European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

, Volume 39, Issue 3, pp 207–210 | Cite as

Measurement of drug use in a defined population

Evaluation of the Defined Daily Dose (DDD) methodology
  • A. Wessling
  • G. Boëthius
Originals

Summary

To evaluate the accuracy of the DDD per 1000 inhabitants per unit time as an estimate of the fraction of drug users within a population, DDD figures have been compared with the proportion of apparent drug users, i.e. individuals in the population for who a prescriptions had been dispensed. An individual-based prescription monitoring project provided the necessary data for eight drugs representing continuous long-term medication, short-term medication and medication falling in between those two categories.

For digoxin, the long-term drug, the number of DDD/1000 inhabitants/day was about 40% below the proportion of apparent drug users. The DDD figure for antibiotics ranged from 4% below to 28% above the apparent users, and for the remaining drugs it ranged from 17% below (bendroflumethiazide, 1982) to 80% below (naproxen, 1985).

The DDD methodology is a valuable first step in overall drug use measurement, but for more precise estimates of drug use it must be supplemented by other techniques.

Key words

drug use defined daily dose (DDD) estimation of drug use prescription monitoring 

References

  1. 1.
    Engel A, Siderius P (1968) The consumption of drugs. Report on a study 1966–1967. World Health Organisation, Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen (EURO 3101)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bergman U, Elmes P, Halse M, Halvorsen T, Hood H, Lunde PKM, Sjöqvist F, Wade OL, Westerholm B (1975) The measurement of drug consumption. Drugs for diabetes in Northern Ireland, Norway and Sweden. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 8: 83–89Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lunde PKM, Baksaas I, Halvorsen T, Strømnes B, Øydvin K (1979) The methodology of drug utilization studies. In: Bergman U, Grimson A, Westerholm B, eds. Studies in drug utilization. WHO Regional Publications. European Series. Copenhagen 8: 17–28Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Agenäs I, Andrew M (1983) Sales statistics. In Nordic Statistics on Medicines 1981–1983: 1. NLN Publication No 13, Nordic Council on Medicines, UppsalaGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bergman U (1978) Utilization of antidiabetic drugs in the island of Gotland, Sweden. Agreement between wholesale figures and prescription data. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 14: 213–220Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Idman L, Bergman U, Dahlén M, Martinsson L, Wessling A (1985) Gotlandsstudie: Hög förskrivning av diabetesmedel men även hög morbiditet. (High prescription rate of oral diabetic therapy in the island of Gotland, Sweden, but also high morbidity — English summary) Läkartidningen 82: 1051–1054Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stika L (1984) Patterns in drug utilization — national and international aspects: antidiabetic drugs. Acta Med Scand 683 [Suppl]: 53–57Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Boëthius G, Wiman F (1977) Recording of drug prescriptions in the county of Jämtland, Sweden. I. Methodological aspects. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 12: 31–35Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Baksaas I (1978) Drug treatment in hypertension, with special emphasis on the relationship between prescribed and defined daily doses. Medd Norskt Farm Selsk 40: 69–84Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wiholm B-E, Westerholm B (1984) Drug utilization and morbidity statistics for the evaluation of drug safety in Sweden. Acta Med Scand 683 [Suppl]: 107–117Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Wessling
    • 1
    • 3
  • G. Boëthius
    • 2
  1. 1.National Corporation of PharmaciesStockholmSweden
  2. 2.Department of Pulmonary MedicineÖstersund HospitalÖstersundSweden
  3. 3.Department of Clinical Pharmacology of the Karolinska InstituteHuddinge University HospitalHuddingeSweden

Personalised recommendations