Comparison of two analysis methods of opioid consumption sum in medical institutions
- VernacularTitle:医疗机构阿片类药物使用剂量两种分析方法比较
- Author:
Wen JI
1
;
Ruigang HOU
1
;
Zhiqiang MENG
1
;
Zhong WANG
1
;
Lixin WANG
2
;
Bei WU
1
;
Wei ZHAO
2
;
Hongzhen DUAN
3
;
Ping SHI
4
;
Xiaoling HU
5
Author Information
1. Dept. of Pharmacy，Second Hospital of Shanxi Medical University，Taiyuan 030000，China
2. Dept. of Pharmacy，First Hospital of Shanxi Medical University，Taiyuan 030000，China
3. Dept. of Pharmacy，Linfen People’s Hospital，Shanxi Linfen 041000，China
4. Dept. of Pharmacy，Yuncheng Central Hospital，Shanxi Yuncheng 044000，China
5. Dept. of Pharmacy，Heping Hospital Affiliated to Changzhi Medical College，Shangxi Changzhi 046000，China
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
opioids;
oral morphine equivalent;
defined daily dose;
consumption sum ratio;
rational use of drugs
- From:
China Pharmacy
2023;34(5):620-624
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVE To compare the similarities and differences of the two methods in analyzing the use of opioids in third grade class A medical institutions and provide a reference for the management of opioids in medical institutions. METHODS Two methods， Defined Daily Dose （DDD） and Oral Morphine Equivalent （OME）， were used to count the opioid prescription data of five comprehensive medical institutions of third grade class A （named H1-H5） in Shanxi province in 2020， calculate consumption sum of opioid， annual per capita consumption sum， patient cost burden and drug consumption sum ratio， compare the index results presented by the two analysis methods， and explore the application scenarios of the advantages of each of the two evaluation methods. RESULTS The ranking of consumption sum of opioid and patient cost burden calculated by the two methods was the same in the five sample medical institutions， but the ranking of per capita consumption sum was different. Taking the 5 medical institutions as a whole， the top 4 rankings of consumption sum ratio for each species of opioid compared by both methods were the same， i. e. remifentanil＞sufentanil＞oxycodone＞morphine. The ratio of remifentanil was close to 50%. When comparing the ranking of consumption sum ratio in each medical institution， the ranking calculated by the two methods was different for those medical institutions except for H1 medical institutions. The consumption sum ratio of fentanyl calculated by DDD method was significantly higher than that of OME method； whereas consumption sum ratio of remifentanil calculated by OME method was significantly higher than that of DDD method. Perioperative patients had the highest consumption sum ratio， about 50%. The consumption sum ratio of critically ill patients in H3 jwsydey@163.com medical institutions and inpatient patients with cancer pain and other patients in H5 medical institutions calculated by DDD method was significantly higher than that by OME method. There were differences in the order of cost burden of different types of patients calculated by two methods. CONCLUSIONS DDD method can accurately reflect the dosage of opioid drugs and facilitate the monitoring and management of the dosage； OME method can more reflect the analgesic effect and compare the cost burden of patients.
