Background: Drug prescription studies provide a pharmacoeconomic basis for making evidence-based health-care decisions. In ophthalmology practice, rational prescribing shows a vital role in decreasing the ocular disease burden. Purpose: The purpose of the study was to inspect the drug consumption pattern in ophthalmology department of King Abdulaziz hospital in KSA. Materials and Methods: A prospective, cross-sectional study was conducted for a period of 3 months. The prescriptions for all consecutive patients attending the ophthalmology outpatient department for the first time (first time encounter) were incorporated and reviewed using a pre-designed form to record information from the ophthalmology outpatient department prescription cards of each patient. Data analysis was carried out using the descriptive statistical methods: frequencies, mean, percentage, and standard deviation. Results: A total of 500 prescriptions were considered with the average number of drugs per prescription being 2.2 (0.8). The most common disorders diagnosed were eyelid diseases (31.6%) followed by foreign body in the eye (23,2%), conjunctivitis (20,8%), glaucoma, conrneal ulcer, squint, and others. Drugs were prescribed in different dosage forms with eye drops being the most common (62.9%) followed by ointment (20.5%), capsule (8.6%), and tablets (8.0%) of all dosage forms. The frequency of drug management and period of treatment was recorded in 94% and 76% of all prescriptions respectively. Drugs were predominantly prescribed in brand name rather than generic name. Conclusion: The current study showed certain lacunae in the prescribing practices of the ophthalmologists of the institute as showed by low generic prescribing, insufficient information about frequency of management and period of treatment in many prescriptions. This can be addressed over appropriate sensitization of clinicians in the art of rational prescribing.

Background: Two oral antifungal agents, griseofulvin and terbinafine, have regulatory approval but it is unknown whether one has superior overall efficacy. Genus-specific differences in efficacy are believed to exist for the two agents. It is not clear at what doses and durations of treatment these differences apply. Purpose: The purposes of this meta-analysis were to determine whether a statistically significant difference in efficacy exists between these agents at a given dose and duration of each in tinea capitis infections overall and to determine whether a genus-specific difference in efficacy exists for these two treatments at a given dose and duration of each. We performed a literature search for clinically and methodologically similar randomized controlled trials comparing 8 weeks of griseofulvin (6.25-12.5 mg⁄kg⁄day) to 4 weeks of terbinafine (3.125-6.25 mg⁄kg⁄day) in the treatment of tinea capitis. A meta-analysis was performed using the Mantel-Haenszel method and random effects model; results were expressed as odds ratios with 95%. Results: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials did not show a significant difference in the overall efficacy of the two drugs at the doses specified, but specific efficacy differences were observed based on the infectious species. For tinea capitis caused by Microsporumspp., griseofulvin is superior (p = 0.04), whereas terbinafine is superior for Trichophyton spp. infection (p = 0.04). Conclusion:Our results support species-specific differences in treatment efficacy between griseofulvin and terbinafine and provide a clinical context in which this knowledge may be applied.

No abstract