Purpose: To evaluate colistin use according to global standard drug consumption in intensive care units of a referral hospital in Shiraz, IranMethods: A prospective, interventional study was performed during an 11 month period on 100 patients admitted to ICUs of a teaching hospital being treated with colistin for at least 3 subsequent doses. Required demographic, clinical, and paraclinical data were gathered by a pharmacist. Fifteen indexes were considered to evaluate colistin use. A clinical pharmacist reviewed indication and dose of colistin at the time of prescribing this agent.Results: In our study population, pneumonia (69%) was the main indication of colistin. In 87% of patients, colistin administration was based on microbiological laboratory evidence. Continuation of therapy was inappropriate in 5% of cases. By the intervention of the clinical pharmacist, colistin was discontinued in all patients in whom empirical therapy was continued incorrectly. None of the patients received loading dose of colistin. The maintenance dose, dose interval, and duration of treatment of colistin were appropriate in 76%, 71%, and 100% of patients, respectively. For none of the patients, the pharmacokinetic dosing method was used. In all patients, serum creatinine and WBC count were evaluated on daily basis. The sum indexes of colistin use were relevant to standard guidelines in 67.33% of the cases.Conclusion: The results of this study highlight the necessity of the pharmaceutical care team participation in all stages of treatment with antibiotics. After pharmacist interventions, some criteria of colistin utilization were corrected and brought closer to standard values.

No abstract

Objectives This study aimed to assess the financial burden of out-of-pocket (OOP) payments to purchase antidiabetic medicines for type 2 patients in Iran. Method The “budget share” and “capacity to pay” approaches were employed to assess the catastrophic pharmaceutical expenditures of antidiabetic medication therapies. The catastrophic thresholds were adjusted for pharmaceutical sectors. The data was 2019 monthly household expenditures in rural and urban areas, insurance coverages of antidiabetic medicines and patients' out-of-pocket (OOP) payments in 30-day treatment schedules. Results The results show that expenditure on diabetes medication therapies in the form of mono-dual therapy and some cases triple oral therapies were not catastrophic even for rural households. Insulin puts patients at risk of catastrophic pharmaceutical expenditures when added to the treatment schedules, and lack of financial protection intensifies it. In general, the poorer households and those resistant to first-line treatments were at increased risk of catastrophic pharmaceutical expenditures. The number of treatments that put patients at risk of catastrophic pharmaceutical expenditure in "budget share" was higher than the "capacity to pay" approach. Conclusions Assessing medication treatment affordability instead of a single medicine assessment is needed. Assessment could be done by utilizing a macro-level data approach and applying adjusted pharmaceutical sector threshold values. Considering the variation between treatment schedules that put patients at risk of catastrophic pharmaceutical expenditures, targeted pharmaceutical policies and reimbursement decisions are recommended to promote Universal Health Coverage (UHC) and to protect vulnerable populations from hardship.

No abstract