Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cephalosporin Utilisation Review and Evaluation

  • Review Article
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

The clinical misuse of drugs may result in preventable patient morbidity and mortality, costly remedial care, additional costs for diagnosis and management of iatrogenic disease and unnecessary wastage of healthcare resources. In recognition of this problem, drug utilisation evaluation (DUE) has been recommended as a method for identifying inappropriate or unnecessary drug use and for promoting rational therapy.

Growing concern over the widespread misuse of antibiotics, together with the emergence of antimicrobial resistance and escalating expenditures, has resulted in antibiotics being the drugs most frequently chosen for DUE projects. Cephalosporin DUE is well documented as being successful for modifying cephalosporin use and for containing drug expenditure. Studies range from isolated projects to ongoing programmes that comprehensively evaluate cephalosporin use and the impact of corrective strategies.

Sensible use of antibiotics requires a clear understanding of the infectious process, the clinical pharmacology of anti-infective agents and an appreciation of clinical and microbiological monitoring and assessment. Audit criteria that incorporate the above principles, and which are described in the studies reviewed in this article, will be useful for other investigators.

Through its DUE programme, the Royal Adelaide Hospital has investigated the use of cephalosporins, including ceftriaxone, ceftazidime and cefoxitin. These reviews have resulted in improvements in cephalosporin use and significant cost savings. Alterations to cephalosporin use that were recommended following these reviews have not resulted in adverse changes to post-operative infection rates, clinical outcomes or adverse drug reactions. This experience, combined with that of other investigators, serves as a useful model for the promotion of rational and economical therapy with cephalosporins and other drug groups.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hayman JN, Sbravati EC. Controlling cephalosporin and aminoglycoside costs through pharmacy and therapeutics committee restrictions. Am J Hosp Pharm 1985; 42: 1343–7

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Hoffman RP. Anti-infective utilisation review in a community hospital based on published guidelines. Hosp Pharm 1978; 13: 461–80

    Google Scholar 

  3. Kunin CM. Problems of antibiotic usage: definitions, causes and proposed solutions. Arch Intern Med 1978; 89: 802–5

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Schaffner W, Ray WA, Federspiel CF, et al. Improving antibiotic prescribing practice — a controlled trial of three educational methods. JAMA 1983; 250: 1728–32

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Suzuki N, Pelham L. Cost benefit of pharmacist concurrent monitoring of cefazolin prescribing. Am J Hosp Pharm 1983; 40: 1187–91

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Moss J. A prospective drug utilisation review on the prescribing of oral and parenteral cephalosporins. Hosp Formul 1982; 88: 1589–601

    Google Scholar 

  7. Veterans Administration Ad Hoc Interdisciplinary Advisory Committee on Antimicrobial Drug Usage. Audits of antimicrobial usage — oral cephalosporins. JAMA 1977; 237: 1241–2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Veterans Administration Ad Hoc Interdisciplinary Advisory Committee on Antimicrobial Drug Usage. Audits of antimicrobial usage — parenteral cephalosporins. JAMA 1977; 237: 1243–5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hess DA, Mahoney CA, Johnson PN, et al. Integration of clinical and administrative strategies to reduce expenditures for antimicrobial agents. Am J Hosp Pharm 1990; 47: 585–91

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Peterson CD, Lake KD. Reducing prophylactic antibiotic costs in cardiovascular surgery: the role of the clinical pharmacist. Drug Intell Clin Pharm 1986; 20: 134–7

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Plumridge RJ, McGechie DB. Assuring rational antibiotic use: the impact of a joint microbiology-pharmacy surveillance program. Aust Health Rev 1984; 7: 269–77

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Cramer R, Wright C. Changing physician prescribing habits through a cost-effective first generation cephalosporin formulary. Hosp Pharm 1989; 24: 33–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Victorian Drug Usage Advisory Committee. Antibiotic guidelines. 8th ed. Melbourne: Victorian Medical Postgraduate Foundation Inc., 1994: 1–10

    Google Scholar 

  14. Ma MY, Goldstein EJ, Meyer RD. Effect of control programs on cefazolin prescribing in a teaching hospital. Am J Hosp Pharm 1979; 36: 1055–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Cunha BA. Third-generation cephalosporins: a review. Clin Ther 1992; 14: 616–52

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Capri S, Dellamano R. Cost-effectiveness in the hospital use of antibiotics: introductory considerations. J Chemother 1993; 5: 348–51

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Myers RS. Antibiotic study shows need for therapy audit in hospitals. Bull Am Coll Surg 1963; 48: 61–3

    Google Scholar 

  18. Maki DG, Schuna AA. A study of antimicrobial misuse in a university hospital. Am J Med Sci 1978; 275: 271–82

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Cooke D, Salter AJ, Phillips J. Antimicrobial misuse, antibiotic policies and information resources. J Antimicrob Chemother 1980; 6: 435–43

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Craig W, Uman SJ, Shaw WR, et al. Hospital use of antimicrobial drugs. Ann Intern Med 1978; 89: 793–5

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Resztak KE, Williams RB. A review of antibiotic therapy in patients with systemic infections. Am J Hosp Pharm 1972; 29: 935–41

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Harvey K. Antibiotic use in Australia. Aust Prescr 1988; 11: 74–7

    Google Scholar 

  23. Murray MD, Kohler RB, McCarthy MC, et al. Attitudes of house physicians concerning various antibiotic-use control programs. Am J Hosp Pharm 1988; 45: 584–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Morse ML, Leroy AA, Gaylord TA, et al. Reducing drug therapy- induced hospitalization: impact of drug utilisation review. Drug Info J 1982 Oct/Dec; 199–202

    Google Scholar 

  25. Report by Working Party 1975, Council of Europe, European Public Health Community. Abuses of medicines: II. Prescription medicines. Drug Intell Clin Pharm 1976; 10: 94–110

    Google Scholar 

  26. Ioannides-Demos L, Eckert GM, McLean AJ. Pharmacoeconomic consequences of measurement and modification of hospital drug use. PharmacoEconomics 1992; 2: 15–33

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Stolar MH. Conceptual framework for drug usage review, medical audit and other patient care review procedures. Am J Hosp Pharm 1977; 34: 139–45

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Brodie DC. Drug utilisation review/planning. J Am Hosp Assoc 1972; 46: 103–12

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Knapp DA, Brandon BM, West S, et al. Drug use review — a manual system. J Am Pharm Assoc 1973; 13 (8): 417–20

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Stolar MH. Drug-use review: operational definitions. Am J Hosp Pharm 1978; 35: 76–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Reilly MJ. Drug utilisation review by pharmacy and therapeutics committees. Am J Hosp Pharm 1973; 30: 349–50

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Berbatis CG. Strategies to improve drug use in hospitals. Aust Health Rev 1984; 7 (4): 253–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Shapiro M, Sacks T, Simchen E, et al. Antibiotic use on the surgical services of two Jerusalem hospitals, as determined by surveillance and influenced by an intervention program. Rev Infect Dis 1981; 3: 754–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Stolar MH. The case for prospective and concurrent drug utilisation review. Qual Rev Bull 1982; 6–10

  35. National Professional Standards Review Organisation (PSRO) Council. National Professional Standards Review Council: definitions. Washington, DC: The PSRO Council, 1973

    Google Scholar 

  36. Fulda TR, Hass SL. Medicaid drug utilisation review under OBRA 1990: current issues and future directions. PharmacoEconomics 1992; 2: 363–70

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Russi K. Drug utilisation review. Iowa Pharm 1987; 2: 16–9

    Google Scholar 

  38. Huber SL, Patry RA. Internal standards: rationale for use in a drug utilisation review program. Drug Intell Clin Pharm 1981; 15: 789–92

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Brandon BM, Knapp DA, Klein LS, et al. Drug usage screening criteria. Am J Hosp Pharm 1977; 34: 146–51

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Hendricks JN. Audit criteria for drug utilisation review. Bethesda (MD): American Society of Hospital Pharmacists, 1981

    Google Scholar 

  41. Hendricks JN. Audit criteria for drug utilisation review. Vols. 1 and 2. 2nd ed. Bethesda (MD): American Society of Hospital Pharmacists, 1986

    Google Scholar 

  42. Cornelis WA. Audit criteria for drug-use review. Am J Hosp Pharm 1986; 43: 1685–6

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Knapp DA, Knapp DE, Brandon BM, et al. Development and application of criteria in drug use review programs. Am J Hosp Pharm 1974; 31: 648–56

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Kunin CM. Problems in antibiotic usage. In: Mandel GL, Douglas RG, Bennett JE, editors. Principles and practice of infectious diseases. 3rd ed. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingston, 1990: 427–34

    Google Scholar 

  45. Roberts AW, Visconti JA. The rational and irrational use of systemic antimicrobial drugs. Am J Hosp Pharm 1972; 29: 828–34

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Reese RE, Betts RF. Antibiotic use. In: Reese RE, Betts RF, editors. A practical approach to infectious diseases. 3rd ed. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1991: 821–41

    Google Scholar 

  47. Hazeleus RE, Greenland S, Berdischewsky M. Injectable cephalosporin use in a community teaching hospital. Am J Hosp Pharm 1982; 39: 482–3

    Google Scholar 

  48. Strom BL, Gibson GA. A systematic integrated approach to improvement of drug prescribing in an acute care hospital: a potential model for applied hospital pharmacoepidemiology. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1993; 54: 126–33

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Borda J, Jick H, Slone D, et al. Studies of drug usage in five Boston hospitals. JAMA 1967; 202: 506–10

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Stolar MH. Model for a formal prospective antibiotic use review program. Am J Hosp Pharm 1978; 35: 809–11

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Blackburn JL. Impact of drug usage review on drug utilisation. PharmacoEconomics 1993; 3 (1): 14–21

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Goeden GR, Hill R, Gladhart WR, et al. A successful system for reviewing drug therapy. Hosp Formul 1977; 12: 478–81

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Hotaling WH. PSRO: a hospital pharmacist’s view. Hosp Formul 1975; 10: 290–2

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Avorn J, Soumerai S, Taylor W, et al. Reduction of incorrect antibiotic dosing through a structured educational order form. Arch Intern Med 1988; 148: 1720–4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Puckett F, Baars R, Seay K. Antibiotic use review using the ‘target drug’ method. Hosp Formul 1987; 22: 489–91

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Kerns MP, Meyer GE. Concurrent antibiotic-use review in a small hospital. Am J Hosp Pharm 1986; 43: 1476–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Gould IM. Control of antibiotic use in the United Kingdom. J Antimicrob Chemother 1988; 22: 395–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Strahl DA, Wightkin WT. Improvement in antibiotic use secondary to a small hospital antibiotic review. Hosp Formul 1985; 20: 310–2

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Neu HC. Coping with antibiotic cost-containment issues [editorial]. Hosp Formul 1987; 22: 219

    Google Scholar 

  60. Jung B, Andrews JD. Effectiveness of an antibiotic cost containment measure. Can J Hosp Pharm 1990; 3: 116–22

    Google Scholar 

  61. Sanderson PJ. Antibiotic policies in hospital. Prescr J 1988; 28: 131–7

    Google Scholar 

  62. Birkett DJ, Mitchell AS, Godeck A, et al. Profiles of antibiotic use in Australia and trends from 1987 to 1989: a report from the Drug Utilisation Subcommittee of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Med J Aust 1991; 155: 410–5

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Avorn J, Harvey K, Soumerai S, et al. Information and education as determinants of antibiotic use: report of task force. Rev Infect Dis 1987; 9 Suppl. 3: 286–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Jewesson P, Chow A. Dealing with the misuse of antibiotics in the hospital. Can Med Assoc J 1983; 128: 1061–2

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Plumridge RJ. A review of factors influencing drug prescribing (part I). Aust J Hosp Pharm 1983; 13: 16–9

    Google Scholar 

  66. Plumridge RJ. A review of factors influencing drug prescribing (part 2). Aust J Hosp Pharm 1983; 13: 44–8

    Google Scholar 

  67. Abraham EP. Cephalosporins 1945–1986. Drugs 1987; 34 Suppl. 2: 1–14

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Brogan JC. Sorting out the cephalosporins. Postgrad Med 1992; 91 (2): 301–15

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Goldberg DM. The cephalosporins. Med Clin North Am 1987; 71 (6): 1113–33

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Turnidge J. The choice of cephalosporins. Aust Prescr 1992; 15 (2): 26–8

    Google Scholar 

  71. Vogelman B, Gundmundsson S, Leggett J, et al. Correlation of antimicrobial pharmacokinetic parameters with therapeutic efficacy in an animal model. J Infect Dis 1988; 158: 831–47

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Williams JD, Moosdeen F. Classification of cephalosporins. Drugs 1987; 34 Suppl. 2: 15–22

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Symonds J, Geddes AM. Cephalosporins in Gram-positive infections. Drugs 1987; 34 Suppl. 2: 121–34

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Williams JD. In vitro antibacterial effects of cephalosporins. Drugs 1987; 34 Suppl. 2: 44–63

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Bergan T. Pharmacokinetic properties of the cephalosporins. Drugs 1987; 34 Suppl. 2: 89–104

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Neu HC. Cephalosporins in the treatment of meningitis. Drugs 1987; 34 Suppl. 2: 135–53

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Philippou A, Labia R, Jacoby G. Extended-spectrum [β- lactamases. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1989; 33: 1131–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Phillipou A, Ben Redjeb S, Fournier G, et al. Epidemiology of extended spectrum [β-lactamases. Infection 1989; 17: 347–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Sanders WE, Sanders CC. Inducible beta-lactamases: clinical and epidemiological implications for use of newer cephalosporins. Rev Infect Dis 1988; 10: 830–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Papanicalaou GA, Medeiros AA, Jacoby GA. Novel plasmidmediated [β-lactamases (MIR-I) conferring resistance to oxyimino- and [β-methoxy [β-lactams in clinical isolates of Klebsiella pneumoniae. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1990; 34: 2200–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. New HC. Third generation cephalosporins: safety profiles after 10 years of clinical use. J Clin Pharmacol 1990; 30: 396–403

    Google Scholar 

  82. Norrby SR. Side-effects of cephalosporins. Drugs 1987; 34 Suppl. 2: 105–120

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Jacobs RF, Keams GL. Ceftriaxone-associated cholelithiasis. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1988; 7: 434–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  84. Schaad VB, Wedgewood-Krucko J, Tschaeppler H. Reversible ceftriaxone-associated biliary pseudolithiasis in children. Lancet 1988; 2: 1411–3

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  85. Higham M, Cunningham FM, Teele DW. Ceftriaxone administration once or twice daily for treatment of bacterial infections of childhood. Pediatric Infect Dis J 1985; 4: 22–6

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  86. Sattler FR, Weitkamp MR, Ballard JD. Potential for bleeding with the new [β-lactam antibiotics. Ann Intern Med 1986; 105: 924–31

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  87. Meyers BR. Comparative toxicities of third-generation cephalosporins. Am J Med 1985; 79: 96–103

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  88. Chamber L, Donovan L, Krusball M. Ceftazidime-induced haemolysis in a patient with drug-dependent antibodies reactive by immune complex and drug absorption mechanisms. Am J Clin Pathol 1991; 95: 393–6

    Google Scholar 

  89. Brown R. Once daily dosing of ceftriaxone in the treatment of lower respiratory tract infections. Chemotherapy 1991; 37 Suppl. 3: 11–4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Cade JF, Presneill J, Sinikas V, et al. Optimal dosage of ceftazidime for severe lower respiratory tract infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 1993; 32: 611–22

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  91. Mullaney DT, John JF. Cefotaxime therapy: evaluation of its effects on bacterial meningitis, CSF drug levels, and bacterial activity. Arch Intern Med 1983; 143: 1705–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  92. Cougenti BL, Bradley J, Hammerschlag MR. Safety and efficacy of once daily ceftriaxone for the treatment of bacterial meningitis. Pediatr Infect Dis 1986; 5: 293–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Cougenti BL. Comparison of ceftriaxone and traditional therapy of bacterial meningitis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1984; 25: 40–4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. British Thoracic Society. Guidelines for the management of community acquired pneumonia in adults admitted to hospital. Br J Hosp Med 1993; 49: 346–50

    Google Scholar 

  95. Mandell LA, Niederman M, The Canadian Community Acquired Pneumonia Consensus Conference Group. Antimicrobial treatment of community acquired pneumonia in adults: a conference report. Can J Infect Dis 1993; 4: 25–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  96. Bittner MJ, Dworzack DL, Preheim LC, et al. Ceftriaxone therapy for serious bacterial infections in adults. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1983; 23: 261–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  97. Smith CR, Ambinder R, Lipsky JJ, et al. Cefotaxime compared with nafcillin plus tobramycin for serious bacterial infections: a randomised, double-blinded trial. Ann Intern Med 1984; 101: 469–77

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  98. Sanders JW, Rowe NR, Moore RD. Ceftazidime monotherapy for empiric treatment of febrile neutropenic patients: a metaanalysis. J Infect Dis 1991; 164: 907–16

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  99. Hughes WT, Armstrong D, Bodey GP, et al. Guidelines for the use of antimicrobial agents in neutropenic patients with unexplained fever. J Infect Dis 1990; 161: 381–96

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  100. Holt H, Bywater M, Reeves D. In vitro activity of cefpodoxime against 1834 isolates from domiciliary infections at 20 UK centres. J Antimicrob Chemother 1990; 26 Suppl. E: 7–12

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  101. Doern J. In vitro activity of ceftibuten against Haemophilus injfuenzae and Branhamella catarrhalis. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 1991; 14: 75–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  102. Dabernat H, Avril J, Boussougant Y. In vitro activity of cefpodoxime against pathogens responsible for community-acquired respiratory tract infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 1990; 26 Suppl. E: 1–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  103. Chambers ST, Murdoch DR, Pearce MJ. Clinical and economic considerations in the use of third-generation oral cephalosporins. PharmacoEconomics 1995; 7 (5): 416–27

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  104. Sesin GP, Gannon P. Evaluation of ceftriaxone usage in a community- based hospital. Hosp Formul 1993; 28: 180–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  105. Adu A, Taylor S, Armour CL. Drug use review contributes to more appropriate use of ceftazidime. Aust J Hosp Pharm 1993; 23: 169–73

    Google Scholar 

  106. Obilio FC, Petrou C, O’Brodovich MH. A concurrent cefuroxime use evaluation in paediatric patients. Can J Hosp Pharm 1993; 46: 207–11

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  107. Lui YW, Girvan CL, Benn RA, et al. Drug utilisation review of ceftazidime at a teaching hospital. Aust J Hosp Pharm 1992; 22: 146–50

    Google Scholar 

  108. Lazor-Bajcar JM. Cefoxitin use review. Can J Hosp Pharm 1990; 5: 221–5

    Google Scholar 

  109. Sesin GP, O’Keefe EM, Janelle A. Drug utilisation evaluation of cefotetan versus cefoxitin in a large teaching hospital [letter]. Ann Pharmacother 1990; 24 (2): 206–7

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  110. Vlasses PH, Wynette A, Bastion RB, et al. Ceftazidime dosing in the elderly: economic implications. Ann Pharmacother 1993; 27: 967–71

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  111. Kortas K. Developing an effective anti-infective review and monitoring: one institution’s successes shared. Hosp Formul 1993; 28: 222–7

    Google Scholar 

  112. Capers CC, Bess DT, Branam AC, et al. Antibiotic surveillance: the results of a clinical pharmacy intervention program. Hosp Pharm 1993; 28: 206–12

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  113. Strong DK, Dupuis LL, Domaratzki JL. Pharmacist intervention in prescribing of cefuroxime for paediatric patients. Am J Hosp Pharm 1990; 47: 1350–3

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  114. Sonnichsen D, Nakagawa R. A drug utilisation review of surgical prophylaxis in obstetrics and gynaecology. Can J Hosp Pharm 1990; 43: 281–7

    Google Scholar 

  115. Baker MC. Cefotetan drug usage evaluation. Hosp Formul 1990; 25: 888–92

    Google Scholar 

  116. Smith GH. Ceftriaxone DUE: results reported. Hosp Formul 1990; 25: 452–6

    Google Scholar 

  117. Joviasas B, Yen M. Cefoxitin utilisation review. Can J Hosp Pharm 1989; 42: 191–4

    Google Scholar 

  118. Mioduch HJ. Concurrent review of cefuroxime use in a small community hospital [letter]. Am J Hosp Pharm 1989; 46: 920–1

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  119. Colburn PA, Carver PA, Montgomery PA, et al. Appropriate but not cost effective ceftazidime use in a university hospital. Hosp Pharm 1989; 24: 911–4

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  120. Godin JP, Sketris IS, Merrett RA, et al. Methods of controlling cephalosporin use in Canadian hospitals. Can J Hosp Pharm 1988; 41 (2): 73–96

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  121. Dartnell JGA, Hirth KE, Parkes SC, et al. Audit of cefotaxime prescribing at a major teaching hospital. Aust J Hosp Pharm 1994; 24: 392–5

    Google Scholar 

  122. Zaremba CD, Bachard RL, Chow AW, et al. Drug use review of cephamandole at a teaching hospital. Can J Hosp Pharm 1988; 41: 195–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  123. Littrell RA, Kuhn RJ, Broughton RA. Retrospective audit of cefuroxime use in paediatric patients. Am J Hosp Pharm 1988; 45: 2526–7

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  124. Leaver S, Johnson G. A review of cefoxitin use at the Royal Melbourne Hospital [abstract]. Pharm Bull R Melb Hosp 1987 Oct

    Google Scholar 

  125. Witte KW, Hatoum HT, Hoon TJ. Contribution of clinical pharmacists to cefazolin utilisation. Hosp Formul 1987; 22: 737–41

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  126. Wein PJ, Hoffman RP. Promoting the cost-effective utilisation of cefoxitin with a drug use education program. Hosp Formul 1987; 22: 299–308

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  127. Sesin GP, O’Keefe EM, Conklin LC, et al. Ceftizoxime drug utilisation evaluation: empiric versus therapeutic regimens [letter]. DICP Ann Pharmacother 1990; 24: 97

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  128. Wooten J, Anderson P. Cefoxitin utilisation review: guidelines to promote appropriate and effective drug use in the hospital. Hosp Formul 1987; 22: 966–71

    Google Scholar 

  129. Ives TJ, Frey JJ, Furr SJ, et al. Effect of an educational intervention on oral cephalosporin use in primary care. Arch Intern Med 1987; 147: 44–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  130. Gupta S, Bachand RL, Jewesson PJ. Impact of a two-stage intervention program on cefazolin usage at a major teaching hospital. Hosp Formul 1989; 24: 41–6

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  131. Rodriguez C, Colome E, Arnau JM, et al. Evaluation of cefonicid use in a general hospital. Drug Intell Clin Pharm 1989; 23: 154–6

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  132. Blain L, O’Brodovich M. The effect of an education program on cefazolin prescribing. Can J Hosp Pharm 1989; 42: 69–71

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  133. Freedy Jr HR, Simonelli RJ. Concurrent monitoring of third-generation cephalosporins. Am J Hosp Pharm 1986; 43: 140–3

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  134. Dzierba SH, Reilly RT, Caselnova DA. Cost savings achieved through cephalosporin use review and restriction. Am J Hosp Pharm 1986; 43: 2194–7

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  135. Williams RR, Gross PA, Levine JE Cost containment of the second-generation cephalosporins by prospective monitoring at a community teaching hospital. Arch Intern Med 1985; 145: 1978–81

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  136. Abramowitz PW, Ludwig DJ, Mansur JM, et al. Controlling moxalactam and cefotaxime use with a target drug program. Hosp Pharm 1983; 18: 416–20

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  137. Lawlor MC, Lucarotti RL. Clinical pharmacist impact on parenteral cephalosporin prescribing. Hosp Formul 1983; 18: 402–8s

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  138. Johnson PN, Jeffrey LP. Restricted cephalosporin use in teaching hospitals. Am J Hosp Pharm 1981; 38: 513–7

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  139. Britton HL, Schwinghammer TL, Romano MJ. Cost containment through restriction of cephalosporins. Am J Hosp Pharm 1981; 38: 1897–1900

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  140. Steckel SD, Siskin SB. A multicentre survey of cefazolin usage. Hosp Formul 1981; 16: 1284–93

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  141. Ammishaddai A, Taylor S, Armour CL. Drug use review contributes to more appropriate use of ceftazidime. Aust J Hosp Pharm 1994; 23 (3): 169–74

    Google Scholar 

  142. Kawahara NE, Jordan FM. Influencing prescribing behavior by adapting computerised order-entry pathways. Am J Hosp Pharm 1989; 46: 1798–801

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  143. Chrymko MM, Meyer JD, Kelly WN. Target drug monitoring: a cost-effective service provided by staff pharmacists. Hosp Pharm 1994; 29: 347–52

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  144. Noel M, Paximos J. Cephalosporins: use review and cost analysis. Am J Hosp Pharm 1978; 35: 933–5

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  145. Phelps MR, Godwin HN. Pharmacy and therapeutics committee review of the parenteral cephalosporins. Am J Hosp Pharm 1978; 35: 73–5

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  146. Katz E, Schlamowitz S. Savings achieved through cephalosporin surveillance. Am J Hosp Pharm 1978; 35: 1521–3

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  147. Ilersich AL, Rovers JP, Einarson TR. A pilot study of process and outcome assessment in antibiotic therapy. Can J Hosp Pharm 1991; 44: 251–258,270

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  148. Iewesson PJ, Ho R, Jang Q, et al. Auditing antibiotic use in a teaching hospital: focus on cefoxitin. Can Med Assoc J 1983; 128: 1075–8

    Google Scholar 

  149. Kunin CM. Evaluation of antibiotic usage: a comprehensive look ataltemative approaches. Rev Infect Dis 1981; 3: 745–53

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  150. Moulds RFW. Limited lists, formularies, guidelines … ? Aust Prescr 1991; 14 Suppl. 1: 28–30

    Google Scholar 

  151. Coleman R, Rodoni LC, Kaubisch S, et al. Cost-effectiveness of prospective and continuous parenteral antibiotic control: experience at the Palo Alto Veterans Affairs Medical Centre from 1987 to 1989. Am J Med 1991; 90: 439–44

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  152. Dansey RD, Jacka PJ, Strachan SA, et al. Comparison of cefotaxime with ceftriaxone given intramuscularly 12-hourly for community acquired pneumonia. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 1992; 15: 81–4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  153. Misan GM, Dollman C, Smith ER. A review of prescriber compliance with new guidelines for antibiotic prophylaxis in colorectal surgery [abstract]. Aust J Hosp Pharm 1991; 21 (1): 64

    Google Scholar 

  154. Jewesson P. Cost-effectiveness and value of an IV switch. PharmacoEconomics 1994; 5 Suppl. 2: 20–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  155. Mandell LA, Bergeron MG, Ronald AR, et al. Once daily therapy with ceftriaxone compared to multiple-dose therapy with cefotaxime for serious bacterial infections: a randomised, double blind study. J Infect Dis 1989; 160: 433–41

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  156. Thomas P, Daly S, Misan G, et al. Comparison of the efficacy and adverse effect profile of cefotaxime 3G/day and ceftriaxone 2G/day in the treatment of nosocomial lower respiratory tract infections in ICU patients. Eur Resp Rev 1994; 4 (22): 321–8

    Google Scholar 

  157. Thomas P, Daly S, Misan G, et al. Comparison of the efficacy and adverse effect profile of cefotaxime in ICU patients with susceptible infections. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 1992; 15: 89–97

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  158. Bachand RL, Jewesson PJ, Chow AW. Implementation of a reserved antimicrobial drug program. Can J Hosp Pharm 1987; 40: 167–70

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Pharmacy Department, Royal Adelaide Hospital, North Terrace, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia

    Gary M. H. Misan, Catherine Dollman & Naomi Burgess

  2. Department of Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia

    Gary M. H. Misan

  3. Faculty of Pharmacy and Medical Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia

    Gary M. H. Misan

  4. Infectious Diseases Unit, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, Australia

    David R. Shaw

Authors
  1. Gary M. H. Misan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Catherine Dollman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. David R. Shaw
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Naomi Burgess
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Misan, G.M.H., Dollman, C., Shaw, D.R. et al. Cephalosporin Utilisation Review and Evaluation. Pharmacoeconomics 8, 100–122 (1995). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199508020-00003

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199508020-00003

Keywords

Search

Navigation