NSAIDs prescribed and patients' gastrointestinal and cardiovascular risks, P less than 0.01. Multiple logistic regression analysis has shown: age more than 75 years, a history of peptic ulcer disease or a moderate gastrointestinal risk were all predictors for receiving a NSAID with a gastroprotectant agent [odds ratio (OR) = 3.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.10-11.79), P < 0.05; OR = 9.51, 95% CI (3.70-26.72), P < 0.01; and OR = 5.04, 95% CI (51.72-15.54), P < 0.01, respectively]. Naproxen was more likely to be prescribed in patients with moderate-to-high gastrointestinal risk [OR = 16.24, 95% CI (2.70-132.70) and OR = 81.47 95% CI (3.38-2436.53), P < 0.01, respectively]. Patients who had their medications reviewed by a pharmacist were prescribed cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors more frequently [OR = 3.36, 95% CI (1.05-15.34), P < 0.05] than any other agent.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>About half of the patients audited were prescribed NSAIDs appropriately. Factors affecting the prescribing of NSAIDs included: older age, patients' gastrointestinal risks as well as pharmacist input. This pilot study presents an opportunity for pharmacists to promote adherence to NSAIDs prescribing guidelines.</p>","PeriodicalId":55996,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare","volume":"17 3","pages":"164-172"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000173","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of prescribing patterns of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents in a tertiary setting.\",\"authors\":\"Viviane Khalil,&nbsp;Wei Wang,&nbsp;Lauren Charlson,&nbsp;Samantha Blackley\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/XEB.0000000000000173\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Non steroidal anti-inflammatory agents (NSAIDS) are among the most commonly prescribed analgesics despite their adverse effect profile. The main objective of this pilot study is to assess the prescribing patterns of NSAIDs in an Australian hospital and to examine predictors for prescribing patterns.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A retrospective cross sectional study was conducted. Patients' gastrointestinal and cardiovascular comorbidities were recorded for stratifications according to international guidelines. Pharmacist input was recorded to examine its effect on NSAIDs' prescribing patterns. Appropriateness of prescribing patterns was determined according to published international prescribing guidelines for NSAIDs. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were conducted to determine predictors of patients' variables on prescribing patterns.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 300 patients were eligible to be included in the study. Fifty-five percentage of patients audited were prescribed NSAIDs according to the guidelines. There was an association between the type of NSAIDs prescribed and patients' gastrointestinal and cardiovascular risks, P less than 0.01. Multiple logistic regression analysis has shown: age more than 75 years, a history of peptic ulcer disease or a moderate gastrointestinal risk were all predictors for receiving a NSAID with a gastroprotectant agent [odds ratio (OR) = 3.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.10-11.79), P < 0.05; OR = 9.51, 95% CI (3.70-26.72), P < 0.01; and OR = 5.04, 95% CI (51.72-15.54), P < 0.01, respectively]. Naproxen was more likely to be prescribed in patients with moderate-to-high gastrointestinal risk [OR = 16.24, 95% CI (2.70-132.70) and OR = 81.47 95% CI (3.38-2436.53), P < 0.01, respectively]. Patients who had their medications reviewed by a pharmacist were prescribed cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors more frequently [OR = 3.36, 95% CI (1.05-15.34), P < 0.05] than any other agent.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>About half of the patients audited were prescribed NSAIDs appropriately. Factors affecting the prescribing of NSAIDs included: older age, patients' gastrointestinal risks as well as pharmacist input. This pilot study presents an opportunity for pharmacists to promote adherence to NSAIDs prescribing guidelines.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55996,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare\",\"volume\":\"17 3\",\"pages\":\"164-172\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000173\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000173\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000173","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

背景:非甾体抗炎药(NSAIDS)是最常用的处方镇痛药之一,尽管它们有不良反应。本初步研究的主要目的是评估澳大利亚一家医院非甾体抗炎药的处方模式,并检查处方模式的预测因素。方法:采用回顾性横断面研究。根据国际指南记录患者的胃肠道和心血管合并症进行分层。记录药剂师的意见,以检查其对非甾体抗炎药处方模式的影响。根据非甾体抗炎药国际处方指南确定处方模式的适宜性。进行单变量和多变量回归分析,以确定患者变量对处方模式的预测因子。结果:共有300例患者符合纳入研究的条件。55%的被审计患者根据指南开了非甾体抗炎药。处方非甾体抗炎药类型与患者胃肠道和心血管风险之间存在相关性,P < 0.01。多元logistic回归分析显示:年龄大于75岁、有消化性溃疡病史或有中等胃肠道风险均是接受非甾体抗炎药联合胃保护剂的预测因素[优势比(or) = 3.54, 95%可信区间(CI) (1.10-11.79), P]。结论:约有一半被审计的患者得到了适当的非甾体抗炎药处方。影响非甾体抗炎药处方的因素包括:年龄、患者胃肠道风险和药师投入。这项初步研究为药剂师提供了一个促进遵守非甾体抗炎药处方指南的机会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Evaluation of prescribing patterns of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents in a tertiary setting.

Background: Non steroidal anti-inflammatory agents (NSAIDS) are among the most commonly prescribed analgesics despite their adverse effect profile. The main objective of this pilot study is to assess the prescribing patterns of NSAIDs in an Australian hospital and to examine predictors for prescribing patterns.

Method: A retrospective cross sectional study was conducted. Patients' gastrointestinal and cardiovascular comorbidities were recorded for stratifications according to international guidelines. Pharmacist input was recorded to examine its effect on NSAIDs' prescribing patterns. Appropriateness of prescribing patterns was determined according to published international prescribing guidelines for NSAIDs. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were conducted to determine predictors of patients' variables on prescribing patterns.

Results: A total of 300 patients were eligible to be included in the study. Fifty-five percentage of patients audited were prescribed NSAIDs according to the guidelines. There was an association between the type of NSAIDs prescribed and patients' gastrointestinal and cardiovascular risks, P less than 0.01. Multiple logistic regression analysis has shown: age more than 75 years, a history of peptic ulcer disease or a moderate gastrointestinal risk were all predictors for receiving a NSAID with a gastroprotectant agent [odds ratio (OR) = 3.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.10-11.79), P < 0.05; OR = 9.51, 95% CI (3.70-26.72), P < 0.01; and OR = 5.04, 95% CI (51.72-15.54), P < 0.01, respectively]. Naproxen was more likely to be prescribed in patients with moderate-to-high gastrointestinal risk [OR = 16.24, 95% CI (2.70-132.70) and OR = 81.47 95% CI (3.38-2436.53), P < 0.01, respectively]. Patients who had their medications reviewed by a pharmacist were prescribed cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors more frequently [OR = 3.36, 95% CI (1.05-15.34), P < 0.05] than any other agent.

Conclusion: About half of the patients audited were prescribed NSAIDs appropriately. Factors affecting the prescribing of NSAIDs included: older age, patients' gastrointestinal risks as well as pharmacist input. This pilot study presents an opportunity for pharmacists to promote adherence to NSAIDs prescribing guidelines.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
39
期刊介绍: ​​The International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare is the official journal of the Joanna Briggs Institute. It is a fully refereed journal that publishes manuscripts relating to evidence-based medicine and evidence-based practice. It publishes papers containing reliable evidence to assist health professionals in their evaluation and decision-making, and to inform health professionals, students and researchers of outcomes, debates and developments in evidence-based medicine and healthcare. ​ The journal provides a unique home for publication of systematic reviews (quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, economic, scoping and prevalence) and implementation projects including the synthesis, transfer and utilisation of evidence in clinical practice. Original scholarly work relating to the synthesis (translation science), transfer (distribution) and utilization (implementation science and evaluation) of evidence to inform multidisciplinary healthcare practice is considered for publication. The journal also publishes original scholarly commentary pieces relating to the generation and synthesis of evidence for practice and quality improvement, the use and evaluation of evidence in practice, and the process of conducting systematic reviews (methodology) which covers quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, economic, scoping and prevalence methods. In addition, the journal’s content includes implementation projects including the transfer and utilisation of evidence in clinical practice as well as providing a forum for the debate of issues surrounding evidence-based healthcare.
期刊最新文献
Quality of reporting in abstracts of clinical trials using physical activity interventions: a cross-sectional analysis using the CONSORT for Abstracts Perceived impact of a one-week journalology training course on scientific reporting competencies: prospective survey Artificial intelligence in health and science: an introspection A relação entre linguagem e práticas pseudocientíficas Prevalence of Diabetes Mellitus among individuals with chronic kidney disease: systematic review and meta-analysis
×
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