https://doi.org/10.5812/jrps-149966

The Prevalence of Factors Contributing to Drug-Related Complications in Neonates with Sepsis

authors:

avatar Nazila Moftian ORCID 1 , avatar Atefeh Esfandiari 2 , avatar Peyman Rezaei-Hachesu ORCID 3 , avatar Razieh Sangsari ORCID 4 , avatar Kayvan Mirnia ORCID 4 , *

Department of Health Education and Health Promotion, Bushehr University of Medical Sciences, Bushehr, Iran
Department of Health Policy & Management, Faculty of Medicine, Bushehr University of Medical Sciences, Bushehr, Iran
Department of Health Information Technology, Faculty of Management and Medical Informatics, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran
Children’s Medical Center Hospital, School of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Journal of Reports in Pharmaceutical Sciences: Vol.12, issue 1; e149966
published online: January 18, 2025
article type: Research Article
received: June 28, 2024
accepted: December 30, 2024

How To Cite Moftian N, Esfandiari A, Rezaei-Hachesu P, Sangsari R, Mirnia K. The Prevalence of Factors Contributing to Drug-Related Complications in Neonates with Sepsis. J Rep Pharm Sci. 2024;12(1):e149966. https://doi.org/10.5812/jrps-149966.

Abstract

Background:

Newborns in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) are exposed to numerous medications during their hospital stay. The clinical variability of neonates makes them particularly vulnerable to drug-related problems (DRPs), leading to potential treatment inefficacy.

Objectives:

This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of DRPs and identify associated risk factors in neonates with sepsis in the NICU.

Methods:

This prospective observational research was conducted at a children's medical center in Iran from December 1, 2021, to March 1, 2022. Data were collected through daily physician orders and nursing reports, with DRPs classified according to Cipolle's standards. Logistic regression was utilized to determine risk factors for DRPs, with significance set at P < 0.05.

Results and Conclusions:

A total of 272 neonates with sepsis were included in the study, with mean birth weight and gestational age of 1781 ± 912 g and 35.4 ± 1.3 weeks, respectively. DRPs were observed in 57.5% of neonates (95% CI: 55.8 - 63.8%), with ineffective drugs (24.1%) and dosage issues (19.7% too low, 22.6% too high) being the primary causes. Antimicrobials accounted for the majority of DRPs (61.2%), with Gentamicin (21.5%) and Amikacin (17.3%) being the most commonly involved medications. Risk factors for DRPs included feeding intolerance and vomiting, with ineffective drug selection and inappropriate dosing impacting treatment efficacy.

1. Background

Newborns in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) are often prescribed multiple medications to treat various health conditions. However, due to the fact that their organs are not fully developed and are functionally immature, elimination of these drugs can be different compared to older children and adults. As a result, newborns may experience higher levels of these medications in their bodies, leading to an increased risk of toxicity or adverse effects (1). This can increase the risk of drug-related problems (DRPs) for newborns. Drug-related problems can refer to any issue related to the use of medication, such as adverse reactions, drug interactions, medication errors, or inappropriate drug therapy. The complexity of managing multiple medications in NICUs can lead to errors in prescribing, administering, or monitoring medications, which can result in harm to the newborn. Drug-related problems are responsible for a significant portion of hospital admissions worldwide, with some estimates indicating that up to 5 - 10% of hospital admissions are due to DRPs. Furthermore, it is believed that more than half of DRPs could have been prevented with proper medication management practices (2). A patient is not using their medication correctly, it can prevent them from experiencing the full benefits of the prescribed treatment (3). Drug-related problems can happen at any point during treatment, such as prescribing, transcribing, dispensing, and patient use. Clinical pharmacists in collaboration with physicians may be can identify and resolve DRPs to ensure safe and effective medication use for patients (4). Different types of drug therapy problems (DTPs) have been proposed and described in various sources. Although there may be slight variations, they all emphasize the importance of evaluating the appropriateness, effectiveness, safety, and patient adherence to medication as initially outlined by Cipolle et al. (5). The Cipolle classification has been frequently used to identify DTPs (6, 7). Cipolle is considered to be one of the most crucial classification systems for DTPs in Iran, and it is widely implemented (8). Drug therapy problems are classified into seven groups in this system based on the nature of the discord that caused them, such as unnecessary drug therapy, additional drug therapy required, drug therapy inefficacy, over-dosage, under-dosage, adverse drug reaction (ADR), and noncompliance. Each of the seven groups represents a different type of problem that can occur, and by categorizing them in this way, healthcare providers can more easily identify the root cause of the issue and work towards a solution (9). It is important to address all categories of symptoms and medical issues in order to prevent negative clinical consequences. Failure to do so can result in temporary symptom worsening, permanent disability, or even death (6, 10). The susceptibility of neonates to DRPs is increased due to their clinical heterogeneity, which is influenced by factors such as gestational age, weight, and postnatal age that determine drug selection. Crucial steps include identifying factors that increase the risk, promptly reviewing medication therapy, and taking corrective actions for identified DTPs in order to minimize harmful outcomes. Additionally, understanding how often DRPs occur in a healthcare system can aid in creating and executing plans to decrease their prevalence and prevent harm to patients.

2. Objectives

Our objective is to examine the frequency of DRPs and determine the associated factors in neonates with sepsis in the NICU.

3. Methods

3.1. Study Design and Population

Between December 1st, 2021, and March 1st, 2022, a prospective observational study was conducted at three NICUs in Iranian children's hospitals. The study included all patients diagnosed with sepsis, hospitalized in the NICUs for more than 24 hours, aged under one month, and prescribed at least one medication. Patients with chronic underlying diseases and congenital malformations were excluded from the study.

Sepsis was defined as infants presenting with clinical symptoms of sepsis and a positive blood culture or exhibiting the following laboratory symptoms: White blood cells (WBC) < 5,000, positive C-reactive protein (CRP), platelets < 150,000, and absolute neutrophil count (ANC) < 1,500 (11), referred to as clinical sepsis.

The data collection form was developed by examining medical charts, physician orders, and nursing reports. Data collected included neonatal-related information, laboratory parameters, and medication data. Daily recording of both prescribed drugs and the occurrence of DRPs was performed throughout the NICU stay.

The neonates were assessed daily for DRPs by a team consisting of one neonatologist, the chief pharmacist, and two clinical pharmacy residents. Two clinical pharmacists independently reviewed and recorded information on DRPs. Only DRPs classified under the Cipolle classification system were considered for the study. As per this system, DRPs are defined as unwanted events or risks that patients may experience during or related to their drug therapy. These problems hinder or delay the patient from attaining the intended therapeutic goals and necessitate professional judgment for resolution (5). Appendix 1 in Supplementary File contains the details of the Cipolle classification system. The sufficiency of the selected dose was assessed using the Neofax® textbook (Thomson Reuters, New York, USA) and the UpToDate® database (Wolters Kluwer, AlphenaandenRijn, NL) as sources of information. An unfavorable event recorded in the literature linked to one of the drugs being administered was regarded as an ADR. A third pharmacist was consulted in the event of disagreement between evaluators. Physicians were targeted for interventions related to adverse events from prescription drugs, while nurses were targeted for interventions related to drug preparation and administration.

3.2. Statistical Analyses

The neonate characteristics and prevalence of DRPs were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Continuous variables were compared using either the Student’s t-test or Mann-Whitney U-test, while categorical variables were analyzed using the χ² or Fisher’s exact test. A P-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

A multivariate logistic regression analysis was conducted to evaluate the risk factors for DRPs, with odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI) reported. The presence of DRPs was considered the outcome measure, while other variables were considered potential predictors. Bivariate analyses were initially conducted for each predictor variable, followed by a multivariate analysis that included all independent variables to control for potential confounding factors.

SPSS software (v. 22, IBM Corp., USA) was used for all analyses.

4. Results

4.1. Demographic and Clinical Information

During the research period, NICUs admitted 1,161 neonates. Among them, sepsis was culture-positive in 173 (14.9%) neonates, and 116 (9.9%) neonates were diagnosed with clinical sepsis. Seventeen newborns were excluded from the study due to neurological sequelae (n = 7), congenital anomalies (n = 3), and hospitalization for less than 24 hours (n = 7). Consequently, 272 newborns were enrolled in the study.

The mean birth weight and gestational weight were 1,781 ± 912 g and 35.4 ± 1.3 weeks, respectively. The average length of NICU stay was 13 days (range: 1 - 142 days). NICU mortality was 9.5%, with 26 deaths recorded. Table 1 provides detailed demographic and clinical data.

Table 1.

Summary of Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of Neonates Admitted to Neonatal Intensive Care Unit Diagnosed with Sepsis

VariablesNo. (%) or Mean ± SD
Sex
Male173 (63.6)
Female99 (36.4)
Apnea (AHI)149 (54.7)
Asphyxia (pH < 7, BE < -16 mmol/L)174 (64.3)
One-min Apgar < 788 (32.3)
Five-min Apgar < 7112 (41.1)
Birth weight (g)1781 ± 912
Body temperature (°C)37.8 ± 1.1
Feed intolerance193 (70.9)
Jaundice (mg/dL)96 (35.2)
Need for mechanical ventilation238 (87.5)
Repository distress157 (57.7)
Seizure105 (38.6)
Vomiting32 (11.7)
Lethargy34 (12.5)
Gestational age (wk)
Preterm ≤ 37140 ± 51.5
Term > 37132 ± 48.5
Laboratory parameters
Hematocrit51.01 ± 2.3
Hemoglobin (g/dL)18.2 ± 4.1
Platelet count (cell/mm3)204636 ± 182021
Red blood cells (cell/mm3)4.7 × 106 ± 1.4 × 106
White blood cells (cell/mm3)13627.2 ± 1879.1
Absolute neutrophil count (mm3)9.47 ± 3.57
Positive C-reactive protein89 (32.7)
Medication exposure
One antibiotic169 (62.1)
Two or more antibiotics102 (37.5)
Antibiotics plus other medications172 (63.2)
Type of sepsis
Early-onset sepsis167 (61.3)
Late-onset sepsis105 (38.3)

4.2. Drug-Related Problems

A total of 390 DRPs were identified in the study. Among the 272 neonates with sepsis, 157 (57.5%, 95% CI: 55.8 - 63.8%) experienced DRPs, with an average of 1.4 ± 2.6 DRPs per patient. The majority of drug-related needs were related to effectiveness (171, 43.9%), followed by Safety (169, 43.3%) and indication (50, 12.9%).

According to Cipolle's classification, ineffective drugs were the primary cause of DRPs, accounting for 94 cases (24.1%). The main reasons included the availability of more effective drugs (40 cases, 10.2%) and refractory conditions (33 cases, 8.5%). Another significant factor was excessive dosage (88, 22.6%), particularly when the dosing frequency was too low (37, 9.5%). Table 2 provides further details regarding the reasons behind DRPs.

Table 2.

Details of the Causes of Drug Related Problems

Causes of DRP (n = 390)No. (%)
Indication50 (12.9)
Unnecessary drug therapy32 (8.2)
No medical indication at this time6 (1.5)
Duplicate therapy10 (2.6)
Nondrug therapy more appropriate13 (3.3)
Treating avoidable adverse reaction3 (0.7)
Need for additional drug therapy18 (4.6)
Untreated condition12 (3.1)
Preventive therapy4 (1.0)
Synergistic therapy2 (0.5)
Effectiveness171 (43.9)
Ineffective drug94 (24.1)
More effective drug available40 (10.2)
Condition refractory to drug33 (8.5)
Contraindication present2 (0.5)
Inappropriate dosage form 18 (4.6)
Drug not indicated for condition1 (0.2)
Dosage too low77 (19.7)
Ineffective dose42 (10.8)
Drug interaction3 (0.8)
Duration inappropriate19 (4.9)
Frequency inappropriate13 (3.3)
Safety169 (43.3)
Adverse drug reactions81 (20.8)
Undesirable effect2 (0.5)
Drug interaction3 (0.7)
Incorrect administration48 (12.3)
Allergic reaction6 (1.5)
Dosage increase/decrease too fast12 (3.1)
Unsafe drug for the patient10 (2.6)
Dosage too high88 (22.6)
Dose too high32 (8.2)
Frequency too short37 (9.5)
Duration too long9 (2.3)
The dose of the drug was administered too rapidly10 (2.6)

Abbreviation: DRPs, drug-related problems.

During the hospital stay, 318 prescriptions were issued, resulting in a total of 591 medications. Each patient received an average of 2.1 ± 0.4 medicines, and 214 of these contributed to DRPs. Among the drug classes, antimicrobials (131, 61.2%) and respiratory agents (44, 20.6%) were the most involved in DRPs. The highest involvement in DRPs was observed for gentamicin (46, 21.5%) and amikacin (37, 17.3%). Table 3 provides details on the five medications most frequently associated with DRPs.

Table 3.

Five Medicines Most Involved in Drug Related Problems a

MedicinesMedicines Involve in DRP (n = 214)Causes of DRP
Ineffective DrugDosage Too LowAdverse Drug ReactionsDosage Too HighUnnecessary Drug TherapyNeed for Additional Drug Therapy
Gentamicin46 (21.5)13 (6.1)23 (10.7)-10 (4.7)--
Amikacin37 (17.3)16 (7.5)13 (6.1)-6 (2.8)-2 (0.9)
Ampicillin24 (11.2)4 (1.9)3 (1.4)12 (5.6)-5 (2.3)-
Vancomycin17 (7.9)-8 (3.7)3 (1.4)2 (0.9)1 (0.4)3 (1.4)
Phenobarbital13 (6.1)-7 (3.2)3 (1.4)-3 (1.4)-

Abbreviation: DRPs, drug-related problems.

a Values are expressed as No. (%).

Pharmacotherapy recommendations were provided for 314 (80.5%) of the identified DRPs. Of these, 192 cases were related to physicians, and 122 cases were related to nurses. The physicians accepted the DRP recommendations in 74.6% of cases, while the nurses accepted them in 80.6% of cases.

4.3. Risk Factors for Drug-Related Problems

The bivariate logistic regression analyses presented in Table 4 demonstrated that the risk of DRPs increased significantly with feeding intolerance and vomiting. Additionally, the risk of DRPs was higher for patients who received multiple antibiotics or combinations of antibiotics with other medications.

Table 4.

Risk Factors of Drug Related Problems Among Neonates with Sepsis

Independent VariablesBivariate Regression AnalysisMultivariate Regression Analysis
OR95% CIP - ValueOR95% CIP-Value
Sex
Male 1.2620.883 - 2.1650.2321.1830.785 - 1.7510.432
Female 1 (ref.)1 (ref.)
Apnea (AHI)
With apnea1.2020.816 - 1.7510.3041.6181.081 - 2.7400.212
Without apnea1 (ref.)1 (ref.)
Asphyxia (pH < 7, BE < -16 mmol/L)
With asphyxia2.2321.398 - 3.1950.5231.9981.247 - 2.9970.121
Without asphyxia1 (ref.)1 (ref.)
One-min Apgar
< 70.9950.418 - 1.8270.1242.2301.863 - 2.8200.541
> 71 (ref.)1 (ref.)
Five-min Apgar
< 72.6511.540 - 3.2240.0812.8911.239 - 3.4980.109
> 71 (ref.)1 (ref.)
Feed intolerance
Yes1.5450.809 - 1.989< 0.001 a1.6670.815 - 1.9870.003 a
No1 (ref.)1 (ref.)
Jaundice (mg/dL)
With jaundice1.8460.990 - 3.0670.5941.1940.619 - 2.3220.763
Without jaundice1 (ref.)1 (ref.)
Need for mechanical ventilation
Yes1.7590.905 - 2.6120.1622.6831.304 - 4.5130.223
No1 (ref.)1 (ref.)
Repository distress
Yes1.0090.498 - 2.0230.7652.1201.004-3.1290.342
No1 (ref.)1 (ref.)
Seizure
Yes2.0121.192 - 3.1070.022 a1.7180.891 - 2.9300.182
No1 (ref.)1 (ref.)
Vomiting
Yes1.4010.811 - 2.1520.007 a0.8190.389 - 1.980< 0.001 a
No1 (ref.)1 (ref.)
Lethargy
Yes0.5130.323 - 0.9120.1321.2230.792 - 2.9820.221
No1 (ref.)1 (ref.)
Gestational age (wk)
≤ 371.0020.439 - 1.9700.0980.9850.321 - 1.9720.321
> 371 (ref.)1 (ref.)
Birth weight (g)1.0560.690 - 1.2420.0991.9800.965 - 2.2130.650
Body temperature (°C)2.3421.874 - 3.7620.1272.2120.989 - 3.2140.901
Laboratory parameters
Hematocrit (%) 1.2370.453 - 2.8930.1031.0030.322 - 1.9000.224
Hemoglobin (g/dL) 2.2980.980 - 3.0010.2342.0011.201 - 2.9980.109
Platelet count (cell/mm3) 1.9820.889 - 2.8900.0802.1091.008 - 3.1080.103
Red blood cells (cell/mm3) 2.2981.112 - 3.0020.9811.9800.871 - 2.7100.227
White blood cells (cell/mm3) 0.9830.128 - 1.7800.2181.2380.453 - 2.8790.114
Absolute neutrophil count (cell/mm3)1.0210.807 - 2.2290.1182.2291.890 - 3.1400.221
Positive C-reactive protein
Positive1.4300.239 - 2.0180.8891.0010.428 - 1.9370.287
Negative1 (ref.)1 (ref.)
Medication exposure
Antibiotic exposure
One antibiotic1 (ref.)1 (ref.)
Two or more antibiotics 1.2390.650 - 2.9720.005 a1.6720.980 - 2.0010.002 a
Antibiotics plus other medications
Yes2.2561.112 - 3.1890.004 a1.1180.895 - 1.9980.009 a
No1 (ref.)1 (ref.)
Type of sepsis
Early-onset sepsis 0.8730.239 - 1.9820.0981.2190.435 - 2.2900.115
Late-onset sepsis1 (ref.)1 (ref.)

a P-value < 0.05.

While laboratory parameters and the type of sepsis [early-onset sepsis (EOS) or late-onset sepsis (LOS)] did not directly influence the risk of DRPs, DRPs were found to be more common among EOS patients (OR: 1.342, 95% CI: 1.175 - 1.524, P < 0.001).

To control for confounding variables, a multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed. The results, also shown in Table 4, confirmed the continued statistical significance of feeding intolerance, vomiting, and drug count as independent risk factors for DRPs.

5. Discussion

At least 50% of neonates with sepsis were affected by DRPs in this study. Our findings revealed a higher DRP rate (57.7%) compared to similar studies conducted in Ethiopia (48.8%) (7) and Brazil (32% and 53%) (1, 12). This variability may be attributed to differences in hospital environments, drug utilization practices, healthcare systems, DRP classification methods, availability of skilled prescribers and pharmacists in NICU wards, and variations in management protocols across countries and over time.

In our study, the most common cause of DRPs was drug ineffectiveness, which accounted for 24.1% of cases. This was frequently due to the use of inappropriate medications for the patient’s condition, emphasizing the need for medication changes to effectively address the issue. One pharmacotherapy recommendation involved switching from gentamicin to tazocin for cases of early sepsis unresponsive to treatment. On the other hand, studies have shown that only 5 out of every 100 neonates given antibiotics upon NICU admission have a positive blood culture (13). Additionally, approximately 35% of newborns in the NICU receive at least one inappropriate antibiotic (14). The prevalence of ineffective drugs as a DRP category in our study aligns with these findings.

According to Nunes et al. (1), drug ineffectiveness was related to 84.8% of DRPs in their study. Research has shown that medication errors in NICUs occur significantly more often compared to hospital settings for adults, with estimates ranging from 3 to 91 medication errors per 100 admissions (15-17). Most NICU medication errors happen during the prescribing phase (18). Additionally, dosage errors have been reported in 42% to 51.5% of cases in NICUs. In our study, 42.3% of DRPs were related to dosage issues, with 19.7% attributed to low dosage and 22.6% to high dosage (15-17, 19).

Selecting appropriate dosages and intervals for neonates is challenging due to their underdeveloped drug absorption, metabolism, and excretion systems. Neonatal medications must be prescribed based on birth weight, gestational age, and postnatal age, with dosages calculated by weight. Failure to perform regular checkups and monitor daily weight changes in newborns often leads to dosage errors. Our study identified a higher percentage of high-dose drug usage (22.6%) compared to studies in Ethiopia (10.9%) (20) and Hong Kong (19.3%) (21). Conversely, the use of low-dose drugs in our study (19.7%) was lower than reported in Ethiopia (27.5%) (20), Egypt (21%) (22), and Saudi Arabia (58.6%) (23). These findings underscore that neonates and children are particularly susceptible to receiving inappropriate medication dosages.

We observed substantial fluctuations in body weight within a few days during the therapeutic follow-up period, highlighting the critical need for ongoing dose adjustments to prevent medication errors.

In this study, incorrect administration was identified as the primary cause of ADRs. For instance, one case involved the administration of norepinephrine via an incorrect route. Nurses were most commonly implicated in these types of DRPs, with the illegibility of physician handwriting being a significant contributing factor. Numerous studies have demonstrated that medication errors frequently arise from challenges in interpreting unclear physician orders (24-27).

To mitigate these issues, technological solutions such as computerized physician order entry (CPOE) and clinical decision support systems (CDSS) have been shown to be effective. Computerized physician order entry enables healthcare providers to enter medication orders and other clinical instructions electronically, reducing the risk of errors caused by poor handwriting. Clinical decision support systems offer evidence-based guidelines and recommendations to healthcare providers, improving patient care and minimizing the likelihood of errors.

Additionally, the implementation of barcodes can enhance medication safety by verifying patient identity and ensuring that the correct medication is administered to the correct patient at the right time. Personal digital assistants (PDAs) further improve communication and access to patient information, reducing reliance on handwritten notes and orders (28-31). These tools collectively address critical vulnerabilities in the medication process, leading to safer and more efficient healthcare delivery.

According to previous studies, the antimicrobial class is the primary class associated with DRPs in neonates (1, 12). In our study, aminoglycosides, along with other antimicrobial drugs, were most commonly involved in DRP occurrences. The main medications associated with DRPs were gentamicin and amikacin, with issues primarily related to "ineffective drugs" and "dosage problems."

Aminoglycosides possess unique pharmacokinetics, such as an increased volume of distribution and renal elimination, which contribute to these challenges (18). Antibiotic dosages for newborns require periodic adjustment to account for changes in weight and gestational age. The complexity of prescribing aminoglycosides for neonates stems from the existence of multiple recommended dose regimens, making it difficult to standardize treatment (32).

Examples of pharmacotherapy recommendations from our study included:

- "Resistance to gentamicin is high in this setting; amikacin or tazocin must be used."

- "Amikacin every 24 hours is too short to produce the desired response; it must be changed to every 36 hours."

Our study identified an unnecessary drug therapy rate of 8.2%, which is comparable to rates reported in previous studies, such as 7.3% in Ethiopia (20) and 3.8% in Saudi Arabia (23). The unnecessary use of drugs poses significant problems, including the development of antibiotic resistance and increased healthcare costs.

To address this issue, various strategies and interventions have been implemented to reduce unnecessary antibiotic exposure. For example, some studies focused on limiting the initiation of antibiotics through targeted interventions (33-35). Others employed automatic stop orders or alerts designed to reduce the duration of antibiotic use (36-39).

Additionally, organizations offering antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP) services have implemented actions such as automatic stop orders and alerts to further shorten the duration of antibiotic therapy (40-42). These approaches highlight the importance of structured interventions and proactive management in minimizing unnecessary drug use and improving overall patient outcomes.

According to the 2016 surviving sepsis campaign (SSC) guideline, empiric combination therapy is recommended for the initial treatment of sepsis (43), a point also emphasized by ASP (44). Combination therapy, which involves using two different antibiotic classes, can effectively target a single pathogen (45). Multiple studies have demonstrated that combination therapy is superior to monotherapy in the treatment of sepsis (46-49).

In our study, only 37.5% of antibiotic therapies involved combination therapy. Additionally, 4.6% of DRPs required additional drug therapy. Comparatively, Awoke et al. (7) found that all treatments utilized combination antibiotic therapy, with 33.5% of patients requiring extra antibiotics, while Leopoldino et al. (12) reported this need in only 3.1% of cases.

Our multivariate analysis revealed that exposure to two or more antibiotics and taking antibiotics alongside other medications increased the likelihood of DRPs. Existing evidence supports this finding, as complex drug regimens are associated with a higher risk of DRPs (50). The increased risk may be due to factors such as drug-drug interactions (51), medication errors (52), or nursing errors (53, 54). Studies consistently show that the risk of DRPs increases with the number of medications taken (7).

A key strength of this study is its comprehensive examination of all factors influencing DRP occurrence. Unlike prior studies conducted at single centers, this research was conducted across multiple NICUs, enhancing the generalizability of the findings. However, the study did not evaluate the severity of DRPs, which can range from mild to severe. Additionally, CDSS integrated with CPOE and barcode dispensing and administration systems—proven to reduce DRPs—were not utilized in our study.

Future research should address the lack of intervention and follow-up in this study to assess DRP outcomes. These limitations underscore the need for more comprehensive approaches to prevent and manage DRPs effectively.

5.1. Conclusions

In the NICU, DRPs are prevalent, often resulting in ineffective drug therapy due to inappropriate dosages and ineffective drug selection. The risk of DRPs is heightened by factors such as feeding intolerance, vomiting, exposure to multiple antibiotics, and the combined use of antibiotics with other medications.

To address this issue, it is essential to develop and implement effective interventions aimed at reducing DRPs. By identifying and managing all potential risk factors, including conditions that are not the primary reason for admission, we can significantly decrease the incidence of DRPs in neonatal sepsis.

Collaboration with clinical pharmacists is critical in this effort. Neonatal care teams can work alongside clinical pharmacists to prevent, detect, and mitigate DRPs. Clinical pharmacists play a pivotal role in the early identification of DRPs and in providing targeted preventive measures, which are vital for minimizing the occurrence of overt DRPs and improving neonatal care outcomes.

Acknowledgements

References

  • 1.

    Nunes BM, Xavier TC, Martins RR. Antimicrobial drug-related problems in a neonatal intensive care unit. Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2017;29(3):331-6. [PubMed ID: 28876403]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC5632976]. https://doi.org/10.5935/0103-507X.20170040.

  • 2.

    Nivya K, Sri Sai Kiran V, Ragoo N, Jayaprakash B, Sonal Sekhar M. Systemic review on drug related hospital admissions - A pubmed based search. Saudi Pharm J. 2015;23(1):1-8. [PubMed ID: 25685036]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC4310971]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsps.2013.05.006.

  • 3.

    Kjeldsen LJ, Nielsen TRH, Olesen C. Investigating the Relative Significance of Drug-Related Problem Categories. Pharmacy (Basel). 2017;5(2):31. [PubMed ID: 28970443]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC5597156]. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmacy5020031.

  • 4.

    Graabaek T, Kjeldsen LJ. Medication reviews by clinical pharmacists at hospitals lead to improved patient outcomes: a systematic review. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2013;112(6):359-73. [PubMed ID: 23506448]. https://doi.org/10.1111/bcpt.12062.

  • 5.

    Cipolle RJ, Strand LM, Morley PC. Pharmaceutical care practice: the patient-centered approach to medication management. New York, USA: McGraw-Hill Medical New York; 2012.

  • 6.

    Ayele Y, Tesfaye ZT. Drug-related problems in Ethiopian public healthcare settings: Systematic review and meta-analysis. SAGE Open Med. 2021;9:20503121211009700. [PubMed ID: 33948177]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC8053755]. https://doi.org/10.1177/20503121211009728.

  • 7.

    Awoke M, Melaku T, Beshir M. Drug-related problems and its determinant among hospitalized neonates with sepsis at Jimma University Medical Center, Ethiopia: a prospective observational study. J Pharm Health Care Sci. 2021;7(1):20. [PubMed ID: 34059150]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC8168002]. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40780-021-00203-0.

  • 8.

    Roshanzamiri S, Eslami K, Najmeddin F, Izadpanah M, Hadidi E, Ganji R. Validating a Drug-Related Problems Classification System in Outpatient Setting in Iran. J Res Pharm Pract. 2018;7(3):117-22. [PubMed ID: 30211235]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC6121761]. https://doi.org/10.4103/jrpp.JRPP_18_17.

  • 9.

    Youssef A. Pharmaceutical Care Practice: The Clinician’s Guide. LA, USA: SAGE Publications; 2004.

  • 10.

    Abunahlah N, Elawaisi A, Velibeyoglu FM, Sancar M. Drug related problems identified by clinical pharmacist at the Internal Medicine Ward in Turkey. Int J Clin Pharm. 2018;40(2):360-7. [PubMed ID: 29380236]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-017-0585-5.

  • 11.

    Moftian N, Samad Soltani T, Mirnia K, Esfandiari A, Tabib MS, Rezaei Hachesu P. Clinical Risk Factors for Early-Onset Sepsis in Neonates: An International Delphi Study. Iran J Med Sci. 2023;48(1):57-69. [PubMed ID: 36688195]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC9843461]. https://doi.org/10.30476/IJMS.2022.92284.2352.

  • 12.

    Leopoldino RD, Santos MT, Costa TX, Martins RR, Oliveira AG. Drug related problems in the neonatal intensive care unit: incidence, characterization and clinical relevance. BMC Pediatr. 2019;19(1):134. [PubMed ID: 31027487]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC6485091]. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12887-019-1499-2.

  • 13.

    Cantey JB, Wozniak PS, Sanchez PJ. Prospective surveillance of antibiotic use in the neonatal intensive care unit: results from the SCOUT study. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2015;34(3):267-72. [PubMed ID: 25191849]. https://doi.org/10.1097/INF.0000000000000542.

  • 14.

    Zea-Vera A, Ochoa TJ. Challenges in the diagnosis and management of neonatal sepsis. J Trop Pediatr. 2015;61(1):1-13. [PubMed ID: 25604489]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC4375388]. https://doi.org/10.1093/tropej/fmu079.

  • 15.

    Santesteban E, Arenas S, Campino A. Medication errors in neonatal care: A systematic review of types of errors and effectiveness of preventive strategies. J Neonatal Nurs. 2015;21(5):200-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnn.2015.04.002.

  • 16.

    Shawahna R, Jaber M, Said R, Mohammad K, Aker Y. Medication errors in neonatal intensive care units: a multicenter qualitative study in the Palestinian practice. BMC Pediatr. 2022;22(1):317. [PubMed ID: 35637433]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC9150293]. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12887-022-03379-y.

  • 17.

    Palmero D, Di Paolo ER, Beauport L, Pannatier A, Tolsa JF. A bundle with a preformatted medical order sheet and an introductory course to reduce prescription errors in neonates. Eur J Pediatr. 2016;175(1):113-9. [PubMed ID: 26272253]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00431-015-2607-4.

  • 18.

    Esque Ruiz MT, Moretones Sunol MG, Rodriguez Miguelez JM, Sanchez Ortiz E, Izco Urroz M, de Lamo Camino M, et al. [Medication errors in a neonatal unit: One of the main adverse events]. An Pediatr (Barc). 2016;84(4):211-7. ES. [PubMed ID: 26520488]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anpedi.2015.09.009.

  • 19.

    Eslami K, Aletayeb F, Aletayeb SMH, Kouti L, Hardani AK. Identifying medication errors in neonatal intensive care units: a two-center study. BMC Pediatr. 2019;19(1):365. [PubMed ID: 31638939]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC6805622]. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12887-019-1748-4.

  • 20.

    Feyissa Mechessa D, Dessalegn D, Melaku T. Drug-related problem and its predictors among pediatric patients with infectious diseases admitted to Jimma University Medical Center, Southwest Ethiopia: Prospective observational study. SAGE Open Med. 2020;8:2050312120970730. [PubMed ID: 33240498]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC7675898]. https://doi.org/10.1177/2050312120970734.

  • 21.

    Rashed AN, Wilton L, Lo CC, Kwong BY, Leung S, Wong IC. Epidemiology and potential risk factors of drug-related problems in Hong Kong paediatric wards. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2014;77(5):873-9. [PubMed ID: 24868576]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC4004407]. https://doi.org/10.1111/bcp.12270.

  • 22.

    Sabry N, Farid S, Dawoud D. Drug-related problems in cardiac children. Minerva Pediatr. 2016;68(2):89-95. [PubMed ID: 25034220].

  • 23.

    AlAzmi A, Ahmed O, Alhamdan H, AlGarni H, Elzain RM, AlThubaiti RS, et al. Epidemiology of Preventable Drug-Related Problems (DRPs) Among Hospitalized Children at KAMC-Jeddah: a Single-Institution Observation Study. Drug Healthc Patient Saf. 2019;11:95-103. [PubMed ID: 31819660]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC6886556]. https://doi.org/10.2147/DHPS.S220081.

  • 24.

    Ariaga A, Balzan D, Falzon S, Sultana J. A scoping review of legibility of hand-written prescriptions and drug-orders: the writing on the wall. Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol. 2023;16(7):617-21. [PubMed ID: 37308401]. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512433.2023.2223972.

  • 25.

    Yousef N, Yousef F. Using total quality management approach to improve patient safety by preventing medication error incidences*. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):621. [PubMed ID: 28870178]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC5584345]. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2531-6.

  • 26.

    Gunes UY, Gurlek O, Sonmez M. Factors contributing to medication errors in Turkey: nurses' perspectives. J Nurs Manag. 2014;22(3):295-303. [PubMed ID: 24571602]. https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.12216.

  • 27.

    Farzi S, Irajpour A, Saghaei M, Ravaghi H. Causes of Medication Errors in Intensive Care Units from the Perspective of Healthcare Professionals. J Res Pharm Pract. 2017;6(3):158-65. [PubMed ID: 29026841]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC5632936]. https://doi.org/10.4103/jrpp.JRPP_17_47.

  • 28.

    Abbassi A, Hasni N, Ben Hamida EB. Impact of computerized physician order entry system on parenteral nutrition medication errors in a teaching neonatal intensive care unit. Ann Pharm Fr. 2022;80(6):819-26. [PubMed ID: 35568248]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pharma.2022.05.002.

  • 29.

    Satir AN, Pfiffner M, Meier CR, Caduff Good A. Prescribing errors in children: what is the impact of a computerized physician order entry? Eur J Pediatr. 2023;182(6):2567-75. [PubMed ID: 36933016]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC10257583]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00431-023-04894-5.

  • 30.

    Westerbeek L, Ploegmakers KJ, de Bruijn GJ, Linn AJ, van Weert JCM, Daams JG, et al. Barriers and facilitators influencing medication-related CDSS acceptance according to clinicians: A systematic review. Int J Med Inform. 2021;152:104506. [PubMed ID: 34091146]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2021.104506.

  • 31.

    Rittmann B, Stevens MP. Clinical Decision Support Systems and Their Role in Antibiotic Stewardship: a Systematic Review. Curr Infect Dis Rep. 2019;21(8):29. [PubMed ID: 31342180]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11908-019-0683-8.

  • 32.

    Nguyen MR, Mosel C, Grzeskowiak LE. Interventions to reduce medication errors in neonatal care: a systematic review. Ther Adv Drug Saf. 2018;9(2):123-55. [PubMed ID: 29387337]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC5772524]. https://doi.org/10.1177/2042098617748868.

  • 33.

    Ruoss JL, Bazacliu C, Russell JT, Cruz D, Li N, Gurka MJ, et al. Routine Early Antibiotic Use in SymptOmatic Preterm Neonates: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial. J Pediatr. 2021;229:294-298 e3. [PubMed ID: 32979383]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC8958904]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.09.056.

  • 34.

    Bhat R, Custodio H, McCurley C, Whitehurst R, Gulati R, Jha OP, et al. Reducing antibiotic utilization rate in preterm infants: a quality improvement initiative. J Perinatol. 2018;38(4):421-9. [PubMed ID: 29396511]. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41372-018-0041-y.

  • 35.

    Kitano T, Takagi K, Arai I, Yasuhara H, Ebisu R, Ohgitani A, et al. A simple and feasible antimicrobial stewardship program in a neonatal intensive care unit of a Japanese community hospital. J Infect Chemother. 2019;25(11):860-5. [PubMed ID: 31109751]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jiac.2019.04.012.

  • 36.

    Flannery DD, Puopolo KM. Neonatal Antibiotic Use: What Are We Doing and Where Shall We Go? Neoreviews. 2018;19(9):e516-25. https://doi.org/10.1542/neo.19-9-e516.

  • 37.

    Astorga MC, Piscitello KJ, Menda N, Ebert AM, Ebert SC, Porte MA, et al. Antibiotic Stewardship in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit: Effects of an Automatic 48-Hour Antibiotic Stop Order on Antibiotic Use. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc. 2019;8(4):310-6. [PubMed ID: 29846666]. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpids/piy043.

  • 38.

    Cantey JB, Wozniak PS, Pruszynski JE, Sanchez PJ. Reducing unnecessary antibiotic use in the neonatal intensive care unit (SCOUT): A prospective interrupted time-series study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2016;16(10):1178-84. [PubMed ID: 27452782]. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(16)30205-5.

  • 39.

    Lu C, Liu Q, Yuan H, Wang L. Implementation of the Smart Use of Antibiotics Program to Reduce Unnecessary Antibiotic Use in a Neonatal ICU: A Prospective Interrupted Time-Series Study in a Developing Country. Crit Care Med. 2019;47(1):e1-7. [PubMed ID: 30285980]. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000003463.

  • 40.

    Jinka DR, Gandra S, Alvarez-Uria G, Torre N, Tadepalli D, Nayakanti RR. Impact of Antibiotic Policy on Antibiotic Consumption in a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit in India. Indian Pediatr. 2017;54(9):739-41. [PubMed ID: 28984251]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13312-017-1165-4.

  • 41.

    Nitsch-Osuch A, Kurpas D, Kuchar E, Zycinska K, Zielonka T, Wardyn K. Antibiotic consumption pattern in the neonatal special care unit before and after implementation of the hospital's antibiotic policy. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2015;835:45-51. [PubMed ID: 25252896]. https://doi.org/10.1007/5584_2014_32.

  • 42.

    Nzegwu NI, Rychalsky MR, Nallu LA, Song X, Deng Y, Natusch AM, et al. Implementation of an Antimicrobial Stewardship Program in a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2017;38(10):1137-43. [PubMed ID: 28745260]. https://doi.org/10.1017/ice.2017.151.

  • 43.

    Rhodes A, Evans LE, Alhazzani W, Levy MM, Antonelli M, Ferrer R, et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016. Intensive Care Med. 2017;43(3):304-77. [PubMed ID: 28101605]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-017-4683-6.

  • 44.

    Yoon YK, Kwon KT, Jeong SJ, Moon C, Kim B, Kiem S, et al. Guidelines on Implementing Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs in Korea. Infect Chemother. 2021;53(3):617-59. [PubMed ID: 34623784]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC8511380]. https://doi.org/10.3947/ic.2021.0098.

  • 45.

    Vincent JL, Bassetti M, Francois B, Karam G, Chastre J, Torres A, et al. Advances in antibiotic therapy in the critically ill. Crit Care. 2016;20(1):133. [PubMed ID: 27184564]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC4869332]. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-016-1285-6.

  • 46.

    Diaz-Martin A, Martinez-Gonzalez ML, Ferrer R, Ortiz-Leyba C, Piacentini E, Lopez-Pueyo MJ, et al. Antibiotic prescription patterns in the empiric therapy of severe sepsis: combination of antimicrobials with different mechanisms of action reduces mortality. Crit Care. 2012;16(6):R223. [PubMed ID: 23158399]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC3672602]. https://doi.org/10.1186/cc11869.

  • 47.

    Brunkhorst FM, Oppert M, Marx G, Bloos F, Ludewig K, Putensen C, et al. Effect of empirical treatment with moxifloxacin and meropenem vs meropenem on sepsis-related organ dysfunction in patients with severe sepsis: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2012;307(22):2390-9. [PubMed ID: 22692171]. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2012.5833.

  • 48.

    Paul M, Lador A, Grozinsky-Glasberg S, Leibovici L. Beta lactam antibiotic monotherapy versus beta lactam-aminoglycoside antibiotic combination therapy for sepsis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;2014(1). CD003344. [PubMed ID: 24395715]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC6517128]. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003344.pub3.

  • 49.

    Ong DSY, Frencken JF, Klein Klouwenberg PMC, Juffermans N, van der Poll T, Bonten MJM, et al. Short-Course Adjunctive Gentamicin as Empirical Therapy in Patients With Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock: A Prospective Observational Cohort Study. Clin Infect Dis. 2017;64(12):1731-6. [PubMed ID: 28329088]. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/cix186.

  • 50.

    Hailu BY, Berhe DF, Gudina EK, Gidey K, Getachew M. Drug related problems in admitted geriatric patients: the impact of clinical pharmacist interventions. BMC Geriatr. 2020;20(1):13. [PubMed ID: 31931723]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC6958579]. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-020-1413-7.

  • 51.

    Khandeparkar A, Rataboli PV. A study of harmful drug-drug interactions due to polypharmacy in hospitalized patients in Goa Medical College. Perspect Clin Res. 2017;8(4):180-6. [PubMed ID: 29109936]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC5654218]. https://doi.org/10.4103/picr.PICR_132_16.

  • 52.

    Rasool MF, Rehman AU, Imran I, Abbas S, Shah S, Abbas G, et al. Risk Factors Associated With Medication Errors Among Patients Suffering From Chronic Disorders. Front Public Health. 2020;8:531038. [PubMed ID: 33330300]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC7710866]. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2020.531038.

  • 53.

    Afolalu OO, Atekoja OE, Akingbade O, Jolayemi KI, Oyewumi ZO, Oyelabi BD, et al. Knowledge and Perceived Effect of Polypharmacy and Potentially Inappropriate Medication Use among Nurses in a Nigerian Tertiary Hospital. J Res Dev Nurs Midw. 2021;18(2):36-40. https://doi.org/10.52547/jgbfnm.18.2.36.

  • 54.

    Gradalski T. Polypharmacy and medication errors on admission to palliative care. Pol Arch Intern Med. 2019;129(10):659-66. [PubMed ID: 31502585]. https://doi.org/10.20452/pamw.14969.