Original Article

A Drug Utilization Evaluation of Intravenous Acetaminophen in Neurology Ward of a Teaching Hospital: A Retrospective Single-Center Cohort Study

Please cite this article as follows: Mohseni MA, Etminani Esfahani M, Ataei S, Tamri P. A drug utilization evaluation study of intravenous acetaminophen in neurology ward of teaching hospital: a retrospective single-center cohort study. Avicenna J Pharm Res. 2022; 3(2):69-73. doi:10.34172/ajpr.1081

Introduction

Drug utilization evaluation (DUE) is defined as an advanced and appropriate program that investigates and analyzes drug use patterns in comparison with standard criteria in a medical center (1). According to the definition of the World Health Organization (WHO), DUE studies include the study of the growth and distribution, as well as prescription and consumption of drugs in the community with an emphasis on medical, social, and economic results (2,3). The successful implementation of a DUE study will ensure the appropriate, safe, and effective use of drugs. Among the goals of the implementation of DUE programs are ensuring the rationality of the quality of drug use, ensuring the health of patients, predicting and preventing side effects timely, drawing the pattern of drug use in society, and reducing unnecessary costs (4). The appropriate dosage form and route of administration are fundamental steps in drug administration to achieve optimal clinical results from limited financial resources (5).

Trying to rationalize drug use has always been considered one of the important issues of drug policies (6). According to the WHO, to achieve the rational use of drugs, it is necessary to use drugs with appropriate therapeutic effects that can meet the clinical needs of patients in a specific geographical area with the least complications and the least cost (7,8). In addition, it is highly important to pay attention to the dose and duration of drug use.

Acetaminophen (paracetamol) is an antipyretic and pain reliever. This drug is a non-narcotic pain reliever that is used in cases of mild to moderate pain such as headache, toothache, mild osteoarthritis pain, and pain from minor surgeries (9,10). It was believed that acetaminophen causes analgesia by inhibiting cyclooxygenase enzymes (11). However, the main analgesic mechanism of acetaminophen is its metabolism to N-acylphenolamine (AM404), which then acts on the transient receptor potential vanilloid type-1 (12).

Acetaminophen can be prescribed orally, rectally, or intravenously (IV). The main difference between the pharmaceutical forms of acetaminophen includes pharmacokinetic properties, classification of pregnancy, and indication in children (13,14). The cerebrospinal fluid concentration of acetaminophen is significantly higher following IV injection compared to oral and rectal forms (15). The maximum plasma concentration of 1 gram of injected acetaminophen after 15 minutes is 30 mg/L, and its bioavailability is 89.4% (16). One of the potential benefits of IV administration is bypassing the hepatic first pass (17).

The side effects of IV acetaminophen include nausea, vomiting, constipation, itching, abdominal pain, hyperammonemia, hyperchloremia, hyperuricemia, a decrease in serum bicarbonate, sodium, and calcium, an increase in serum glucose, bilirubin, and alkaline phosphatase (ALP). Picetti et al reported that the administration of paracetamol is effective but exposes patients to episodes of hypotension that must be recognized and treated quickly to prevent further damage to the affected brain (18).

In the treatment system, drug use should be evaluated in a systematic and planned process (6). Considering that this process is performed by collecting data, it can be considered an evidence-based analysis (19). However, in the current study, we checked the compliance of injectable acetaminophen prescription based on the conditions of patients who were hospitalized in the neurology ward of Shahid Beheshti hospital (Hamadan, Iran) from April 2021 to September 2021 via a retrospective single-center cohort study.

Materials and Methods

Study Design and Data Sampling

In the present retrospective single-center cohort study, 97 patients within the age range of 17-88 years hospitalized in the neurology ward of Shahid Beheshti Hospital in Hamadan from April 2021 to September 2021, who received at least 1 dose of IV acetaminophen were examined to evaluate the appropriateness of IV acetaminophen prescribing.

Demographic, laboratory, and clinical data were retrieved from the patient’s files. The desired information in the checklist that was designed for this purpose, included age, gender, weight, prescription indication, dose, duration of administration, administration intervals, comorbidities, liver enzymes (alanine aminotransferase [ALT], aspartate aminotransferase [AST], ALP), creatinine (Cr) level, and international normalized ratio (INR). The information was compared with the national guidelines for the administration of injectable acetaminophen issued by the Ministry of Health and Medical Education. All data were extracted by clinical pharmacist supervision. The limitations of this study were the non-availability of some files and defects in the information of the files.

Statistics

All data were expressed as the mean ± standard deviation (SD) and analyzed with SPSS software at a confidence level of 95%. Nominal and continuous variables were compared using an independent t-test and chi-square test, respectively.

Results

Age and Gender Distribution of Patients

Table 1 lists the frequency of gender distribution of patients. Overall, 43 male (44.32%) and 54 female (55.67%) patients participated in this study. The average age of patients according to gender distribution in male and female patients was 54.44 ± 2.99 and 53 ± 3.08, respectively.

Compliance of Age and Gender Distribution With the Guideline

Table 2 summarizes data on the frequency of gender and age distribution of patients if they comply with the guidelines. Out of the 97 cases of injectable acetaminophen administration, 21 cases (21.6%) complied with the guidelines, while 76 cases (78.4%) did not. However, the frequency of matching of acetaminophen administration in patients hospitalized in the neurology ward was not significant according to gender (P > 0.05), while a significant difference was observed according to age (P < 0.05).

Indication of Pain and Fever in the Gender Distribution of Patients

Pain and fever indications in the gender distribution of male and female patients underwent examination. In this study, 35 female (36.08%) and 26 male (25.22%) patients, as well as 5 female (15.46%) and 16 male (16.49%) patients had pain indications and fever indications, respectively. Furthermore, 4 female patients (4.12%) and 1 male patient (1.03%) had indications of pain and fever at the same time (Table 3).

Comorbidities

Table 4 presents the comorbidities of patients in this study. The examination of comorbidities revealed that most male and female patients had hypotension (22.78%), and only 4 patients suffered from renal disease (5.06%).

Dose, Duration, and Intervals of Acetaminophen Administration

Table 5 compares the results of the average variables of dose, duration, and intervals of acetaminophen administration in the neurology ward. The mean variables of dose, duration, and intervals of acetaminophen administration were 5.05 ± 0.66, 67.5 ± 52.5, and 12.18 ± 0.76, respectively. Moreover, the results of INR, Cr, urea, ALP, ALT, and AST factors in patients during hospitalization are provided in Table 6.

Discussion

The current study evaluated the administration of IV acetaminophen in the neurology ward of hospitalized patients in Shahid Beheshti Hospital (Hamadan, Iran) from April 2021 to September 2021 in a retrospective single-center cohort study to investigate the appropriateness of IV acetaminophen prescribing via the Ministry of Health and Medical Education. Overall, our results revealed that from 97 cases who received IV acetaminophen, only 21 cases (21.6%) complied with the guidelines, whereas the remaining 76 cases (78.4%) did not comply with them. However, the frequency of matching of acetaminophen administration in patients had a significant difference according to age.

The average age of the patients whose pattern of injecting acetaminophen was in accordance with the national guidelines was 49.67 ± 20.83 years, and that of those who did not conform was 54.86 ± 2.15 years (Table 2). Thus, the age of the patient is mentioned as the best indicator of the need for acetaminophen. According to our data, the average consumption of IV acetaminophen decreased with the increasing age of the patients. In this regard, Nejati et al (17) reported the rational use of injectable analgesics in the emergency and surgical wards. In addition, out of a total of 1181 cases, 23.62% of the prescriptions were rational in terms of indications, dosages, time intervals, and drug interactions and 76.38% of the prescriptions were irrational. It seems that there should be an intervention regarding more education to the medical staff regarding the rational prescription of injectable analgesics according to the guideline.

Among the solutions that can be proposed to improve the existing conditions related to the pattern of injectable analgesic drug consumption and rationalize the prescription and consumption of these drugs are the formulation and implementation of standard protocols for pain control, training of nurses and medical staff regarding drug management and evaluation, and recommendation of the use of therapeutic protocols. The other solutions include reforming the distribution system of injectable narcotic drugs and adequate supervision from the distribution stage to the stage of prescribing to the patient, monitoring the prescription of injectable narcotic drugs, and creating awareness among patients and medical staff (20). Moreover, studies have shown that the correct implementation of drug administration protocols can reduce costs for patients and health service providers and provide health benefits to patients through appropriate drug use (21).

In this study, approximately 62% of patients received IV acetaminophen because of pain. It seems that the injectable form of acetaminophen had superiority to other forms (oral or rectal) for rapid pain relief in patients via time-saving. However, in clinical trials, the use of IV acetaminophen has been associated with better clinical results in terms of fewer overall complications, shorter hospital stays, and lower treatment costs (22). In contrast, studies indicated that there was no strong evidence for the superiority of IV acetaminophen administration over oral routes. For example, the cost of IV acetaminophen is about 100 times the cost of oral formulations and twice the cost of rectal formulations, and the non-compliance of IV acetaminophen prescription with the guidelines imposes an additional cost to the hospital health care system in Australia (23).

Conclusion

Most of the cases of injectable acetaminophen administration in patients admitted to the neurology ward of Shahid Beheshti hospital in Hamadan did not comply with the national guidelines, and the most common cause of non-compliance was the use of the injectable form of acetaminophen, while it was possible to use the oral and rectal forms. Injectable acetaminophen appears to provide rapid pain relief. Nonetheless, to reduce the unnecessary cases of injecting acetaminophen in hospitalized patients and save resources, it is suggested that the personnel in the field of national guidelines for injecting acetaminophen should be retrained, and the way of administering the drug according to the guidelines requires further monitoring.

Acknowledgements

This study has been adapted from a Pharm D thesis at Hamadan University of Medical Sciences. The study was supported by the Vice Chancellor for Research and Technology in Hamadan University of Medical Sciences (Grant No140010218613).

Authors’ Contribution

Mohammad Ali Mohseni: Data collection, data analysis, writing of manuscript. Maryam Etminani Esfahani: Study design, Manuscript editing and proofreading. Sara Ataei: Study design, Pari Tamri: Study design and supervision of research.

Competing Interests

There is no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Hamadan University of Medical Sciences (ethical code: IR.UMSHA.REC.1400.746).

References

1. World Health Organization (WHO). Drug and Therapeutics Committees: A Practical Guide. WHO; 2003.
2. Phillips MS, Gayman JE, Todd MW. ASHP guidelines on medication-use evaluation American Society of Health-system Pharmacists. Am J Health Syst Pharm 1996; 53(16):1953-5. doi: 10.1093/ajhp/53.16.1953 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
3. Ghollar MA, Rangchian M, Etminaniesfahani M. Retrospective drug utilization evaluation of vancomycin usage in infectious wards and intensive care units in Hamedan teaching hospitals, April to September 2020. Avicenna J Pharm Res 2021; 2(2):55-9. doi: 10.34172/ajpr.2021.11 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
4. Fanikos J, Jenkins KL, Piazza G, Connors J, Goldhaber SZ. Medication use evaluation: pharmacist rubric for performance improvement. Pharmacotherapy 2014; 34 Suppl 1:5S-13S. doi: 10.1002/phar.1506 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
5. Larkin M. Evidence-based prescribing made simple. Lancet 2001; 357(9254):448. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(05)71258-7 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
6. Shahbazi F, Dashti-Khavidaki S. Colistin: efficacy and safety in different populations. Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol 2015; 8(4):423-48. doi: 10.1586/17512433.2015.1053390 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
7. Dantas RC, Ferreira ML, Gontijo-Filho PP, Ribas RM. Pseudomonas aeruginosa bacteraemia: independent risk factors for mortality and impact of resistance on outcome. J Med Microbiol 2014; 63(Pt 12):1679-87. doi: 10.1099/jmm.0.073262-0 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
8. Mauldin PD, Salgado CD, Hansen IS, Durup DT, Bosso JA. Attributable hospital cost and length of stay associated with health care-associated infections caused by antibiotic-resistant gram-negative bacteria. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2010; 54(1):109-15. doi: 10.1128/aac.01041-09 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
9. Babl FE, Theophilos T, Palmer GM. Is there a role for intravenous acetaminophen in pediatric emergency departments?. Pediatr Emerg Care 2011; 27(6):496-9. doi: 10.1097/PEC.0b013e31821d8629 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
10. Smith HS. Potential analgesic mechanisms of acetaminophen. Pain Physician 2009; 12(1):269-80. [ Google Scholar]
11. Chandrasekharan NV, Dai H, Roos KL, Evanson NK, Tomsik J, Elton TS. COX-3, a cyclooxygenase-1 variant inhibited by acetaminophen and other analgesic/antipyretic drugs: cloning, structure, and expression. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2002; 99(21):13926-31. doi: 10.1073/pnas.162468699 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
12. Ohashi N, Kohno T. Analgesic effect of acetaminophen: a review of known and novel mechanisms of action. Front Pharmacol 2020; 11:580289. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2020.580289 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
13. Thigpen JC, Odle BL, Harirforoosh S. Opioids: a review of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in neonates, infants, and children. Eur J Drug Metab Pharmacokinet 2019; 44(5):591-609. doi: 10.1007/s13318-019-00552-0 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
14. Scialli AR, Ang R, Breitmeyer J, Royal MA. A review of the literature on the effects of acetaminophen on pregnancy outcome. Reprod Toxicol 2010; 30(4):495-507. doi: 10.1016/j.reprotox.2010.07.007 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
15. Tompkins DM, DiPasquale A, Segovia M, Cohn SM. Review of intravenous acetaminophen for analgesia in the postoperative setting. Am Surg 2021; 87(11):1809-22. doi: 10.1177/0003134821989056 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
16. MacIntyre IM, Turtle EJ, Farrah TE, Graham C, Dear JW, Webb DJ. Regular acetaminophen use and blood pressure in people with hypertension: the PATH-BP trial. Circulation 2022; 145(6):416-23. doi: 10.1161/circulationaha.121.056015 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
17. Nejati A, Hasaneini D, Ala S, Rad Goudarzi N, Ahangar N. Investigating the rational use of injectable analgesics in emergency and surgical wards of Imam Sajjad hospital, Ramsar. Med J Mashhad Univ Med Sci 2020; 63(2):2319-25. doi: 10.22038/mjms.2020.15977.[Persian] [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
18. Picetti E, De Angelis A, Villani F, Antonini MV, Rossi I, Servadei F. Intravenous paracetamol for fever control in acute brain injury patients: cerebral and hemodynamic effects. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2014; 156(10):1953-9. doi: 10.1007/s00701-014-2129-2 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
19. Probst P, Zaschke S, Heger P, Harnoss JC, Hüttner FJ, Mihaljevic AL. Evidence-based recommendations for blinding in surgical trials. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2019; 404(3):273-84. doi: 10.1007/s00423-019-01761-6 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
20. Procter NJ, Lamacraft G, Joubert G. Intravenous paracetamol—waste not, want not: a retrospective audit on the appropriate use of intravenous paracetamol at Universitas Academic Hospital Complex—Bloemfontein. South Afr J Anaesth Analg 2018; 24(1):22-8. doi: 10.1080/22201181.2018.1426208 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
21. Hoffman JM, Shah ND, Vermeulen LC, Schumock GT, Grim P, Hunkler RJ. Projecting future drug expenditures--2007. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2007; 64(3):298-314. doi: 10.2146/ajhp060545 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
22. Smith AN, Hoefling VC. A retrospective analysis of intravenous acetaminophen use in spinal surgery patients. Pharm Pract (Granada) 2014; 12(3):417. doi: 10.4321/s1886-36552014000300004 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
23. Hirate J, Zhu CY, Horikoshi I, Bhargava VO. First-pass metabolism of acetaminophen in rats after low and high doses. Biopharm Drug Dispos 1990; 11(3):245-52. doi: 10.1002/bdd.2510110309 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]