Volume 31, Issue 4 (February 2024)
J Birjand Univ Med Sci. 2024, 31(4): 293-301 |
Back to browse issues page
Research code: 457289
Ethics code: IR.BUMS.REC.1402.548
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Mahi-Birjand M, Alemzadeh E, Jalalian S, Es'haghi S. Investigation of the rational use of teicoplanin in inpatient wards of teaching hospitals in Birjand, Iran, from 2022 to 2023. J Birjand Univ Med Sci. 2024; 31 (4) :293-301
URL: http://journal.bums.ac.ir/article-1-3488-en.html
URL: http://journal.bums.ac.ir/article-1-3488-en.html
1- Department of Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmacy, Infectious Diseases Research Center, Birjand University of Medical Sciences, Birjand, Iran , motahare_mahi@yahoo.com
2- Infectious Diseases Research Center, Birjand University of Medical Sciences, Birjand, Iran
2- Infectious Diseases Research Center, Birjand University of Medical Sciences, Birjand, Iran
Abstract: (565 Views)
Background and Aims: Incorrect and excessive use of antibiotics has led to a significant rise in drug resistance. Nowadays, irrational antibiotic use is a major contributor to increased illness, death, and healthcare costs. Therefore, the present study aimed to investigate the pattern of Teicoplanin use in hospitalized patients at teaching hospitals in Birjand, Iran, from 2022 to 2023.
Materials and Methods: This descriptive cross-sectional study based on hospital data was conducted on all patients hospitalized in the wards of Vali-Asr, Imam Reza, and Razi teaching hospitals in 2022 and 2023 who were prescribed Teicoplanin. In this study, all the information required by the patients was recorded in Excel based on the study objectives, as well as the global protocols of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA(, and American Society of Health-System Pharmacists )ASHP(. Finally, the results were analyzed using the SPSS (version 26) software.
Results: The study included 73 patients with a mean age of 64.26±17.90 years; 37 (51%) were women. The most common clinical conditions leading to Teicoplanin administration were pneumonia (73%) and sepsis (32.9%). According to the results, 87.7% of Teicoplanin treatments were based on antibiogram test results, while only nine patients (12.3%) received empirical Teicoplanin treatment. In 11% of cases, the loading dose of Teicoplanin was correctly administered. Additionally, the maintenance dose was correctly administered in 54 patients (74%). In addition, adverse drug reactions to Teicoplanin were observed in 12 patients (16.4%). The results revealed that 67 patients (91.8%) were admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). According to the researcher-developed checklist, only four patients (5.4%) adhered to all protocol guidelines.
Conclusion: According to the findings, the patterns of rational Teicoplanin prescription in the studied hospitals do not sufficiently align with existing guidelines and standards.
Materials and Methods: This descriptive cross-sectional study based on hospital data was conducted on all patients hospitalized in the wards of Vali-Asr, Imam Reza, and Razi teaching hospitals in 2022 and 2023 who were prescribed Teicoplanin. In this study, all the information required by the patients was recorded in Excel based on the study objectives, as well as the global protocols of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA(, and American Society of Health-System Pharmacists )ASHP(. Finally, the results were analyzed using the SPSS (version 26) software.
Results: The study included 73 patients with a mean age of 64.26±17.90 years; 37 (51%) were women. The most common clinical conditions leading to Teicoplanin administration were pneumonia (73%) and sepsis (32.9%). According to the results, 87.7% of Teicoplanin treatments were based on antibiogram test results, while only nine patients (12.3%) received empirical Teicoplanin treatment. In 11% of cases, the loading dose of Teicoplanin was correctly administered. Additionally, the maintenance dose was correctly administered in 54 patients (74%). In addition, adverse drug reactions to Teicoplanin were observed in 12 patients (16.4%). The results revealed that 67 patients (91.8%) were admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). According to the researcher-developed checklist, only four patients (5.4%) adhered to all protocol guidelines.
Conclusion: According to the findings, the patterns of rational Teicoplanin prescription in the studied hospitals do not sufficiently align with existing guidelines and standards.
Type of Study: Original Article |
Subject:
Infectious disease
Received: 2024/12/3 | Accepted: 2025/01/1 | ePublished ahead of print: 2025/02/4 | ePublished: 2024/12/25
Received: 2024/12/3 | Accepted: 2025/01/1 | ePublished ahead of print: 2025/02/4 | ePublished: 2024/12/25
References
1. 1 Huang L, Zhang R, Hu Y, Zhou H, Cao J, Lv H, et al. Epidemiology and risk factors of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and vancomycin-resistant enterococci infections in Zhejiang China from 2015 to 2017. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2019; 8: 1-9. DOI: 10.1186/s13756-019-0539-x [DOI:10.1186/s13756-019-0539-x] [PMID] []
2. 2 Mohamadi S, Rezaee R, Hashemi M, Kiani B, Ghasemi S, Alizadeh Sani M, et al. Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), Vancomycin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (VRSA), and Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococci (VRE) Contamination of Food Samples in Iran: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Iran J Med Microbiol. 2023; 17(2): 135-49. DOI: 10.30699/ijmm.17.2.135 [DOI:10.30699/ijmm.17.2.135]
3. 3 Wang Y, Oppong TB, Liang X, Duan G, Yang H. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and vancomycin-resistant Enterococci co-colonization in patients: A meta-analysis. Am J Infect Control.. 2020; 48(8): 925-32. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2019.11.010 [DOI:10.1016/j.ajic.2019.11.010] [PMID]
4. 4 Mousavi S, Zargarzadeh A. Rational Drug Use in Iran: A Call for Action. J Pharm Care. 2015; 2(2): 47-8. URL: https://jpc.tums.ac.ir/index.php/jpc/article/view/44
5. 5 Basaran NF, Akici A. Patients' experience and perspectives on the rational use of drugs in Turkey: a survey study. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2012: 719-24. DOI: 10.2147/PPA.S34922 [DOI:10.2147/PPA.S34922] [PMID] []
6. 6 Blomberg M, Jensen MB, Henry A, Singh S, Banipal RS, da Cunha-Bang C, et al. Antimicrobial drug use in a small Indian community hospital. Trop Doct. 2010; 40(4): 194-8. DOI: 10.1258/td.2010.090157 [DOI:10.1258/td.2010.090157] [PMID]
7. 7 Lavigne J-P, Bruyère F, Bernard L, Combescure C, Ronco E, Lanotte P, et al. Resistance and virulence potential of uropathogenic Escherichia coli strains isolated from patients hospitalized in urology departments: a French prospective multicentre study. J Med Microbiol. 2016; 65(6): 530-7. DOI: 10.1099/jmm.0.000247 [DOI:10.1099/jmm.0.000247] [PMID]
8. 8 La Fauci V, Alessi V. Antibiotic resistance: Where are we going? Ann Ig. 2018; 30(4): 52-7. DOI: 10.7416/ai.2018.2235
9. 9 Chinemerem Nwobodo D, Ugwu MC, Oliseloke Anie C, Al‐Ouqaili MT, Chinedu Ikem J, Victor Chigozie U, et al. Antibiotic resistance: The challenges and some emerging strategies for tackling a global menace. J Clin Lab Anal. 2022; 36(9): e24655. DOI: 10.1002/jcla.24655 [DOI:10.1002/jcla.24655] [PMID] []
10. 10 Uddin TM, Chakraborty AJ, Khusro A, Zidan BRM, Mitra S, Emran TB, et al. Antibiotic resistance in microbes: History, mechanisms, therapeutic strategies and future prospects. J Infect Public Health. 2021; 14(12): 1750-66. DOI: 10.1016/j.jiph.2021.10.020 [DOI:10.1016/j.jiph.2021.10.020] [PMID]
11. 11 Tamadon MR, Soliemani A, Yarmohamadi M, Semnani V, Ghorbani R, Malek F, et al. Similar efficacy of vancomycin and teicoplanin in treatment of catheter related infection in hemodialysis patients. koomesh. 2012;14(1):e152546. URL: https://brieflands.com/articles/koomesh-152546
12. 12 Baron SA, Devaux C, Colson P, Raoult D, Rolain J-M. Teicoplanin: an alternative drug for the treatment of COVID-19? Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2020; 55(4): 105944. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.105944 [DOI:10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.105944] [PMID] []
13. 13 Rosenberg W, Donald A. Evidence based medicine: an approach to clinical problem-solving.BMJ. 1995; 310(6987): 1122-6. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.310.6987.1122 [DOI:10.1136/bmj.310.6987.1122] [PMID] []
14. 14 Elseviers M, Wettermark B, Mueller T, Benko R, Bennie M, Gvozdanovic K, et al. Drug utilization research: methods and applications: John Wiley & Sons; 2nd Edition. 2024. ISBN: 978-1-119-91165-4 [DOI:10.1002/9781119911685.ch1]
15. 15 Wettermark B, Elseviers M, Mueller T, Almarsdottir A, Benkő R, Bennie M, et al. Introduction to drug utilization research. Drug utilization research: methods and applications. 2024: 1-12. DOI:10.1002/9781118949740.ch1 [DOI:10.1002/9781118949740.ch1]
16. 16 Sacha GL, Neuner EA, Athans V, Bass SN, Pallotta A, Rivard KR, et al. Retrospective evaluation of the use of ceftolozane/tazobactam at a large academic medical center. What Did We Learn?. Infect Dis Clin Pract (Baltim Md). 2017; 25(6): 305-9. DOI: 10.1097/IPC.0000000000000553. URL: https://journals.lww.com/infectdis/abstract/2017/11000/retrospective_evaluation_of_the_use_of.5.aspx [DOI:10.1097/IPC.0000000000000553]
17. 17 Sato M, Chida K, Suda T, Muramatsu H, Suzuki Y, Hashimoto H, et al. Recommended initial loading dose of teicoplanin, established by therapeutic drug monitoring, and outcome in terms of optimal trough level. J Infect Chemother. 2006; 12(4): 185-9. DOI: 10.1007/s10156-006-0446-y [DOI:10.1007/s10156-006-0446-Y] [PMID]
18. 18 Hajialigol M, Farsaei S, Shirani K. Prospective Study of Irrational Prescription of Teicoplanin in a Large Academic Hospital: A Dilemma of Antimicrobial Resistance. J Res Pharm Pract. 2020; 9(1): 50-5. DOI: 10.4103/jrpp.JRPP_19_104 [DOI:10.4103/jrpp.JRPP_19_104] [PMID] []
19. 19 Farsad BF, Hadavand N, Salehi H, Shekari F. Carbapenems, Linezolid, Teicoplanin utilization evaluation in a large teaching based hospital (Shahid Rajaie heart center, Tehran): a quality improvement study. Biomed Pharmacol J. 2016; 9(2): 525-32. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.13005/bpj/968 [DOI:10.13005/bpj/968]
20. 20 Kaur J, Mir T, Dixit P, Uddin M, Kadari S, Lee Y, et al. The Use of Vancomycin Versus Teicoplanin in Treating Febrile Neutropenia: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review. Cureus. 2021; 13(5): e15269. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.15269 [DOI:10.7759/cureus.15269]
21. 21 Lee JH, Choi MG, Park HJ, Kim HC, Choi C-M. Comparison of mortality and clinical failure rates between vancomycin and teicoplanin in patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus pneumonia. BMC Infect Dis. 2022; 22(1): 600. DOI: 10.1186/s12879-022-07549-2 [DOI:10.1186/s12879-022-07549-2] [PMID] []
22. 22 Sanford JP. The Sanford guide to antimicrobial therapy: Antimicrobial Therapy; 2007.
23. 23 Kayambankadzanja RK, Lihaka M, Barratt-Due A, Kachingwe M, Kumwenda W, Lester R, et al. The use of antibiotics in the intensive care unit of a tertiary hospital in Malawi. BMC Infect Dis. 2020; 20(1): 776. DOI: 10.1186/s12879-020-05505-6. [DOI:10.1186/s12879-020-05505-6] [PMID] []
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
Attribution-NoneCommercial CC BY-NC