Summary
A prospective, two-phase, drug utilization review (DUR) was performed at the Royal Adelaide Hospital (RAH) to determine the extent and pattern of vancomycin use. For all patients commencing oral or parenteral vancomycin, treatment indication, route of administration, duration of therapy, results of culture and sensitivity tests, adverse drug reactions and results of therapeutic drug level monitoring were recorded. Vancomycin courses were classified as being for therapy or prophylaxis and compared with predetermined audit criteria to assess appropriateness of use.
During the 8 week initial phase, data on 62 treatment courses in 59 patients were recorded, 50% for therapy and 50% for prophylaxis. Sixty four percent were classified as inappropriate, occurring in 32% of therapeutic courses and 97% of those for prophylaxis. During the 10 week re-evaluation, conducted 10 months later, data for 43 treatment courses in 43 patients were reviewed, 42% for therapy and 58% for prophylaxis. Sixty five percent were inappropriate occuring in 17% of therapeutic courses and 100% of the prophylactic courses.
When compared with the initial phase, the re-evaluation demonstrated a decrease in the empirical use of vancomycin in the combination treatment of neutropaenic fever and also in the duration of vancomycin use for surgical prophylaxis. During both study phases, criteria contraventions were mostly due to inappropriate indication or duration of therapy. The cost of inappropriate vancomycin use was reduced by over 50% between survey phases, from $Aus11,500 or 55% of total vancomycin cost during the initial phase to $Aus3,600 or 25.7% during the re-evaluation.
The most effective of the remedial strategies implemented after the initial phase was direct consultation with prescriber groups. The effectiveness of this DUR has provided the basis for an ongoing DUR programme at the RAH which has been met with general acceptance by hospital clinicians and administrators.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Nightingale J, Chaffe BW, Colvin CL, Alexander MR, Rice T, Ross MB (1987) Retrospective evaluation of vancomycin use in a university hospital. Am J Hosp Pharm 44: 1807–1809
Rybak MJ, Boike SC (1986) Individualised adjustment of vancomycin dosage: comparison with two dosage nomograms. Drug Intell Clin Pharm 20: 64–68
Kaiser AB (1986) Antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery. N Engl J Med 315: 1129–1138
Uttley AHC, Collins CH, Naidoo J, George RC (1988) Vancomycin resistant enterococci. Lancet 1: 57–58
Schwalbe RS, Stapleton JT, Gilligan PH (1987) Emergence of vancomycin resistance in coagulase negative staphylococci. N Engl J Med 316: 927–931
Matzke GR, Zhanel GG, Guay DR (1986) Clinical pharmacokinetics of vancomycin. Clin Pharmacokinet 11: 257–282
Cunha BA, Ristuccia AM (1983) Clinical usefulness of vancomycin. Clin Pharm 2: 417–424
Knapp DA, Knapp DE, Brandon BM, West S (1974) Development and application of criteria in drug use review programs. Am J Hosp Pharm 31: 648–656
US Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Office of the Secretary (1986) Final report — task force on prescription drugs. Washington DC, US Government Printing Office
Summers JL (1978) Drug use review. Can J Hosp Pharm 31: 41
Fletcher CV, Giese RM, Rodman JH (1986) Pharmacist interventions to improve prescribing of vancomycin and tobramycin. Am J Hosp Pharm 43: 2198–2201
McCormack JP, Lynd LD, Pfeifer NM (1989) Vancomycin cost containment through a therapeutic and pharmacokinetic drug monitoring service. Can J Hosp Pharm 42: 3–9
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Misan, G.M.H., Martin, E.D., Smith, E.R. et al. Drug utilization review in a teaching hospital: experience with vancomycin. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 39, 457–461 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00280936
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00280936