4.7 Article

Antibiotic prescribing in general practice: striking differences between Italy (Ravenna) and Denmark (Funen)

期刊

JOURNAL OF ANTIMICROBIAL CHEMOTHERAPY
卷 50, 期 6, 页码 989-997

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jac/dkf239

关键词

drug utilization; general practice; antibiotic prescription; international comparison

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To compare antibiotic prescribing in primary care in two European populations, one in Denmark (Funen), the other in Italy (Ravenna). Methods: Reimbursement data (1999) were retrieved from the Odense Pharmacoepidemiologic Database (Denmark) and the Emilia Romagna Health Authority Database (Italy). The extent of antibiotic use (ATC J01) was analysed as the number of defined daily doses per 1000 inhabitants per day (DDD/1000 inhabitants/day), and as annual prevalence of use. A qualitative analysis was carried out according to the Drug Utilization 90% (DU90%) approach. Results: Antibiotic consumption was 16.5 DDD/1000 inhabitants/day in Ravenna and 10.4 DDD/1000 inhabitants/day in Funen; the annual prevalence of use was 40 and 30 subjects/100 inhabitants, respectively. Italian children received a greater amount (four-fold in DDDs) of antibiotics than Danish ones, whereas consumption was only slightly higher in Italy than in Denmark in the other age groups. In Italy, injectable antibiotics (third generation cephalosporins or aminoglycosides) accounted for 4% of total DDDs and 11% of exposed subjects. In Funen, use of injectable antibiotics was negligible. The bulk of prescription (90% of total DDDs) was made up of eight (out of 38) different antibiotics in Denmark, mainly narrow-spectrum penicillins and macrolides (1st: phenoxymethylpenicillin), and of 18 (out of 74) antibiotics in Italy, mainly broad-spectrum penicillins, macrolides, fluoroquinolones and cephalosporins. Conclusions: These data show remarkable differences in antibiotic prescribing between Italy and Denmark, and suggest possible overuse and misuse of antibiotics in Italy.

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

4.7
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