How Consistent are Anti-Infective Drug Dosing Recommendations Across Three European Paediatric Formularies?

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q1 PEDIATRICS
Lukas Higi, Elisabeth Carydias, Andrea M Burden, Priska Vonbach
{"title":"How Consistent are Anti-Infective Drug Dosing Recommendations Across Three European Paediatric Formularies?","authors":"Lukas Higi, Elisabeth Carydias, Andrea M Burden, Priska Vonbach","doi":"10.1007/s40272-024-00674-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Drug dosing recommendations in paediatrics are mainly based on the age and bodyweight of the child. Because of the limited amount of label information, several paediatric drug formularies have been developed. This study compares anti-infective drug dosing recommendations across three European formularies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Recommendations from three paediatric formularies (German Pediatric Formulary [GPF], SwissPedDose [SPD] and the British National Formulary for Children [BNF]) were collected. Using population growth curves, we simulated one child for each month from 1 month up to 18 years of age. The recommendations from each formulary were used to calculate doses for each simulated child. Equivalence and difference in calculated doses were analysed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, dosing recommendations for 34 anti-infective substances were collected with 74 corresponding indications, which resulted in 47,154 calculated doses. The mean (± standard deviation) proportion of equivalent doses (difference ≤10%) across all three formularies was 40% (±16), while for pairwise comparisons it was 53% (±19) for GPF versus BNF, 67% (±14) for GPF versus SPD and 52% (±19) for SPD versus BNF. The median [25th quantile, 75th quantile] differences in daily doses across all three formularies were 0%, [0, 26] while for pairwise comparisons it was 4% [0, 32] for GPF versus BNF, 0% [0, 17] for GPF versus SPD and 7% [0, 33] for SPD versus BNF.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The majority of recommended anti-infective drug doses were consistent, with the highest equivalence found between GPF and SPD. Maintaining formularies is resource intensive; therefore, a common standard in Europe could prove beneficial when moving towards digitalisation of the healthcare systems.</p>","PeriodicalId":19955,"journal":{"name":"Pediatric Drugs","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pediatric Drugs","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40272-024-00674-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Drug dosing recommendations in paediatrics are mainly based on the age and bodyweight of the child. Because of the limited amount of label information, several paediatric drug formularies have been developed. This study compares anti-infective drug dosing recommendations across three European formularies.

Methods: Recommendations from three paediatric formularies (German Pediatric Formulary [GPF], SwissPedDose [SPD] and the British National Formulary for Children [BNF]) were collected. Using population growth curves, we simulated one child for each month from 1 month up to 18 years of age. The recommendations from each formulary were used to calculate doses for each simulated child. Equivalence and difference in calculated doses were analysed.

Results: In total, dosing recommendations for 34 anti-infective substances were collected with 74 corresponding indications, which resulted in 47,154 calculated doses. The mean (± standard deviation) proportion of equivalent doses (difference ≤10%) across all three formularies was 40% (±16), while for pairwise comparisons it was 53% (±19) for GPF versus BNF, 67% (±14) for GPF versus SPD and 52% (±19) for SPD versus BNF. The median [25th quantile, 75th quantile] differences in daily doses across all three formularies were 0%, [0, 26] while for pairwise comparisons it was 4% [0, 32] for GPF versus BNF, 0% [0, 17] for GPF versus SPD and 7% [0, 33] for SPD versus BNF.

Conclusions: The majority of recommended anti-infective drug doses were consistent, with the highest equivalence found between GPF and SPD. Maintaining formularies is resource intensive; therefore, a common standard in Europe could prove beneficial when moving towards digitalisation of the healthcare systems.

欧洲三个儿科处方集的抗感染药物剂量建议一致性如何?
背景:儿科药物剂量建议主要基于儿童的年龄和体重。由于标签信息量有限,目前已制定了多个儿科药物表。本研究比较了三个欧洲药典的抗感染药物剂量建议:方法:收集了三个儿科处方集(《德国儿科处方集》[GPF]、《瑞士儿科处方集》[SPD]和《英国国家儿童处方集》[BNF])的建议。利用人口增长曲线,我们对 1 个月至 18 岁的每个月的一名儿童进行了模拟。我们使用每种处方集的推荐值来计算每个模拟儿童的剂量。对计算剂量的等效性和差异性进行了分析:结果:共收集了 34 种抗感染药物的剂量建议和 74 个相应的适应症,计算出 47 154 个剂量。在所有三个处方集中,等效剂量(差异≤10%)的平均比例(± 标准差)为 40%(±16),而在成对比较中,GPF 与 BNF 的等效剂量比例为 53%(±19),GPF 与 SPD 的等效剂量比例为 67%(±14),SPD 与 BNF 的等效剂量比例为 52%(±19)。所有三个处方集的日剂量差异中位数[第25量级,第75量级]为0%[0,26],而在配对比较中,GPF与BNF的差异为4%[0,32],GPF与SPD的差异为0%[0,17],SPD与BNF的差异为7%[0,33]:大多数推荐的抗感染药物剂量是一致的,GPF 和 SPD 之间的等效性最高。维护处方集耗费大量资源;因此,在医疗保健系统向数字化迈进的过程中,欧洲共同标准将被证明是有益的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Pediatric Drugs
Pediatric Drugs PEDIATRICS-PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
54
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Pediatric Drugs promotes the optimization and advancement of all aspects of pharmacotherapy for healthcare professionals interested in pediatric drug therapy (including vaccines). The program of review and original research articles provides healthcare decision makers with clinically applicable knowledge on issues relevant to drug therapy in all areas of neonatology and the care of children and adolescents. The Journal includes: -overviews of contentious or emerging issues. -comprehensive narrative reviews of topics relating to the effective and safe management of drug therapy through all stages of pediatric development. -practical reviews covering optimum drug management of specific clinical situations. -systematic reviews that collate empirical evidence to answer a specific research question, using explicit, systematic methods as outlined by the PRISMA statement. -Adis Drug Reviews of the properties and place in therapy of both newer and established drugs in the pediatric population. -original research articles reporting the results of well-designed studies with a strong link to clinical practice, such as clinical pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic studies, clinical trials, meta-analyses, outcomes research, and pharmacoeconomic and pharmacoepidemiological studies. Additional digital features (including animated abstracts, video abstracts, slide decks, audio slides, instructional videos, infographics, podcasts and animations) can be published with articles; these are designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. In addition, articles published in Pediatric Drugs may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist readers who have some knowledge of, but not in-depth expertise in, the area to understand important medical advances.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信