Rønning Marit, Blix Hege Salvesen, Strøm Hanne, Skovlund Eva, Andersen Morten, Stichele Robert Vander
WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology, c/o Norwegian Institute of Public Health, P.O. Box 4404 Nydalen, 0403, Oslo, Norway.
Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2003 Apr;58(12):843-9. doi: 10.1007/s00228-003-0572-8. Epub 2003 Mar 18.
To describe the methodological problems in collecting retrospectively comparable data on drug use and to compare the use of antibacterials in some European countries.
A spreadsheet was distributed in 2000 through the European Drug Utilisation Research Group (EuroDURG) network, requesting 1994-1999 data on use of antibacterials for systemic use (ATC group J01), from ambulatory, hospital, or total care, aggregated at ATC 4th level, and presented in defined daily doses per 1000 inhabitants per day (in the 1999 ATC/DDD version or specified other version).
The network was able to provide national utilization data for two or more years in the requested period from 16 countries (4 only from primary care, 3 both from primary care and total use, and 9 only total use data). The main methodological problems identified were: use of divergent ATC/DDD versions, divergent assignment of DDDs for combination products and the use of unofficial or national DDDs. It was possible to correct for the different ATC/DDD versions to some extent, except for the cephalosporin group (not included in the analysis), as the collection of data at the ATC 4th level precluded recalculation of DDDs. In the seven countries with primary care data the total J01 antibacterials use varied by a factor of 2.5 (Belgium 23.4 and The Netherlands 9.5 DDDs per 1000inhabitants per day). The use of J01A tetracyclines varied fourfold, and the use of J01C penicillins and J01F macrolides and lincosamides approximately threefold. Significant reduction over time was seen in J01A and an increase in J01F.
In the scientific and regulatory community it is still difficult to perform a valid and comprehensive cross-national collection of utilization data on antibacterials. White spots on the European map persist for ambulatory care data, and data are missing for the hospital sector in most countries. For a thorough explanation of the considerable intercountry variability (especially in antibacterial subgroups and time trends analysis) a sustained and concerted effort is necessary to implement a validation process of the ATC/DDD use in the various countries and to adopt a common methodological approach to the collection of utilization data at the substance level (ATC 5th level).
描述回顾性收集可比药物使用数据时的方法学问题,并比较一些欧洲国家抗菌药物的使用情况。
2000年通过欧洲药物利用研究组(EuroDURG)网络分发了一份电子表格,要求提供1994 - 1999年全身用抗菌药物(ATC分类J01组)在门诊、医院或总体医疗中的使用数据,数据汇总至ATC第4级,并以每千居民每日限定日剂量(1999年ATC/DDD版本或指定的其他版本)呈现。
该网络能够提供16个国家在要求时间段内两年或更长时间的国家使用数据(4个国家仅提供初级医疗数据,3个国家同时提供初级医疗和总体使用数据,9个国家仅提供总体使用数据)。所确定的主要方法学问题有:使用不同的ATC/DDD版本、复方制剂DDD的不同赋值以及使用非官方或国家DDD。除头孢菌素组(未纳入分析)外,在一定程度上可以校正不同的ATC/DDD版本,因为在ATC第4级收集数据排除了重新计算DDD的可能性。在有初级医疗数据的7个国家中J01组抗菌药物的总使用量相差2.5倍(比利时为每千居民每日23.4个限定日剂量,荷兰为9.5个限定日剂量)。J01A四环素类的使用量相差四倍,J01C青霉素类以及J01F大环内酯类和林可酰胺类的使用量相差约三倍。J01A类随时间显著减少,J01F类增加。
在科学界和监管界,仍然难以有效且全面地跨国收集抗菌药物使用数据。欧洲地图上门诊医疗数据仍存在空白,大多数国家医院部门的数据缺失。为了充分解释国家间存在的显著差异(特别是在抗菌药物亚组和时间趋势分析方面),需要持续且协同努力,在各国实施ATC/DDD使用的验证过程,并在物质层面(ATC第5级)采用统一的方法收集使用数据。