ArticleBMJ public health2025
Evaluating the utilisation patterns of pharmacological therapy in COVID-19 patients: an ecological study in Italy.
Article in BMJ public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Backgound: The drug central monitoring system set up in Italy to evaluate the real-time trends of medicines used in hospital and primary care settings contributed to inform drug supplies, avoided stockpiling and allowed to monitor adherence to clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of COVID-19 patients. The primary objective of the study is to understand how and to what extent the drug utilisation tracked the evolution of COVID-19 pandemic and evaluate the different pharmacological approaches adopted in hospital and primary care settings. Methods: A national ecological study correlating the drug utilisation of specific categories of drugs related to SARS-CoV-2 with the number of SARS-CoV-2 hospitalised or positive subjects. The correlation is estimated by using linear regression models and reporting the angular coefficients (slope) with relative p value. Results: Overall, 15 drug categories are identified: 7 categories are available in both settings, 6 categories are prevalent in hospital setting and 2 categories are used in primary care. As for drugs common to both settings, a statistically significant positive association between the number of SARS-CoV-2-positive subjects and drug consumption is found only for low-molecular-weight heparin, oxygen, azithromycin and steroids. As regards drugs used exclusively in hospital, a significant correlation is observed for cardiac stimulants, general anaesthetics, hypnotics and sedatives as well as muscle relaxant drugs. Among drugs used exclusively in primary care, the study has shown a positive correlation only for vitamin D. Finally, the adoption in clinical practice of the recommendations issued by the competent authorities was assessed: at hospital level, the use of drugs with a negative recommendation (such as hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin) was promptly stopped. Conclusions: Study findings show a positive correlation between the use of specific drug categories used during the pandemic and the number of COVID-19-positive and hospitalised patients, suggesting the relevant role of evaluating drug utilisation patterns in tracking the evolution of pandemics and guideline adherence in clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.