4.2 Article

Extent and nature of unlicensed and off-label medicine use in hospitalised children in Palestine

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACY
卷 33, 期 4, 页码 650-655

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11096-011-9520-3

关键词

Neonates; Off-label prescribing; Paediatrics; Palestine; Unlicensed medicines; Ward

资金

  1. Daniel Turnberg UK/Middle East Travel Fellowship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective of the study To determine the extent and nature of unlicensed/off-label prescribing patterns in hospitalised children in Palestine. Setting Four paediatric wards in two public health system hospitals in Palestine [Caritas children's hospital (Medical and neonatal intensive care units) and Rafidia general hospital (Medical and surgical units)]. Method A prospective survey of drugs administered to infants and children < 18 years old was carried out over a five-week period in the four paediatric wards. Main outcome measure Drug-licensing status of all prescriptions was determined according to the Palestinian Registered Product List and the Physician's Desk Reference. Results Overall, 917 drug prescriptions were administered to 387children. Of all drug prescriptions, 528 (57.5%) were licensed for use in children; 65 (7.1%) were unlicensed; and 324 (35.3%) were used off-label. Of all children, 49.6% received off-label prescriptions, 10.1% received unlicensed medications and 8.2% received both. Seventy-two percent of off-label drugs and 66% of unlicensed drugs were prescribed for children < 2 years. Multivariate analysis showed that patients who were admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit and infants aged 0-1 years were most likely to receive a greater number of off-label or unlicensed medications (OR 1.80; 95% CI 1.03-3.59 and OR 1.99; 95% CI 0.88-3.73, respectively). Conclusion The present findings confirmed the elevated prevalence of unlicensed and off-label paediatric drugs use in Palestine and strongly support the need to perform well designed clinical studies in children.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据