This paper in the series on pharmacoepidemiology describes the history, development, and present status of drug utilization activities. The various methodologies employed in drug utilization studies are evaluated and presented along with a listing of the principal drug databases available for drug utilization research. An analysis is presented comparing the validity of drug consumption rates based on individual patient usage or drug cost data as adopted in North America and the defined daily dose unit as developed in Europe. Drug utilization derives its importance in pharmacoepidemiology from the fact that it provides the methodological rigor for defining the denominator data needed in pharmacoepidemiological research.
BrodieDC. Drug utilization and drug utilization review and control, 1970. In a study supported by National Center for Health Services Research and Development, Health Services and Mental Health Administration, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 5600M Fisher Lane, Rockville, MD 20852 (NCHS-RD-70-8).
2.
World Health Organization. The selection of essential drugs. Report of a WHO expert committee. Geneva, Technical Report, 1977: series no. 615.
3.
TognoniG. Drug use and monitoring. In: HollandWW, ed. Evaluation of health care. London: Oxford University Press, 1983: 207–25.
4.
SrubaTJ. International comparison of drug consumption: impact of prices. Soc Sci Med1986; 22: 1019–25.
5.
LundePKM. Drug statistics and drug utilization. In: ColomboFShapiroSSloneDTognoniG, eds. Epidemiologic evaluation of drugs. Littleton, MA: PSG Publishing, 1977: 3–15.
6.
WertheimerAI. The defined daily dose system (DDD) for drug utilization review. Hosp Pharm1986; 21: 233–41,258.
7.
BaumCKennedyDLKnappDEFaichGA. Drug utilization in the US—1985: seventh annual review. Rockville, MD: Food and Drug Administration, Dec. 1985.
8.
BergmanUWesslingASjoqvistF. Validation of observed differences in the utilization of antihypertensive and antidiabetic drugs in Northern Ireland, Norway and Sweden. Eur J Clin Pharmacol1985; 29: 1–8.
9.
BaksaasI. Patterns in drug utilization—national and international aspects: antihypertensive drugs. Acta Med Scand [Suppl] 1984; 683: 59–66.
10.
AquiloniusSMGranatMHartvigP. Utilization of anti-parkinson drugs in Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland 1975–1979. Acta Neurol Scand1981; 64: 47–53.
11.
BjelleAMjorndalT. Drug prescription patterns for rheumatic disorders in Sweden. J Rheumatol1984; 11: 493–9.
12.
JakovljevicVStanulovicM. Extremes in drug utilization patterns. Low prescribing of antihypertensives in the district of Novi Sad, Yugoslavia. Acta Med Scand [Suppl] 1984; 683: 67–9.
13.
GustafssonLLBoethiusG. Utilization of analgesics from 1970 to 1978. Prescription patterns in the county of Jamtland and in Sweden as a whole. Acta Med Scand1982; 211: 419–25.
14.
BergmanUSjoqvistF. Measurement of drug utilization in Sweden: methodological and clinical implications. Acta Med Scand [Suppl] 1984; 683: 15–22.
15.
WesterholmB. Drug utilization studies—a valuable tool for optimization of drug therapy and drug control. J Soc Admin Pharm1983; 1: 1–8.
16.
BaumCKennedyDLForbesMBJonesJK. Drug use and expenditures in 1982. JAMA1985; 253: 382–6.
17.
An introduction to the PDS Alpha system. Pharmaceutical Data Services, Phoenix, AZ, 1981.
18.
EdlavitchSA. Postmarketing surveillance methodologies. Drug Intell Clin Pharm (in press).
19.
WesterholmB. Data collection in Sweden. In: BergmanUGrimssonAWahbaAHWWesterholmB, eds. Studies in drug utilization. Methods and applications. WHO Regional Publications. European series no. 8. Copenhagen: World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe, 1979: 63–82.
20.
TognoniGLiberatiAPelloLSasanelliFSpagnoliA. Drug utilization studies and epidemiology. Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique1983; 31: 59–71.
21.
Accreditation manual for hospitals. Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Hospitals, Chicago, IL, 1978.
22.
SheldonG. Self-audit of prescribing habits and clinical care and general practice. J R Coll Gen Pract1979; 29: 703–11.
23.
CrooksJ. The concept of medical auditing. Acta Med Scand [Suppl] 1984; 683: 47–52.
24.
ReillyPMPatternMP. An audit of prescribing by peer review. J R Coll Gen Pract1978; 28: 525–38.
25.
SartellPE. Retrospective studies: a review for the clinician. Ann Intern Med1974; 81: 381–7.
26.
JickHVesseyMP. Case control studies in the evaluation of drug-induced illness. Am J Epidemiol1978; 107: 1–7.
27.
HerbstALUlfelderHPoskanzerDC. Adenocarcinoma of the vagina: association of maternal stilbestrol therapy with tumor appearance in young women. N Engl J Med1971; 284: 878–81.
28.
JickHWatkinsRNHunterJR. Replacement estrogens and endometrial cancer. N Engl J Med1979; 300: 218–22.
29.
AndersonDWBryanFAHarrisBSHIIILesslerJTGagnonJP. A survey approach for finding cases of epilepsy. Public Health Rep1985; 100: 386–93.
30.
BaumCKennedyDForbesMJonesJ. Drug use in the United States in 1981. JAMA1984; 25: 1293–7.
31.
VestalR. Drugs and the elderly. National Institutes of Health pamphlet. Washington, DC, USGPO, 1978.
32.
KohnRWhiteK. Health care on international study. London: Oxford University Press, 1976.
33.
CapellaDPortaMLaporteJR. Utilization of antihypertensive drugs in certain European countries. Eur J Clin Pharmacol1983; 25: 431–5.
34.
HjortPHolmenJWaalerH. The relation between drug utilization and morbidity pattern: antihypertensive drugs. Acta Med Scand [Suppl] 1984; 683: 89–93.
35.
WesterholmBDahlstromMNordanstamI. Relation between drug utilization and morbidity patterns. Acta Med Scand [Suppl] 1984; 683: 95–7.
