How is leflunomide prescribed and used in Australia? analysis of prescribing and adverse effect reporting

Purpose To evaluate the use of leflunomide in the Australian community since introduction in 2000. Trends in adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting were also studied. Methods Annual Australian prescription and dispensing statistics were analysed. Drug utilisation was estimated as defined daily doses (DDD)/1000 inhabitants/day. ADR data from the Therapeutic Goods Administration's Adverse Drug Reactions Advisory Committee (ADRAC) national monitoring system were compared with the World Health Organisation (WHO) Vigibase records. Results Leflunomide use in Australia (dispensing data) increased from 0.2 in 2000 to 0.4 DDD/1000 inhabitants/day in 2002. The same overall pattern was observed in the 'authority to prescribe' data. From 2000-2002, prescribing of the starter pack (3 x 100 mg loading dose plus 30 x 20 mg tablets) declined (down 74%); likewise for the 20mg (30 tablets) pack. Gradual increases were noted for the 10 mg (30 tablets) pack (up 40%). Approximately 135 reports, detailing about 370 individual ADR, were generated annually. Gastro-intestinal disorders predominated, accounting for 24% of reactions reported to ADRAC. Skin and appendages disorders constituted 14% of reported reactions. Deaths in leflunomide users were attributed to a combination of haematological and gastro-intestinal complications, but it was not possible to ascertain other medication usage or contributing factors. Trends observed with the ADRAC reports were consistent with the WHO database. Conclusions Leflunomide was the first registered DMARD in Australia in over a decade and its use has increased within the community. The ADR reports might have contributed to Australian rheumatologists gradually abandoning loading patients with high doses of leflunomide in favour of starting therapy at lower doses. Copyright (c) 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

PRN Sedation-patterns of prescribing and administration in a child and adolescent mental health inpatient service

Objective: To identify utilisation rates of prn (pro re nata) sedation in children and adolescents receiving inpatient psychiatric treatment, and to compare correlates of prn prescribing and administration. Method A retrospective chart review examined 122 medical charts from a child and youth mental health inpatient service. Results 71.3% of patients were prescribed prn sedation and 50.8% were administered prn sedation. Patients received an average of 8.0 doses of prn sedation, with 9.8% receiving 10 or more doses. Chlorpromazine and diazepam were the most commonly utilised agents. Prescribing of prn sedation was only related to use of regular medications (p < 0.01), and non-parent carers (p < 0.01). In contrast, administration of prn sedation was associated with multiple diagnoses (p < 0.01), pervasive development disorder (p < 0.01), mental retardation (p < 0.01) ADHD (p < 0.01), longer hospital admission (p < 0.01), use of atypical antipsychotics (p < 0.01) and polypharmacy (p < 0.01). Conclusions Despite lack of data to inform practice, prn sedation is widely utilised, especially in complex patients. Future research in this area needs to incorporate nurses and examine whether patients benefit from prn sedation, which drugs and dosing patterns optimise safety and efficacy, and what is the role of prn sedation in the context of other medication.

Rehabilitation approaches to promote successful unilateral and bilateral fittings and avoid inappropriate prescription

Successful hearing aid fitting occurs when the person fitted wears the aid/s on a regular basis and reports benefit when the aid/s is used. A significant number of people fitted with unilateral or bilateral hearing aids for the first time do not continue to use one or both aids in the long term. In this paper, factors consistently found in previous research to be associated with unsuccessful fitting are explored; in particular, the negative attitudes of some clients towards hearing aids, their lack of motivation for seeking help, inability to identify goals for rehabilitation, and problems with the management of the devices. It is argued here that success in hearing aid fitting involves the same dynamics as found with other assistive technologies (e.g., wheelchairs, walking frames), and is dependent on a match between the characteristics of a prospective user, the technology itself, and the environments of use (Scherer, 2002). It is recommended that for clients who identify concerns about hearing aids, or who are unsure about when they would use them, and/or are likely to have problems with aid management, only one aid be fitted in the first instance, if hearing aid fitting is to proceed at all. Rehabilitation approaches to promote successful fitting are discussed in light of results obtained from a survey of clients who experienced both successful and unsuccessful aid fitting.