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.

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.