目的 建立普瑞巴林藥物利用評(píng)價(jià)（DUE）標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，并以AHP-TOPSIS法評(píng)估普瑞巴林用藥合理性，為普瑞巴林臨床用藥標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的制定提供參考。方法 根據(jù)專家共識(shí)、藥品說(shuō)明書等，制定普瑞巴林的合理性用藥評(píng)價(jià)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。從HIS系統(tǒng)中隨機(jī)選取2022年1月1日—2024年12月31日使用普瑞巴林治療的386例病例做合理性分析。結(jié)果 適應(yīng)證、用量用法、給藥方式、禁忌證、注意事項(xiàng)、不良反應(yīng)的發(fā)生與處理、藥物相互作用、經(jīng)濟(jì)性、醫(yī)師權(quán)限指標(biāo)、臨床療效評(píng)價(jià)的相對(duì)權(quán)重系數(shù)分別為17.765%、14.676%、7.482%、4.096%、10.580%、9.215%、15.700%、17.747%、1.365%、8.874%，其中適應(yīng)證、經(jīng)濟(jì)性、藥物相互作用的相對(duì)權(quán)重值較高；C_i值最高為100%，最低值為34.80%，C_i≥80%的病例為313例（81.09%），60%≤C_i＜80%為21例（5.44%），C_i＜60%為52例（13.47%），其中評(píng)價(jià)結(jié)果中適應(yīng)證、禁忌證、注意事項(xiàng)、藥物相互作用、經(jīng)濟(jì)性、醫(yī)師權(quán)限指標(biāo)、臨床療效評(píng)價(jià)7個(gè)評(píng)價(jià)指標(biāo)在用藥合理、基本合理及不合理評(píng)分進(jìn)行比較，存在明顯統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)差異（P＜0.05）；不合理用藥主要集中在適應(yīng)證、經(jīng)濟(jì)性、藥物相互作用。結(jié)論 建立的普瑞巴林的DUE，且以AHP-TOPSIS法評(píng)價(jià)普瑞巴林臨床治療的合理性用藥，評(píng)價(jià)結(jié)果準(zhǔn)確、客觀，并對(duì)普瑞巴林臨床用藥合理性評(píng)的價(jià)值較高。

Objective To establish DUE criteria for pregabalin and evaluate the appropriateness of its clinical use through the AHP-TOPSIS method, thereby providing a reference for the formulation of clinical medication standards for pregabalin.Methods Based on expert consensus and drug instructions, we developed evaluation criteria for the rational use of pregabalin. A total of 386 patient cases treated with pregabalin between January 1, 2022 to December 31, 2024, were randomly selected from the Hospital Information System (HIS) for rationality analysis.Results The relative weight coefficients for the evaluation indicators were as follows: indication (17.765%), dosage and administration (14.676%), route of administration (7.482%), contraindications (4.096%), precautions (10.580%), occurrence and management of adverse reactions (9.215%), drug interactions (15.700%), economic efficiency (17.747%), physician authority (1.365%), and clinical efficacy evaluation (8.874%). Among these, indication, economic efficiency, and drug interactions had higher relative weight values. The C_i value ranged from a maximum of 100% to a minimum of 34.80%. Cases with C_i ≥ 80% numbered 313 (81.09%), those with 60% ≤ C_i < 80% numbered 21 (5.44%), and those with C_i < 60% numbered 52 (13.47%). In the evaluation results, there were statistically significant differences (P < 0.05) in the scores for the following seven indicators: indication, contraindications, precautions, drug interactions, economic efficiency, physician authority, and clinical efficacy evaluation. Irrational medication use was mainly concentrated in the areas of indication, economic efficiency, and drug interactions.Conclusion The DUE for pregabalin established in this study, along with the AHP-TOPSIS method for evaluating the rational use of pregabalin in clinical treatment, provides accurate and Objective evaluation results. This approach holds significant value for assessing the rationality of pregabalin use in clinical settings.

R971

安徽省衛(wèi)生健康科研項(xiàng)目（AHWJ2022c0225）