Evaluation of the rational use of oral and intravenous pantoprazole for stress-related mucosal bleeding prophylaxis in hospitalized patients in the hematology–oncology ward of Imam Reza hospital, Mashhad: A cross-sectional study

Document Type : Original article

Authors

1 Pharmacy Student, Student Research Committee, School of Pharmacy, Mashhad University of Medical Science, Mashhad, Iran

2 Associate Professor, Department of Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmacy, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran

3 Assistant Professor, Department of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Science, Mashhad, Iran

4 Assistant Professor, Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, School of Health, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran

5 Assistant Professor, Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Neyshabur University of Medical Sciences, Neyshabur, Iran

10.22038/nnj.2026.90149.1508

Abstract

Background and Aims: Given the high prevalence of proton pump inhibitor use among hospitalized patients and the importance of prophylaxis for stress-related gastrointestinal mucosal bleeding, this study aimed to evaluate the rational use of oral and intravenous pantoprazole in patients hospitalized in the hematology–oncology ward of Imam Reza Hospital, Mashhad.
Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional observational study was conducted over six months in the hematology-oncology ward of Imam Reza Hospital, Mashhad, Iran. All hospitalized patients in this ward, regardless of whether they were prescribed pantoprazole, were evaluated concerning the indications for this medication.
Results: A total of 205 patients were evaluated. Of these, 95 (46.3%) were 50 years old or younger, and 110 (53.7%) were over 50. Among the 205 patients, 138 (67.3%) had pantoprazole correctly prescribed or withheld (63 with coagulopathy and 75 without). However, 67 cases (32.7%) were incorrectly specified, or the medication was denied. Among the 25 patients who received intravenous pantoprazole, only 11 (44%) had a justified indication for intravenous administration, while the remaining 14 (56%) could have tolerated oral pantoprazole. No significant correlation was observed between gender, age, or coagulopathy status and the rationale for prescribing this medication.
Conclusion: The study results indicated that pantoprazole was prescribed correctly in the majority of patients. These findings underscore the importance of paying closer attention to patients' clinical conditions when prescribing medication.

Keywords

References

[1]        Maxwell SRJ. Rational prescribing: the principles of drug selection. Clinical Medicine. 2016;16(5):459–64.
[2]        Aronson J. Rational prescribing, appropriate prescribing. British journal of clinical pharmacology. 2004;57(3):229.
[3]        Hudi RI, Ranti I. The Rationality of Antibiotic Use on Patients of Typhoid Fever. Mutiara Medika: Jurnal Kedokteran dan Kesehatan. 2020;20(1):1–5.
[4]        Bachhav SS, Kshirsagar NA. Systematic review of drug utilization studies & the use of the drug classification system in the WHO-SEARO Region. Indian J Med Res. 2015;142(2):120–9.
[5]        Truter I. A review of drug utilization studies and methodologies. Jordan journal of pharmaceutical sciences. 2008;1(2).
[6]        Khamas SS, Darvishi F, Taghvaye-Masoumi H, Rafiei E, Jafari A. The utilization evaluation of intravenous pantoprazole for stress ulcer prophylaxis in a major teaching hospital. Journal of Pharmaceutical Care. 2022:128–35.
[7]        Poole P. Pantoprazole. American journal of health-system pharmacy. 2001;58(11):999–1008.
[8]        Sohrevardi S-M, Vahidi A, Mosadegh M-H, Dehghani-Tafti A, Dadollahi A. Evaluation of prescriptions and use of intravenous pantoprazole in general wards and intensive care unit of Shahid Sadoughi Hospital in Yazd. Journal of Pharmaceutical Care. 2015:7–10.
[9]        Krag M, Marker S, Perner A, Wetterslev J, Wise MP, Schefold JC, et al. Pantoprazole in patients at risk for gastrointestinal bleeding in the ICU. New England Journal of Medicine. 2018;379(23):2199–208.
[10]      Bezabeh S, Mackey AC, Kluetz P, Jappar D, Korvick J. Accumulating evidence for a drug–drug interaction between methotrexate and proton pump inhibitors. The oncologist. 2012;17(4):550–4.
[11]      Haastrup PF, Thompson W, Søndergaard J, Jarbøl DE. Side effects of long‐term proton pump inhibitor use: a review. Basic & clinical pharmacology & toxicology. 2018;123(2):114–21.
[12]      Ra A, Tobe SW. Acute interstitial nephritis due to pantoprazole. Annals of Pharmacotherapy. 2004;38(1):41–5.
[13]      Ahmadi H, Ahangar N, Saghafi F, Ala S, Eslami G, Salehifar E. Drug utilization evaluation of pantoprazole in a teaching hospital in North of Iran, 2016. Journal of Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences. 2018;28(162):69–76.
[14]      Eslami G, Razkenar EK, Sharifi Y, Soleimani A, Salehifar E, Aliabadi PK. Clinical Characteristics of Intravenous Pantoprazole Consumption in Cardiac Intensive Care Unit. Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Research. 2021.
[15]      Aramesh M, Hasanloie Mav, Aghlmand S, Sharifi H. Assessment of Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis Pattern in the Intensive Care Unit Patients. Journal of Critical and Intensive Care. 2022;13(1):8.
Navid No
Volume 29, Issue 97
June 2026
Pages 34-44

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics