Pharmacotherapeutic profile of compounded drugs for the treatment of coronaviruses in patients admitted to a public hospital
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.30968/rbfhss.2021.123.0646Abstract
Objective: : To characterize the sociodemographic and hospitalization profile of patients, as well as to determine, account for and identify dosages and costs generated with compounded drugs to meet prescriptions for people hospitalized at Hospital das Clínicas of the Medical School at the University of São Paulo (Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, HCFMUSP) due to SARS-CoV-2, between April and July 2020. Methods: A retrospective cross-sectional study of the use of compounded drugs by patients hospitalized due to coronavirus at the HCFMUSP Central Institute from April to July 2020. Personalized compounded drugs or those produced by the semi-industrial sector of the HCFMUSP Pharmacotechnics Unit were excluded from the study. The variables were presented as mean and standard deviation or proportion. Univariate statistical analysis, one-way ANOVA using Tukey as post-hoc test were applied to compare the manipulated production in the study period and the same period of 2019.3 Results: It was shown that a total of 39 standardized compounded drugs were prescribed for a total of 1,557 patients with coronavirus confirmation. Of the total number of prescription drugs, 11 drugs showed a significant increase in production in 2020, namely: furosemide (48.8 ± 17.1, p<0.004); amiodarone (50.0 ± 17.4, p<0.005); amlodipine (70.3 ± 14.4, p<0.003); hydralazine (82.8 ± 22.3, p<0.038); diazepam (95.8 ± 53.4, p<0.037); artificial saliva (146.0 ± 50.6, p<0.004); propantheline gel(155.0 ± 33.9, p<0.042); methadone (174.5 ± 45.2, p<0.002); hydrochlorothiazide (204.5 ± 46.4, p<0.001); omeprazole (537.5 ± 194.8, p<0.031) and quetiapine (597.0 ± 116.3, p<0.000). Omeprazole and quetiapine were the most prescribed products for hospitalized patients. The estimated total cost of meeting prescriptions during the study period was $20,854.01. Conclusions: The manipulated drugs provided mechanically ventilated patients with adequate pharmacotherapy and facilitated the process of weaning from sedation. The institution obtained a reduction in cost due to the manipulated product presenting a better cost-effect ratio when compared to injectable forms of medication.
Downloads
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Authors
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The authors hereby transfer, assign, or otherwise convey to RBFHSS: (1) the right to grant permission to republish or reprint the stated material, in whole or in part, without a fee; (2) the right to print republish copies for free distribution or sale; and (3) the right to republish the stated material in any format (electronic or printed). In addition, the undersigned affirms that the article described above has not previously been published, in whole or part, is not subject to copyright or other rights except by the author(s), and has not been submitted for publication elsewhere, except as communicated in writing to RHFHSS with this document.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY-NC-ND) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
Serlf-archiving policy
This journal permits and encourages authors to post and archive the final pdf of the articles submitted to the journal on personal websites or institutional repositories after publication, while providing bibliographic details that credit its publication in this journal.
