Displaying all 3 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Lee JL, Redzuan AM, Shah NM
    Int J Clin Pharm, 2013 Dec;35(6):1025-9.
    PMID: 24022725
    BACKGROUND: Unlicensed and off-label use of medicines in paediatrics is widespread. However, the incidence of this practice in Malaysia has not been reported.

    OBJECTIVE: To determine the extent of unlicensed and off-label use of medicines in hospitalised children in the intensive care units of a tertiary care teaching hospital.

    METHODS: A prospective, observational exploratory study was conducted on medicines prescribed to children admitted to the 3 intensive care units of Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Centre (UKMMC).

    RESULTS: A total of 194 patients were admitted to UKMMC, 168 of them received one or more drugs. Of 1,295 prescriptions, 353 (27.3 %) were unlicensed and 442 (34.1 %) were for off-label use. Forty-four percent of patients received at least one medicine for unlicensed use and 82.1 % received at least one medicine off-label. Preterm infants, children aged 28 days to 23 months, patients with hospital stays of more than 2 weeks, and those prescribed increasing numbers of medicines were more likely to receive medicines for unlicensed use. Term neonates and patients prescribed increasing numbers of medicines had increased risk of receiving medicines for off-label use.

    CONCLUSION: Prescribing of medicines in an unlicensed or off-label fashion to the children in the intensive care units of UKMMC was common. Further detailed studies are necessary to ensure the delivery of safe and effective medicines to children.

    Matched MeSH terms: Intensive Care Units, Pediatric/statistics & numerical data
  2. Giuliano JS, Markovitz BP, Brierley J, Levin R, Williams G, Lum LC, et al.
    Pediatr Crit Care Med, 2016 06;17(6):522-30.
    PMID: 27124566 DOI: 10.1097/PCC.0000000000000760
    OBJECTIVES: Pediatric severe sepsis remains a significant global health problem without new therapies despite many multicenter clinical trials. We compared children managed with severe sepsis in European and U.S. PICUs to identify geographic variation, which may improve the design of future international studies.

    DESIGN: We conducted a secondary analysis of the Sepsis PRevalence, OUtcomes, and Therapies study. Data about PICU characteristics, patient demographics, therapies, and outcomes were compared. Multivariable regression models were used to determine adjusted differences in morbidity and mortality.

    SETTING: European and U.S. PICUs.

    PATIENTS: Children with severe sepsis managed in European and U.S. PICUs enrolled in the Sepsis PRevalence, OUtcomes, and Therapies study.

    INTERVENTIONS: None.

    MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: European PICUs had fewer beds (median, 11 vs 24; p < 0.001). European patients were younger (median, 1 vs 6 yr; p < 0.001), had higher severity of illness (median Pediatric Index of Mortality-3, 5.0 vs 3.8; p = 0.02), and were more often admitted from the ward (37% vs 24%). Invasive mechanical ventilation, central venous access, and vasoactive infusions were used more frequently in European patients (85% vs 68%, p = 0.002; 91% vs 82%, p = 0.05; and 71% vs 50%; p < 0.001, respectively). Raw morbidity and mortality outcomes were worse for European compared with U.S. patients, but after adjusting for patient characteristics, there were no significant differences in mortality, multiple organ dysfunction, disability at discharge, length of stay, or ventilator/vasoactive-free days.

    CONCLUSIONS: Children with severe sepsis admitted to European PICUs have higher severity of illness, are more likely to be admitted from hospital wards, and receive more intensive care therapies than in the United States. The lack of significant differences in morbidity and mortality after adjusting for patient characteristics suggests that the approach to care between regions, perhaps related to PICU bed availability, needs to be considered in the design of future international clinical trials in pediatric severe sepsis.

    Matched MeSH terms: Intensive Care Units, Pediatric/statistics & numerical data*
  3. Gan CS, Wong JJ, Samransamruajkit R, Chuah SL, Chor YK, Qian S, et al.
    Pediatr Crit Care Med, 2018 10;19(10):e504-e513.
    PMID: 30036234 DOI: 10.1097/PCC.0000000000001667
    OBJECTIVES: Extrapulmonary pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome and pulmonary pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome are poorly described in the literature. We aimed to describe and compare the epidemiology, risk factors for mortality, and outcomes in extrapulmonary pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome and pulmonary pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome.

    DESIGN: This is a secondary analysis of a multicenter, retrospective, cohort study. Data on epidemiology, ventilation, therapies, and outcomes were collected and analyzed. Patients were classified into two mutually exclusive groups (extrapulmonary pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome and pulmonary pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome) based on etiologies. Primary outcome was PICU mortality. Cox proportional hazard regression was used to identify risk factors for mortality.

    SETTING: Ten multidisciplinary PICUs in Asia.

    PATIENTS: Mechanically ventilated children meeting the Pediatric Acute Lung Injury Consensus Conference criteria for pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome between 2009 and 2015.

    INTERVENTIONS: None.

    MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Forty-one of 307 patients (13.4%) and 266 of 307 patients (86.6%) were classified into extrapulmonary pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome and pulmonary pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome groups, respectively. The most common causes for extrapulmonary pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome and pulmonary pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome were sepsis (82.9%) and pneumonia (91.7%), respectively. Children with extrapulmonary pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome were older, had higher admission severity scores, and had a greater proportion of organ dysfunction compared with pulmonary pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome group. Patients in the extrapulmonary pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome group had higher mortality (48.8% vs 24.8%; p = 0.002) and reduced ventilator-free days (median 2.0 d [interquartile range 0.0-18.0 d] vs 19.0 d [0.5-24.0 d]; p = 0.001) compared with the pulmonary pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome group. After adjusting for site, severity of illness, comorbidities, multiple organ dysfunction, and severity of acute respiratory distress syndrome, extrapulmonary pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome etiology was not associated with mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.56 [95% CI, 0.90-2.71]).

    CONCLUSIONS: Patients with extrapulmonary pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome were sicker and had poorer clinical outcomes. However, after adjusting for confounders, it was not an independent risk factor for mortality.

    Matched MeSH terms: Intensive Care Units, Pediatric/statistics & numerical data*
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator (afdal@afpm.org.my)

External Links