Extemporaneous formulations in Germany – relevance for everyday clinical practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Extemporaneous formulations broaden the spectrum of therapeutic options for topical treatment in particular and thus improve patient care. The latest amendment to the Regulation on the Operation of Pharmacies issued in 2012 brought about changes in prescribing and manufacturing practices. The aim of the present study was to assess the relevance of extemporaneous formulations in everyday clinical practice. METHODS: We used data from the German Institute for Drug Use Evaluation (DAPI) to analyze the prescribing practice for compounded preparations in Germany between the fourth quarter of 2011 and the third quarter of 2014. In doing so, we determined the total cost associated with extemporaneous formulations covered by statutory health insurance funds in the outpatient setting. RESULTS: Approximately three out of ten prescriptions (30.54 %) by German dermatologists during the observation period were extemporaneous formulations. While dermatologists make up only 2.7 % of physicians working in the statutory health care system in Germany, they prescribe more than half of all compounded preparations (53.6 %). Each dermatologist prescribed an average of 270.4 formulations per quarter; that number was 13.5 (1.3 %) for all other medical specialties. On average, 1,983,687 extemporaneous formulations overall (1.3 % of all prescriptions) were prescribed per quarter, corresponding to a total cost of € 40,944,982 (0.55 %). CONCLUSIONS: Apart from finished medicinal products, extemporaneous formulations play a key role in outpatient care. Based on the principles of evidence-based and patient-oriented medicine, the quality of compounded preparations and the prescribing practice of physicians (standardized vs. individual formulations) should be further investigated to optimize the quality of these preparations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".