title: Prescribing practice and evaluation of appropriateness of enteral nutrition in a university teaching hospital.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  A retrospective utilization study was performed to evaluate utilization patterns for enteral nutrition in a university teaching hospital.
  
  
  METHODS
  Enteral nutrition was divided into three types according to the nitrogen source, ie, total protein type [Nutrison Fibre(®), Fresubin Energy Fibre(®), Fresubin(®), Supportan(®) (a special immunonutrition for cancer patients or patients with increased demands for omega-3 fatty acids), Fresubin Diabetes(®) (a diabetes-specific formula), Ensure(®)]; short peptide type (Peptison(®)); and amino acid type (Vivonex(®)). A pharmacoeconomic analysis was done based on defined daily dose methodology.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Among hospitalized patients taking enteral nutrition, 34.8% received enteral nutrition alone, 30% concomitantly received parenteral nutrition, and 35.2% received enteral nutrition after parenteral nutrition. Combined use of the different formulas was observed in almost all hospitalized patients receiving enteral nutrition. In total, 61.5% of patients received triple therapy with Nutrison Fibre, Fresubin Diabetes, and Supportan. Number of defined daily doses (total dose consumed/defined daily dose, also called DDDs) of formulas in descending order were as follows: Nutrison Fibre, Fresubin Energy Fibre, Fresubin Diabetes > Supportan > Peptison, Ensure > Vivonex, Fresubin. The ratio of the cumulative DDDs for the three types of enteral nutrition was 35:2.8:1 (total protein type to short peptide type to amino acid type). Off-label use of Fresubin Diabetes was also observed, with most of this formula being prescribed for patients with stress hyperglycemia. Only 2.1% of cancer patients received Supportan. There were 35 cases of near misses in dispensing look-alike or sound-alike enteral nutrition formulas, and one adverse drug reaction in an elderly malnourished patient who did not receive vitamin K1-enriched enteral nutrition during treatment with cefoperazone. After 4 months of the trial intervention, off-label use of Fresubin Diabetes was no longer endorsed by the Drug and Therapeutics Committee for nondiabetic patients, and the proportion of this formula prescribed for patients with stress hyperglycemia decreased by 20%, with a 10-fold increase in the amount of Supportan prescribed for cancer patients. Near misses in dispensing look-alike or sound-alike enteral nutrition were successfully abolished, and no severe coagulation disorders occurred after prophylactic administration of vitamin K1-enriched enteral nutrition in elderly malnourished patients receiving cefoperazone.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  This utilization study indicates that continuous quality improvement is necessary and that a Drug and Therapeutics Committee can play an important role in promoting rational and safe use of enteral nutrition. Appropriateness of this therapy still needs to be improved, especially in addressing the issues of non-evidence-based combined use of multiple enteral nutrition formulas, the relatively high rate of concomitant use of enteral and parenteral nutrition, off-label use of diabetes-specific Fresubin Diabetes, insufficient use of Supportan in cancer patients, and unnecessary use of Supportan in intensive care patients not suffering from cancer.
authors: Department of Pharmacy, The Second Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, People's Republic of China.
authors: Xiu-Ping
authors: XP
authors: Zhu
authors: Ling-Ling
authors: LL
authors: Zhu
authors: Quan
authors: Q
authors: Zhou
keywords: drug utilization; enteral nutrition; indications; parenteral nutrition; pharmacoeconomics; rational drug use
references: Curr Med Res Opin. 2011 Sep;27(9):1769-70
references: 21800950
references: Clin Ther. 2009 Apr;31(4):849-61
references: 19446158
references: Yakugaku Zasshi. 2011;131(12):1827-33
references: 22129881
references: Crit Care Med. 2001 Dec;29(12):2264-70
references: 11801821
references: Crit Care Clin. 2010 Jul;26(3):467-80, viii
references: 20643300
references: Rev Med Suisse. 2009 Dec 9;5(229):2486, 2488-91
references: 20084867
references: Curr Gastroenterol Rep. 2011 Aug;13(4):368-75
references: 21604042
references: Burns. 2008 Mar;34(2):192-6
references: 17804169
references: Curr Med Res Opin. 2011 Feb;27(2):413-22
references: 21192760
references: Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2010 Mar;13(2):177-83
references: 19996743
references: Nutr Metab (Lond). 2011 Oct 26;8:75
references: 22029671
references: J Pharm Pract. 2011 Feb;24(1):70-7
references: 21507876
references: Nutrition. 2011 Apr;27(4):440-4
references: 21167685
references: Nutrition. 2004 Oct;20(10):843-8
references: 15474870