3.8 Article

Topical corticosteroids in infants: prescribing pattern and prescribing errors in Bahrain

期刊

PHARMACY WORLD & SCIENCE
卷 29, 期 4, 页码 395-399

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11096-007-9087-1

关键词

topical corticosteroids; infants; prescribing pattern; prescribing errors; primary care; middle east; Bahrain

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective A nationwide, primary care-based prescription audit in infants to determine the prescribing pattern and prescribing errors of topical corticosteroid preparations in Bahrain. Method Prescriptions dispensed for infants were collected for two successive weeks from 20 primary-care health centres. Results Among 2282 out of 102,084 prescriptions (2.2%) dispensed for infants, 296 (13.0%) had corticosteroids for topical application to the skin, eye and ear. Plain corticosteroids comprised 6.7%, whereas corticosteroids with antiinfectives accounted for 6.3% of topical corticosteroid preparations. Based on potency the proportions of corticosteroids prescribed were: mild (6.7%), moderately potent (2.6%) and potent (3.7%). The frequency of dosing and length of therapy were not stated in 21.6% and 43.6% of prescriptions, respectively. Base cream as a dilutional vehicle was prescribed in 11.2% (11/98) and 32.4% (12/37) prescriptions containing hydrocortisone acetate 1% cream and betamethasone valerate 0.1%. respectively. In few instances two corticosteroids were concomitantly prescribed. Conclusion Prescribing moderate-to-potent topical preparations in approximately half of the infants, coprescription of multiple corticosteroid preparations, omission of important components of prescription, and resorting to the controversial vehicle diluting technique suggest that topical corticosteroid therapy is sub-optimal. In infants, topical corticosteroids should be rationally prescribed. Establishing the treatment guidelines, Pharmacovigilance programme and revision of the primary care essential drug list are needed in Bahrain.

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

3.8
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