Prescription-based cost analysis of medicines for cardiovascular risk factors at Indian Council of Medical Research-Rational Use of Medicine Centre Hospitals of India.

OBJECTIVES: India has taken several initiatives to provide health care to its population while keeping the related expenditure minimum. Since cardiovascular diseases are the most prevalent chronic conditions, in the present study, we aimed to analyze the difference in prices of medicines prescribed for three cardiovascular risk factors, based on (a) listed and not listed in the National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM) and (b) generic and branded drugs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Outpatient prescriptions for diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and dyslipidemia were retrospectively analyzed from 12 tertiary centers. The prices of medicines prescribed were compared based on presence or absence in NLEM India-2015 and prescribing by generic versus brand name. The price was standardized and presented as average price per medicine per year for a given medicine. The results are presented in Indian rupee (INR) and as median (range). RESULTS: Of the 4,736 prescriptions collected, 843 contained oral antidiabetic, antihypertensive, and/or hypolipidemic medicines. The price per medicine per year for NLEM oral antidiabetics was INR 2849 (2593-3104) and for non-NLEM was INR 5343 (2964-14364). It was INR 806 (243-2132) for generic and INR 3809 (1968-14364) for branded antidiabetics. Antihypertensives and hypolipidemics followed the trend. The price of branded non-NLEM medicines was 5-22 times higher compared to generic NLEM which, for a population of 1.37 billion, would translate to a potential saving of 346.8 billion INR for statins. The variability was significant for sulfonylureas, angiotensin receptor blockers, beta-blockers, diuretics, and statins (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The study highlights an urgent need for intervention to actualize the maximum benefit of government policies and minimize the out-of-pocket expenditure on medicines.

Evaluation of prescriptions from tertiary care hospitals across India for deviations from treatment guidelines & their potential consequences.

BACKGROUND OBJECTIVES: Irrational prescribing practices have major consequences on patient safety and also increase the economic burden. Real-life examples of impact of irrational prescription have potential to improve prescribing practices. In this context, the present study aimed to capture and evaluate the prevalence of deviations from treatment guidelines in the prescriptions, potential consequence/s of the deviations and corrective actions recommended by clinicians. METHODS: It was a cross-sectional observational study conducted in the outpatient departments of tertiary care hospitals in India wherein the 13 Indian Council of Medical Research Rational Use of Medicines Centres are located. Prescriptions not compliant with the standard treatment guidelines and incomplete prescriptions with respect to formulation, dose, duration and frequency were labelled as 'prescriptions having deviations'. A deviation that could result in a drug interaction, lack of response, increased cost, preventable adverse drug reaction (ADR) and/or antimicrobial resistance was labelled as an 'unacceptable deviation'. RESULTS: Against all the prescriptions assessed, about one tenth of them (475/4838; 9.8%) had unacceptable deviations. However, in 2667/4838 (55.1%) prescriptions, the clinicians had adhered to the treatment guidelines. Two thousand one hundred and seventy-one prescriptions had deviations, of which 475 (21.9%) had unacceptable deviations with pantoprazole (n=54), rabeprazole+domperidone (n=35) and oral enzyme preparations (n=24) as the most frequently prescribed drugs and upper respiratory tract infection (URTI) and hypertension as most common diseases with unacceptable deviations. The potential consequences of deviations were increase in cost (n=301), ADRs (n=254), drug interactions (n=81), lack of therapeutic response (n=77) and antimicrobial resistance (n=72). Major corrective actions proposed for consideration were issuance of an administrative order (n=196) and conducting online training programme (n=108). INTERPRETATION CONCLUSIONS: The overall prevalence of deviations found was 45 per cent of which unacceptable deviations was estimated to be 9.8 per cent. To minimize the deviations, clinicians recommended online training on rational prescribing and administrative directives as potential interventions.

An observational multi-centric COVID-19 sequelae study among health care workers.

Background: India has seen more than 43 million confirmed cases of COVID-19 as of April 2022, with a recovery rate of 98.8%, resulting in a large section of the population including the healthcare workers (HCWs), susceptible to develop post COVID sequelae. This study was carried out to assess the nature and prevalence of medical sequelae following COVID-19 infection, and risk factors, if any. Methods: This was an observational, multicenter cross-sectional study conducted at eight tertiary care centers. The consenting participants were HCWs between 12 and 52 weeks post discharge after COVID-19 infection. Data on demographics, medical history, clinical features of COVID-19 and various symptoms of COVID sequelae was collected through specific questionnaire. Finding: Mean age of the 679 eligible participants was 31.49 ± 9.54 years. The overall prevalence of COVID sequelae was 30.34%, with fatigue (11.5%) being the most common followed by insomnia (8.5%), difficulty in breathing during activity (6%) and pain in joints (5%). The odds of having any sequelae were significantly higher among participants who had moderate to severe COVID-19 (OR 6.51; 95% CI 3.46-12.23) and lower among males (OR 0.55; 95% CI 0.39-0.76). Besides these, other predictors for having sequelae were age (≥45 years), presence of any comorbidity (especially hypertension and asthma), category of HCW (non-doctors vs doctors) and hospitalisation due to COVID-19. Interpretation: Approximately one-third of the participants experienced COVID sequelae. Severity of COVID illness, female gender, advanced age, co-morbidity were significant risk factors for COVID sequelae. Funding: This work is a part of Indian Council for Medical Research (ICMR)- Rational Use of Medicines network. No additional financial support was received from ICMR to carry out the work, for study materials, medical writing, and APC.

A study of clinical and economic burden of surgical site infection in patients undergoing caesarian section at a tertiary care teaching hospital in India.

BACKGROUND: Caesarian section is one of the most commonly performed surgeries in India. Determination of the incidence as well as the clinical and financial burden of post caesarian surgical site infection (SSI), is of critical importance for all the stakeholders for rational and fair allocation of resources. METHODS: This study was a prospective observational case-control study. The mean direct and indirect cost of treatment for the cases were compared with the control patients. An unpaired t-test was used to compare the mean between the two groups. RESULTS: Out of 2024 patients, who underwent caesarian section during the study period, 114 had acquired incisional surgical site infection (ISSI), with the infection incidence being 5.63%. The total cost of illness due to post caesarian ISSI was almost three times higher compared to the non-infected matched control group. (P<0.0001). An average length of hospital stay in the ISSI patient group was 10 days longer than that in the control group (P<0.0001) and importantly total length of antimicrobial therapy(LOT) in patients with ISSI was also almost three times higher than the control group (P<0.0001). CONCLUSION: The development of post caesarian SSI imposes a significant clinical as well as a financial burden. The study highlights the necessity of taking effective preventive measures to decrease the incidence of SSI.

Use of drugs not listed in the National List of Essential Medicines: Findings from a prescription analysis by the Indian Council of Medical Research-Rational Use of Medicines Centres Network in tertiary care hospitals across India.

BACKGROUND: The concept of listing essential medicines can lead to improved supply and access, more rational prescribing, and lower costs of drugs. However, these benefits hinge on the prescription of drugs from an Essential Medicines List (EML). Several studies have highlighted the problem of underutilization of EMLs by prescribers. Therefore, as part of prescription research by the Indian Council of Medical Research-Rational Use of Medicines Centres Network, we evaluated the extent of prescription of drugs not listed in the National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prescriptions of outpatients from participating centers were included after obtaining verbal/written informed consent as approved by the Ethics Committee, and evaluated for prescription of drugs from the NLEM 2015. RESULTS: Analysis of 4838 prescriptions from 13 tertiary health-care institutes revealed that 2677 (55.33%) prescriptions had at least one non-NLEM drug prescribed. In all, 5215 (31.12%) of the total 16,758 drugs prescribed were not in NLEM. Of these, 2722 (16.24%) were single drugs and 2493 (14.88%) were fixed-dose combinations (FDCs). These comprised 700 different drug products - 346 single drugs and 354 FDCs. The average number of non-NLEM drugs prescribed per prescription was 1.08, while the average number of all drugs prescribed was 3.35 per prescription. It was also found that some of the non-NLEM drugs prescribed had the potential to result in increased cost (for example, levocetirizine), increased adverse effects (dextromethorphan), and less effectiveness (losartan) when compared to their NLEM counterparts. Nonavailability of an essential drug (oral hydroxocobalamin) was another important finding of our study. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the extent and pattern of drugs prescribed from outside the NLEM at the tertiary health-care level and the need for training and enhanced awareness among prescribers for greater utilization of the NLEM.

A multicentre point prevalence survey (PPS) of antimicrobial use amongst admitted patients in tertiary care centres in India.

OBJECTIVES: Data from point prevalence surveys (PPSs) in India are scarce. Conducting PPSs is especially challenging in the absence of electronic medical records, a lack of dedicated resources and a high patient load in resource-poor settings. This multicentre survey was conducted to provide background data for planning and strengthening antimicrobial stewardship programmes across the country. METHODS: This inpatient PPS was conducted over 2 weeks in May 2019 simultaneously across five study centres in India. Data about patient characteristics, indications for antimicrobials use and details of each antimicrobial prescribed including supportive investigation reports were collected in predesigned forms. RESULTS: A total of 3473 admitted patients in wards and ICUs were covered across five study centres. Of these, 1747 (50.3%) patients were on antimicrobials, with 46.9% patients being on two or more antimicrobials. Out of the total antimicrobials prescribed, 40.2% of the antimicrobials were prescribed for community-acquired infection requiring hospitalization followed by surgical prophylaxis (32.6%). Third-generation cephalosporins and drugs from the 'Watch' category were prescribed most commonly. Only 22.8% of the antimicrobials were based on microbiology reports. CONCLUSIONS: The survey demonstrated a high use of antimicrobials in admitted patients with a considerable proportion of drugs from the 'Watch' category. The targets for interventions that emerged from the survey were: improving surgical prophylaxis, decreasing double anaerobic cover, initiating culture of sending cultures and de-escalation with targeted therapy.