EVALUATION OF CARBAPENEM USE AMONG PATIENTS AT INTENSIVE CARE UNIT (ICU) IN SANA'A, YEMEN
Objective: Drug Utilization Evaluation (DUE) studies are designed to evaluate and improve the rational use of medications. In this study, DUE has focused on drugs used in high risk patients such as critically ill cases. Carbapenems are beta-lactam type antibiotics with broad-spectrum of activity which cover gram-positive, gram-negative and anaerobic bacteria. The heavy use of carbapenems (imipenem or meropenm) could increase the risk of multi-drug resistant (MDR) pathogens. This study was a prospective and cross sectional study performed at intensive care unit (ICU) of Al-Matwakel hospital in Sana'a, Yemen.
Methods: The study was conducted from September 2018 to March 2019. All of the patients were on imipenem or meropenem as an empiric treatment or based upon microbiology culture results included in the study. Total of 80 patients at ICU were evaluated.
Results: The results of the study showed that empiric therapy was in most cases (91.25%; P<0.001).In addition; about 36.3% of the patients required dosage adjustment according to glomerular filtration rate (GFR) stages. Also according to GFR calculation, 43.8% of the patients were in stage 3. In the present study, the frequency of therapeutic duplication of ceftriaxone with carbapenem was reported in 38 patients. The major drug-drug interactions were observed with tramadol-imipenem, tramadol-meropenem, and amlodipine-simvastatin.
Conclusion: The result of the study showed that empiric therapy was unjustified in most cases (91.25%). In addition, about 36.3% of the patients required dosage adjustment according to GFR stages. According to GFR calculation, 43.8% of the patients were in stage 3. In the present study, the frequency of therapeutic duplication and drug-drug interactions were observed.
Peer Review History:
Received 25 November 2019; Revised 11 December; Accepted 7 January, Available online 15 January 2020
UJPR follows the most transparent and toughest ‘Advanced OPEN peer review’ system. The identity of the authors and, reviewers will be known to each other. This transparent process will help to eradicate any possible malicious/purposeful interference by any person (publishing staff, reviewer, editor, author, etc) during peer review. As a result of this unique system, all reviewers will get their due recognition and respect, once their names are published in the papers. We expect that, by publishing peer review reports with published papers, will be helpful to many authors for drafting their article according to the specifications. Auhors will remove any error of their article and they will improve their article(s) according to the previous reports displayed with published article(s). The main purpose of it is ‘to improve the quality of a candidate manuscript’. Our reviewers check the ‘strength and weakness of a manuscript honestly’. There will increase in the perfection, and transparency.
Average Peer review marks at initial stage: 4.5/10
Average Peer review marks at publication stage: 8.0/10