Evidence Hub

Antibiotic Utilization Patterns and Appropriateness of Antibiotic Prescribing in an Internal Medicine Service of a Secondary Care Hospital: A Retrospective Drug Utilization Study

Robles-Piedras AL, Rosas-Villedas L, Bautista-Sánchez U, Medécigo-Hernández JR, Vazquez-Ortiz LJ, Olvera-Hernández EG, Chehue-Romero A

Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland), 2026

439 participants

Abstract

Background/objectives: Antimicrobial resistance poses a severe global threat, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. Hospitalized patients in internal medicine wards are vulnerable to inappropriate antibiotic exposure. This study aimed to evaluate antibiotic utilization patterns, standardize volumetric consumption, and assess the appropriateness of antibiotic prescribing against national guidelines in the Internal Medicine service of a secondary-care hospital in Mexico.

Methods: A retrospective descriptive drug-utilization study based on hospital records was conducted from July 2023 to December 2024. During this period, 1127 admissions to the Internal Medicine service were recorded; 413 eligible patients who received at least one systemic antimicrobial agent were included, accounting for 769 prescription events. Antimicrobial consumption was expressed as Defined Daily Doses (DDDs) per 100 admissions according to WHO ATC/DDD methodology. A focused prescribing-appropriateness assessment was performed for the five most frequently prescribed antimicrobial agents (n = 439 prescription events).

Results: The cohort had a mean age of 61.4 ± 18.2 years, and 51.3% were aged ≥65 years. Cephalosporins (30.4%) and carbapenems (16.1%) were the most frequently prescribed pharmacological classes. Ceftriaxone had the highest standardized utilization density (49.69 DDDs/100 admissions) and an 80.6% prescribing-alignment rate. Meropenem followed with 44.72 DDDs/100 admissions…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 439 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free