Rational Analysis of the Utilization of Pentoxifylline in a Tertiary Hospital: Central Hospital Affiliated to Shandong First Medical University.

IF 2.7 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Risk Management and Healthcare Policy Pub Date : 2025-07-09 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.2147/RMHP.S517679
Yuanyuan Zheng, Yanhui Yin, Hong Liu, Wenwen Gao, Qian Wang
{"title":"Rational Analysis of the Utilization of Pentoxifylline in a Tertiary Hospital: Central Hospital Affiliated to Shandong First Medical University.","authors":"Yuanyuan Zheng, Yanhui Yin, Hong Liu, Wenwen Gao, Qian Wang","doi":"10.2147/RMHP.S517679","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate the rational use, safety, and economic implications of pentoxifylline in a hospital setting and provide recommendations for its appropriate clinical application.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective analysis was conducted on 322 patients discharged from September to December 2020, who received pentoxifylline. Data were collected from the hospital information system, and the rationality of prescriptions was assessed based on drug instructions and guidelines. Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were analyzed using CTCAE criteria. Economic evaluations included defined daily dose cost (DDDc) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) analyses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The rational prescription rate for pentoxifylline was 38.51%, with the main irrationalities observed in indications (31.82%), dosage and usage (21.21%), contraindications (47.98%), and drug combinations (40.40%). Adverse reactions were reported in 12 cases (3.73%), primarily involving the nervous (75.00%) and digestive systems (41.67%). Most ADRs were mild (58.33%) or moderate (41.67%), with no severe cases observed. The DDDc of pentoxifylline was 143.4 yuan. Cost-effectiveness analysis demonstrated strong economic viability, with ICER values of 55.7 yuan per percentage point improvement in ulcer healing rate and 9.0 yuan per additional meter of pain-free walking distance, significantly below the willingness-to-pay threshold.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Pentoxifylline demonstrates cost-effectiveness and manageable safety risks but has a low rational prescription rate, highlighting the need for improved clinical practices. Enhanced collaboration between pharmacists and medical staff, alongside stricter adherence to guidelines, is essential to optimizing its utilization.</p>","PeriodicalId":56009,"journal":{"name":"Risk Management and Healthcare Policy","volume":"18 ","pages":"2335-2350"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12256049/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Risk Management and Healthcare Policy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/RMHP.S517679","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the rational use, safety, and economic implications of pentoxifylline in a hospital setting and provide recommendations for its appropriate clinical application.

Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 322 patients discharged from September to December 2020, who received pentoxifylline. Data were collected from the hospital information system, and the rationality of prescriptions was assessed based on drug instructions and guidelines. Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were analyzed using CTCAE criteria. Economic evaluations included defined daily dose cost (DDDc) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) analyses.

Results: The rational prescription rate for pentoxifylline was 38.51%, with the main irrationalities observed in indications (31.82%), dosage and usage (21.21%), contraindications (47.98%), and drug combinations (40.40%). Adverse reactions were reported in 12 cases (3.73%), primarily involving the nervous (75.00%) and digestive systems (41.67%). Most ADRs were mild (58.33%) or moderate (41.67%), with no severe cases observed. The DDDc of pentoxifylline was 143.4 yuan. Cost-effectiveness analysis demonstrated strong economic viability, with ICER values of 55.7 yuan per percentage point improvement in ulcer healing rate and 9.0 yuan per additional meter of pain-free walking distance, significantly below the willingness-to-pay threshold.

Conclusion: Pentoxifylline demonstrates cost-effectiveness and manageable safety risks but has a low rational prescription rate, highlighting the need for improved clinical practices. Enhanced collaboration between pharmacists and medical staff, alongside stricter adherence to guidelines, is essential to optimizing its utilization.

某三级医院己酮茶碱应用的合理性分析:山东第一医科大学附属中心医院。
目的:本研究旨在评价己酮茶碱在医院的合理使用、安全性和经济意义,并为其适当的临床应用提供建议。方法:回顾性分析2020年9月至12月住院治疗的322例己酮茶碱患者。从医院信息系统中收集数据,根据药品说明书和指南评估处方的合理性。采用CTCAE标准分析药物不良反应(adr)。经济评价包括限定日剂量成本(DDDc)和增量成本-效果比(ICER)分析。结果:己酮茶碱处方合理率为38.51%,不合理主要表现在适应症(31.82%)、用量用法(21.21%)、禁忌症(47.98%)、联合用药(40.40%)等方面。不良反应12例(3.73%),主要累及神经系统(75.00%)和消化系统(41.67%)。adr以轻度(58.33%)或中度(41.67%)居多,无重症病例。己酮茶碱的DDDc为143.4元。成本-效果分析显示了较强的经济可行性,ICER值为溃疡愈合率每提高1个百分点55.7元,无痛步行距离每增加1米9.0元,明显低于支付意愿阈值。结论:己酮茶碱具有成本-效果,安全风险可控,但合理处方率较低,临床实践有待改进。加强药剂师和医务人员之间的合作,同时严格遵守指导方针,对于优化其利用至关重要。
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
Risk Management and Healthcare Policy
Risk Management and Healthcare Policy Medicine-Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
2.90%
发文量
242
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Risk Management and Healthcare Policy is an international, peer-reviewed, open access journal focusing on all aspects of public health, policy and preventative measures to promote good health and improve morbidity and mortality in the population. Specific topics covered in the journal include: Public and community health Policy and law Preventative and predictive healthcare Risk and hazard management Epidemiology, detection and screening Lifestyle and diet modification Vaccination and disease transmission/modification programs Health and safety and occupational health Healthcare services provision Health literacy and education Advertising and promotion of health issues Health economic evaluations and resource management Risk Management and Healthcare Policy focuses on human interventional and observational research. The journal welcomes submitted papers covering original research, clinical and epidemiological studies, reviews and evaluations, guidelines, expert opinion and commentary, and extended reports. Case reports will only be considered if they make a valuable and original contribution to the literature. The journal does not accept study protocols, animal-based or cell line-based studies.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信