Pharmacoepidemiological Analysis of Pharmacotherapy for Burn Injuries in Real Clinical Practice

Abstract

Objective: to conduct pharmacoepidemiological analysis and analysis of the costs of pharmacotherapy, taking into account the actual consumption of drugs in the real inpatient clinical practice at the federal center in Russia. Materials and methods. Data from the medical records of 14 patients with burn injury, who were hospitalized in 2018, was analyzed. Patients’ age was from 23 to 67 years (44,93 ± 14,66). Duration of hospitalization was from 17 to 62 days (35,93 ± 14,17). We calculated rate of prescription foe each drug and its share in general structure of all utilized drug courses (n = 460). We performed frequency analysis of prescription structure, DDD (defined daily doses) analysis, DU90% (Drug Utilization 90%) analysis, ABC-analysis and analysis of average cost of pharmacotherapy. Results. Most frequently used drugs, prescribed in 75-100% of all hospital cases, included 15 names, e.g. 2 antimicrobial drugs (vancomycin and amikacin), 19 were used commonly, including 4 antimicrobial drugs (co-trimoxazole, cefoperazone/sulbactam, tigecyclin and cefepime). Other drugs were used in less than 25% of cases. 33 drugs made 90% of all consumed NDDD, including 5 antimicrobial drugs (vancomycin, amikacin, co-trimoxazole, cefoperazone/sulbactam and tigecyclin). These drugs comprised 70,24% in the prescription structure. The cost of one DDD in DU90% segments (512,33 rubles) is 1,4 higher than in DU10% segment (649,34 rubles). Average cost of drugs included in DU90% group was 4735,89 rubles vs 4966,80 rubles for drugs from DU10% group. This finding shows positive tendency of burn injuries pharmacological treatment. Conclusion. We obtained the data, which can be used for comparison of real clinical practice costs with a current payment rates for medical care.