Torres GLG, Canales MJL

Language: Spanish
References: 23
Page: 410-417
PDF size: 362.71 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Background: Drug prescription is the most frequent medical intervention in Gynecology and Obstetrics; however, studies of prescription profile are limited. In this study, we analyzed differences of expense by drug prescription for gynecologic and obstetrics health problems.
Patients and method: It was performed a cross sectional study for one year analysis in each medical area that shape IMSS western district. We calculated spending and consumption coefficients for each drug and therapeutic groups. User coefficients were ordered to compare consumption differences. Besides the statistical ratio of consumption between drugs groups, we described the differences found and analyzed the prescription profile among medical regions.
Results: Data related to the expenses in each one of the regions show important differences in each one of the drugs and therapeutic groups. The most common expense for drugs is related to the treatment of osteoporosis, menopause and fertility problems. We also found differences in prescription drug preferences in each therapeutic subgroup.
Discussion: Drug prescription studies are useful as a basis for further specific studies in each pharmacologic subgroup. There are few studies that analyze the drug prescription profile on Gynecology and Obstetrics. In this study it is possible to suppose that medical prescription was not based on known medical evidences; therefore, we must reconsider the need of a permanent actualization and systematic medical evaluation.

REFERENCES

1. Villanueva LA, Martínez Ayala H, García Lara E. Consumo de fármacos en el embarazo. Ginecol Obstet Mex 1998;6623:4.

2. Hemminiki E, Karttunen T, Hovi S-L, Karro H. The drug industry and medical practice—the case of menopausal hormone therapy in Estonia. Soc Sci Med 2004;58:89-97.

3. Do Carmo TA, Nitrini SMOO. Prescrições de medicamentos para gestantes: um estudo farmacoepidemiológico. Cad Saude Publica 2004;20(4):1004-13.

4. Luthi JC, Dolan MS, Hallard DJ. Evidence-based health care quality management in Obstetrics and Gynecology. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1998;41(2):348-58.

5. Bränd Persson K, Strøm H. The Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification and its use in the Nordic countries. Meeting of Heads of WHO Collaborating Centres for the Classification of Diseases. Australia, 2002.

6. Organización Mundial de la Salud. Cómo investigar el uso de medicamentos en los servicios de salud. Génova, 1993.

7. Murillo-Uribe A, Carranza-Lira S, Martínez-Trejo NA, Santos González JE. Epidemiologic variables in postmenopausal women. Ginecol Obstet Mex 1999;67:478-83.

8. Vallano A, Montane E, Arnau JM, Vidal X, et al. Medical speciality and pattern of medicines prescription. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2004;60(10):725-30.

9. De Aloysio D, Mauloni M, Altieri P, Cappi GP, et al. Italian multicenter study for the verification of the efficacy and tolerability of short-term substitution hormone therapy using conjugated estrogens and progestagens administered orally in the postmenopausal period. Minerva Ginecol 1992;44(12):629-39.

10. Belaisch J, Nappi C, Affinito P, De Gezelle H, et al. Effect of combined conjugated estrogen-medrogestone replacement therapy on lipid profiles, climacteric symptoms and the endometrium. Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) 2000;29(1):29-40.

11. Hashimoto M, Miyao M, Akishita M, Hosoi T, et al. Effects of long-term and reduced-dose hormone replacement therapy on endothelial function and intima-media thickness in postmenopausal women. Menopause 2002;9(1):58-64.

12. John M, Thorp JM, Gavin NI, Ohsfeldt RL. Hormone replacement therapy in postmenopausal women: utilization of health care resources by new users. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001;185(2):318-26.

13. Grodstein F, Manson JE, Colditz GA, Willett WC, et al. A prospective, observational study of postmenopausal hormone therapy and primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Ann Intern Med 2000;133(12):933-41.

14. Kocjan T, Prelevic GM. Hormone replacement therapy update: who should we be prescribing this to now? Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2003;15:459-64.

15. Cremieux PY, Meilleur MC, Ovellette P, Zelder M, Potvin K. Public and private pharmaceutical spending as determinants of health outcomes in Canada. Health Econ 2005;14(2):107-16.

16. Solomon DH, Morris C, Cheng H, Cabral D, et al. Medication use patterns for osteoporosis: an assessment of guidelines, treatment rates, and quality improvement interventions. Mayo Clin Proc 2005;80(2):194-202.

17. Siris ES, Chen Ya-T, Abbott TA, Barrett-Connor E, et al. Bone mineral density thresholds for pharmacologic intervention to prevent fractures. Arch Intern Med 2004;164:1108-12.

18. Looker AC, et al. The prevalence of osteoporosis in US women older than 50 years. J Bone Miner Res 1997;12:1761.

19. Boccuzzi SJ, Wogen J, Fox J, Sung J, et al. Utilization of oral hypoglycemic agents in a drug-insured US population. Diabetes Care 2001;24(8):1411-5.

20. Kahan NR, Blackman S, Kutz C, Waitman DA. A pharmacoepidemiological approach to investigating inappropriate physician prescribing in a managed care setting in Israel. Am J Manag Care 2005;11(5):293-4.

21. Kaplan WA, Laing R. Paying for pharmaceutical registration in developing countries. Health Policy Plan 2003;18(3):237-48.

22. Ringa V, Legare F, Dodin S, Norton J, et al. Hormone therapy prescription among physicians in France and Quebec. Menopause 2004;11(1):89-97.

23. Mueller KA, Sanchez GJ, Sievert LL. Sources of information and HRT prescribing practices among gynecologists in Puebla, Mexico. Maturitas 2003;45(2):137-44.