浏览全部资源
扫码关注微信
1.山西医科大学第二医院药学部,太原 030000
2.山西医科大学第一医院药学部,太原 030000
3.临汾市人民医院药学部,山西 临汾 041000
4.运城市中心医院药学部,山西 运城 044000
5.长治医学院附属和平医院药学部,山西 长治 046000
副主任药师。研究方向:药事管理。E-mail:jwsydey@163.com
副主任药师。研究方向:医院药学、药物经济学。 E-mail:wubei8005@163.com
纸质出版日期:2023-03-15,
收稿日期:2022-08-13,
修回日期:2023-01-30,
扫 描 看 全 文
季文,侯锐钢,孟志强等.医疗机构阿片类药物使用剂量两种分析方法比较 Δ[J].中国药房,2023,34(05):620-624.
JI Wen,HOU Ruigang,MENG Zhiqiang,et al.Comparison of two analysis methods of opioid consumption sum in medical institutions[J].ZHONGGUO YAOFANG,2023,34(05):620-624.
季文,侯锐钢,孟志强等.医疗机构阿片类药物使用剂量两种分析方法比较 Δ[J].中国药房,2023,34(05):620-624. DOI: 10.6039/j.issn.1001-0408.2023.05.20.
JI Wen,HOU Ruigang,MENG Zhiqiang,et al.Comparison of two analysis methods of opioid consumption sum in medical institutions[J].ZHONGGUO YAOFANG,2023,34(05):620-624. DOI: 10.6039/j.issn.1001-0408.2023.05.20.
目的
2
比较两种剂量分析方法在分析综合三级甲等医疗机构阿片类药物使用情况中的异同,为医疗机构阿片类药物管理提供参考。
方法
2
采用限定日剂量(DDD)与口服吗啡等效当量(OME)两种方法统计山西省5家综合三级甲等医疗机构(编号H
1
~H
5
)2020年阿片类药物的处方数据,计算阿片类药物用量、年人均用量、患者费用负担排序、不同品种药物用量占比等指标,比较两种剂量分析方法呈现的指标结果,探索两种评估方法各自的优势应用场景。
结果
2
使用两种方法计算5家样本医疗机构阿片类药物用量和患者费用负担的排序相同,人均用量的排序不同。以5家医疗机构为总体,两种方法比较各品种阿片类药物用量占比前4位排序相同,从大到小依次为瑞芬太尼>舒芬太尼>羟考酮>吗啡;瑞芬太尼的占比接近50%。比较各医疗机构内药物用量占比排序时,除H
1
医疗机构外,其余医疗机构用两种方法计算的结果排序不同。使用DDD法所得芬太尼的用量占比明显高于OME法;而使用OME法所得瑞芬太尼的用量占比明显高于DDD法。围术期患者的用量占比均为最高,约50%。使用DDD法所得H
3
医疗机构急重症患者和H
5
医疗机构的住院癌痛患者及其他患者的用量占比高于OME法。使用两种方法计算不同类别患者的费用负担排序有差异。
结论
2
DDD法可较准确地反映阿片类药物的用量,便于对用量的监测管理;而OME法可更多地反映镇痛效果以及比较患者的费用负担。
OBJECTIVE
2
To compare the similarities and differences of the two methods in analyzing the use of opioids in third grade class A medical institutions and provide a reference for the management of opioids in medical institutions.
METHODS
2
Two methods, Defined Daily Dose (DDD) and Oral Morphine Equivalent (OME), were used to count the opioid prescription data of five comprehensive medical institutions of third grade class A (named H
1
-H
5
) in Shanxi province in 2020, calculate consumption sum of opioid, annual per capita consumption sum, patient cost burden and drug consumption sum ratio, compare the index results presented by the two analysis methods, and explore the application scenarios of the advantages of each of the two evaluation methods.
RESULTS
2
The ranking of consumption sum of opioid and patient cost burden calculated by the two methods was the same in the five sample medical institutions, but the ranking of per capita consumption sum was different. Taking the 5 medical institutions as a whole, the top 4 rankings of consumption sum ratio for each species of opioid compared by both methods were the same, i.e. remifentanil>sufentanil>oxycodone>morphine. The ratio of remifentanil was close to 50%. When comparing the ranking of consumption sum ratio in each medical institution, the ranking calculated by the two methods was different for those medical institutions except for H
1
medical institutions. The consumption sum ratio of fentanyl calculated by DDD method was significantly higher than that of OME method; whereas consumption sum ratio of remifentanil calculated by OME method was significantly higher than that of DDD method. Perioperative patients had the highest consumption sum ratio, about 50%. The consumption sum ratio of critically ill patients in H
3
medical institutions and inpatient patients with cancer pain and other patients in H
5
medical institutions calculated by DDD method was significantly higher than that by OME method. There were differences in the order of cost burden of different types of patients calculated by two methods.
CONCLUSIONS
2
DDD method can accurately reflect the dosage of opioid drugs and facilitate the monitoring and management of the dosage; OME method can more reflect the analgesic effect and compare the cost burden of patients.
阿片类药物口服吗啡当量限定日剂量用量占比合理用药
oral morphine equivalentdefined daily doseconsumption sum ratiorational use of drugs
RAJA S N,CARR D B,COHEN M,et al.The revised International Association for the Study of Pain definition of pain:concepts,challenges,and compromises[J].Pain,2020,161(9):1976-1982.
于晖,左明章.服用阿片类药物的慢性疼痛患者围术期疼痛管理策略[J].中国医刊,2012,47(8):6-8.
谢靳希,邓艳萍,史录文.美国阿片类药物滥用危机与中国镇痛药使用与监管[J].中国药物滥用防治杂志,2020,26(4):192-197.
JOSEPH A,EDUARDO B,金雨颖.平衡癌症病人中阿片类药物镇痛与非医学目的使用的风险[J].中国疼痛医学杂志,2020,26(2):81-84.
朱蕊,刘蕊.我院门急诊麻醉药品使用情况分析[J].中国医药导刊,2021,23(5):360-363.
胡吕萍,姜云达,杨忠英,等.某院2019-2020年度麻醉药品使用情况分析[J].中国药物依赖性杂志,2022,31(1):57-61.
李静,黄滔敏. 2018-2020年我院手术用麻醉药品的使用情况分析[J].中国临床药学杂志,2022,31(2):122-125.
刘银环,剡建华,仝敏,等.2019-2021年咸阳市中心医院麻醉药品的使用情况分析[J].现代药物与临床,2022,36(6):1361-1364.
徐玲.2017年我院阿片类药物使用情况分析[J].中国处方药,2018,16(8):49-50.
黄智然,苏夏雯,刁一凡,等.我国不同地区阿片类镇痛药物在癌痛治疗中的使用情况及个人经济负担[J].药物流行病学杂志,2019,28(6):389-394.
HAMUNEN K,LAITINEN-PARKKONEN P,PAAKKARI P,et al.What do different databases tell about the use of opioids in seven European countries in 2002? [J].Eur J Pain,2008,12(6):705-715.
SVENDSEN K,BORCHGREVINK P,FREDHEIM O, et al.Choosing the unit of measurement counts:the use of oral morphine equivalents in studies of opioid consumption is a useful addition to defined daily doses[J].Palliat Med,2011,25(7):725-732.
李艳,丁庆明.限定日剂量在药物利用研究中的应用[J].中国执业药师,2010,7(9):6-8.
王琳琳,朱涛,李玲. 2018-2020年某院癌痛患者麻醉药品使用情况分析[J].中国处方药,2021,19(10):80-82.
李秋红,徐铭军.妇科手术患者围手术期镇痛药物及方法的应用进展[J].山东医药,2017,57(3):104-106.
NIELSEN S,DEGENHARDT L,HOBAN B,et al.A synthesis of oral morphine equivalents (OME) for opioid utilisation studies[J].Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf,2016,25(6):733-737.
MERCADANTE S,CARACENI A.Conversion ratios for opioid switching in the treatment of cancer pain:a syste- matic review[J].Palliat Med,2011,25(5):504-515.
佘守章.新型阿片类药物在患者自控镇痛治疗中的研究进展[J].广东医学,2005,26(10):1329-1331.
庞洋.我院2016-2019年麻醉药品的使用情况分析[J].临床医学研究与实践,2021,6(16):131-134.
JARLBAEK L,ANDERSEN M,HALLAS J,et al.Use of opioids in a Danish population-based cohort of cancer patients[J].J Pain Symptom Manage,2005,29(4):336-343.
TREILLET E,LAURENT S,HADJIAT Y. Practical ma- nagement of opioid rotation and equianalgesia[J].J Pain Res,2018,11:2587-2601.
0
浏览量
7
下载量
0
CSCD
关联资源
相关文章
相关作者
相关机构