Comparison of pediatric antibiotic prescribing practice between low and high prescribers for children in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic prescribing is more prevalent in children. Many factors influence this practice, including the burden of outpatient visits. We aimed to compare antibiotic prescribing for children by low prescribers (LP) and high prescribers (HP) in primary care. METHODS: We analyzed pediatric prescriptions in primary care in Istanbul. Among the physicians randomly selected by systematic sampling, those generating ≥1 pediatric prescription/day (n=1218) were defined as LP or HP when they belonged to the lowest (n=305) or highest (n=304) quartile of prescribing, respectively. The antibiotic prescribing characteristics of these groups were compared. RESULTS: We identified that 38.5% of the prescriptions written by physicians included antibiotics, significantly higher in HPs (38.8%) than in LPs (37.2%), (p=0.04). Among antibiotic-containing prescriptions, the mean number of drugs and boxes and the percentage of prescriptions containing injectable drugs/antibiotics were significantly higher in HPs compared to that in LPs. We detected that co-amoxiclav was the most frequently prescribed antibiotic in the LP and HP groups (61.1% and 48.3%, respectively). Stratification of antibiotics by their spectra showed that 11.2% were narrow, 79.8% were broad and 0.5% were ultra-broad-spectrum drugs. LPs were significantly more likely to prescribe broad-spectrum antibiotics (82.5%) than do HPs (78.9%,p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotic prescribing remains excessive in pediatric primary care, slightly more marked in HPs. While HPs also tend to prescribe a higher number of overall and injectable drugs/antibiotics, broad-spectrum anti-biotherapy seems to be more practiced by LPs surprisingly. Both physician groups appeared to prefer either narrow- or broad-spectrum drugs without paying enough attention to their pharmacodynamic properties.

Utilization of biotechnological drugs in rare diseases requiring the use of off-label drugs in children in Turkey

Background/aim: Pediatric patients, especially those with rare diseases, represent a population that has a high tendency towards off- label drug use (OLDU) and needs a more careful practice of pharmacotherapy than in adults. We aimed to investigate biotechnological drug use in children with rare diseases requiring OLDU. Materials and methods: This retrospective study examined all single-diagnosed OLDU applications (n = 5792) for 4992 children (<18- year) in Turkey. Applications of rare diseases were selected, and their descriptive characteristics were examined, including demographic features of patients, biotechnological drug utilization status, and disease categories. The off-label statuses of the drugs at the end of 2020 were also examined. Results: In total, 77.7% (n = 4501) of OLDU applications were made for rare diseases. Biotechnological drug use was higher in rare disease applications than in nonrare diseases (37.9% vs. 19.2%, respectively; p < 0.0001). Canakinumab was the top applied biotechnological drug (73.2%). Compared to that in small-molecule drugs, the mean age of patients was higher in biotechnological drug-containing applications (8.1 ± 5.3 vs. 9.7 ± 4.9, respectively; p < 0.0001). Biotechnological drug use was higher in nonneoplastic rare diseases (40.3%) than in neoplastic rare diseases (26.4%), (p < 0.0001). At the end of 2020, the approval status of the off-label indications covered in 2016 was significantly higher for rare (24.4%) vs. nonrare (5.2%, p < 0.0001) diseases and for biotechnological (32.3%) vs. small- molecule (13.9%, p < 0.0001) drugs. In total, 87.7% of the drugs would have to be still used in the off-label setting at the end of 2020. Conclusion: It was seen that more than three-quarters of the pediatric OLDU applications are for rare diseases, and the need for biotechnological OLDU in this group is almost 2-fold of small-molecule drug use. While further projected findings imply a higher approval tendency for rare diseases and biotechnological drugs, there seems to be more room for improvement for pediatric drug use.

Off-label drug use in pediatric patients: a comparative analysis with nationwide routine prescription data.

BACKGROUND: Children constitute a special population for off-label drug use (OLDU), yet limited drug-focused data exist regarding pediatric OLDU in clinical practice. This study aimed to investigate pediatric OLDU practice and compare it with pediatric drug utilization patterns of routine prescribing data. METHODS: This cross-sectional study examined all approved pediatric OLDU applications, compared with electronic prescription data on national Prescription Information System of Turkish Medicines and Medical Devices Agency in 2015. OLDU applications and prescriptions were analyzed for demographic characteristics, healthcare/socioeconomic indices as well as details of drugs and diagnoses. RESULTS: We found 7,896 OLDU applications and 7,029,512 prescriptions for the pediatric population in 2015. OLDU applications and prescriptions were mostly practiced for `2-11-year-old` children (52.7% vs. 63.4%, respectively; p < 0.01). OLDU applications and prescriptions were detected to have a positive correlation with socio-economic development index (r = 0.45, p < 0.0001 and r: 0.40, p = 0.0002; respectively) and the physician density (r = 0.66, p < 0.0001 and r: 0.43, p < 0.0001; respectively). In addition, OLDU was also positively correlated with the number of hospital beds per province (r = 0.39, p = 0.0003). Antineoplastic/immunomodulating agents were the most commonly applied drug category in OLDU (47.0%), compared with respiratory system drugs (36.6%) in routine prescribing. Eculizumab (6.5%), mycophenolate (5.6%), and canakinumab (4.4%) were the top drugs used as off-label. OLDU applications and routine prescription data revealed the most frequent diagnosis as `I27-other pulmonary heart diseases` (7.4%) and `J06-acute upper respiratory infections` (12.6%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first nationwide study to show indication- and drug-centered aspects of pediatric OLDU and prescribing practice. Though OLDU applications is overall consistent with routine clinical practice in terms of demographics and institutional capacity, substantial variations exist regarding main drug classes and diseases. Our findings are expected to shed light on interventions focused on improving `indicated` pediatric use of drugs currently applied as off-label.

Rational use of medicine in dentistry: do dentists prescribe antibiotics in appropriate indications?

PURPOSE: There are concerns regarding appropriate use of antibiotics in dentistry practice. Data on dental antibiotic prescribing patterns by dentists is relatively limited. This nationwide study aimed to examine dentists' antibiotic prescriptions in a diagnosis-based manner in Turkey. METHODS: This retrospective study on utilization of systemic antibiotics for dental problems was based on the national health data of the dentists obtained from Prescription Information System between January 2013 and August 2015. Only those prescriptions containing single diagnosis and at least one systemic antibiotic were included in the study. Antibiotic prescribing was compared by diagnoses and expertise of dentists. RESULTS: A total of 9,293,410 antibiotics were detected in 9,214,956 prescriptions that contained "single diagnosis and at least one antibiotic." The number of antibiotics per prescription was 1.01. "Periapical abscess without sinus" (28.1%), "dental examination" (20.7%), and "dental caries" (16.2%) were the three most common indications in which antibiotics were prescribed by dentists. While only 3.4% of antibiotics were prescribed upon the single and appropriate "cellulitis and abscess of mouth" diagnosis, the remaining 96.6% was prescribed for irrational/uncertain indications. Consistent in all diagnoses, "amoxicillin + enzyme inhibitor" (58.6%) was the mainly prescribed antibiotic. Analysis of the most preferred "amoxicillin + enzyme inhibitor" prescriptions by expertise of dentists showed significantly much higher prescription rates among Group A specialists and Group B specialists (67.0 and 67.8%, respectively) than those in unidentified dental practitioners (58.2%, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that dentists prescribed antibiotics in an arbitrary and mostly unnecessary manner. In general, their antibiotic choices for examined diagnoses could be regarded as irrational. These results indicate the urgent need for improvement of rational antibiotic prescribing habits of dentists.