A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z All
Raj, Bhupendra
- Frequency, Preferences and Prescribing Pattern of Antihypertensive Drugs in Out-Patient Department of a Tertiary Care SGM Hospital, Rewa District of Madhya Pradesh, India
Authors
1 Department of Pharmacology, S.S. Medical College, Rewa, MP, IN
2 Department of Medicine, S.S. Medical College, Rewa, MP, IN
3 Integral Institute of Medical Science & Research, Lucknow, UP, IN
4 Department of Pharmacology, S.S. Medical College, Rewa, MP, IN
5 Department of Physiology, S.S. Medical College, Rewa, MP, IN
Source
The Indian Practitioner, Vol 69, No 3 (2016), Pagination: 32-39Abstract
Aims and Objectives: The aim of study was to determine the frequency and prescribing pattern of antihypertensive drugs in Out Patient Department of a tertiary care hospital and to identify whether the pattern of prescribing is appropriate in accordance with national and international guidelines for pharmacotherapy of hypertension.Methods: This was a prescription-based survey; the prescriptions were collected randomly from OPDs of SGM Hospital as xerox copies after taking the consent of the patients. A total of 3587 prescriptions were analysed.
Results: In the 3587 prescriptions a total 8144 drugs were prescribed; of these only 4.19% (342) drugs belonged to the cardiovascular group. Among the cardiovascular drugs 94.73% (324) belonged to antihypertensive and 5.26% were anti-CHF drugs. 91.35% drugs were prescribed as monotherapy and 8.64% as combination therapy. The Calcium channel blockers (CCBs) (Amlodipine 83.47%) were the most frequently prescribed antihypertensive drugs (35.49%) followed by Angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) 25% (Enalapril 60.49%), β-blockers 13.27% (Atenolol 69.76%), angiotensin (AT1) receptor antagonists or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) 9.25% (Losartan 80.0%), combination therapy 8.64% (AT+AM/LO+HCTZ 46.42%) and diuretics 8.33% (Hydrochlorothiazide 55.55%). However over all prescribing frequency among antihypertensive drugs were as follows: Amlodipine (29.63%) ≥ Enalapril (15.12%) ≥ Ramipril (9.87%) ≥ Atenolol ≥ (9.25%) ≥ Losartan (7.40%) hydrochlorothiazide ≥ (4.63%) ≥ Es-amlodipine (4.32%) ≥ AT+AM (4.01%)= LO+HCTZ (4.01%) ≥ Frusemide (3.70%) ≥ Candesartan (1.85%) ≥ Metoprolol (1.54%) and others.
Conclusions: Most of antihypertensive drugs in this study were prescribed as monotherapy. Amlodipine was most frequently prescribed antihypertensive followed by Enalapril ≥ Ramipril ≥ Atenolol ≥ and Losartan, in combination therapy AT+AM and LO+HCTZ were equally prescribed. The pattern of this study was in accordance with the National and International guidelines.
Keywords
Hypertension, Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitors, Calcium Channel Blockers, Angiotensin Receptor Blockers.
- Pattern and Frequency of Spontaneously Reported Suspected ADRs in Admitted Patients at a Tertiary Care Hospital of Central India: A Pharmacovigilance Study
Authors
1 Associate Professor, Department of Pharmacology, S.S. Medical College, Rewa, Madhya Pradesh, IN
2 Assistant Professor, Department of Physiology, S.S. Medical College, Rewa, Madhya Pradesh, IN
3 AYUSH Medical Officer, Department of Ayush, Medical Officer, PHC, Devtalab, Rewa, Madhya Pradesh, IN
4 Department of Pharmacology, S.S. Medical College, Rewa, Madhya Pradesh, IN
5 Professor & Head, Department of Pharmacology, S.S. Medical College, Rewa, Madhya Pradesh, IN
6 3rd year PG Resident, Department of Pharmacology, S.S. Medical College, Rewa, Madhya Pradesh, IN
Source
The Indian Practitioner, Vol 74, No 11 (2021), Pagination: 23-29Abstract
Background: ADRs constitute an enormous burden for society and it is one of the leading causes of death. ADRs are poorly and inadequately reported and up to 57% of ADRs are unrecognized by attending physicians.
Aims & Objectives: The aim of this study is to assess the frequency, clinical pattern and spectrum of suspected ADRs in admitted patients.
Material & Methods: This study was conducted, in a multidisciplinary tertiary care hospital, in which a total of 54 cases with suspected ADRs were enrolled. Data was collected by a researcher through telephonic conversation by healthcare professionals from the admitted patients of hospital in CDSCO - ADR reporting form. The data were analyzed by Microsoft word - excel version 2007. All the multiple responses were presented in terms of numbers and percentage.
Results: In the present study, maximum patients (31.48%) belonged to 26-40 years age group, of these maximum patients (35.18%) belonged to lower middle socioeconomic status. Majority of patients (68.51%) were residents of rural areas. Skin & mucous membranes and gastrointestinal system were most frequently (37.18%) involved organ systems; most frequent ADR (17.58%) was skin rashes, followed by pruritus (13.56%). Majority (56.78%) of suspected ADRs were associated with antimicrobials. Among antimicrobials, ceftriaxone + sulbactam is associated with majority (34.51%) of suspected ADRs.
Conclusion: ADR monitoring is the key component of effective drug regulation systems, clinical practice and public health programmes. Hospital based ADR monitoring and reporting programmes aim to identify and quantify the risks associated with the use of the drugs.
Keywords
Pharmacovigilance Program of India, PvPI, Adverse Drug Event, Adverse Drug Reaction, Central Drugs Standard Control Organization, CDSCO.References
- Rehan HS, Chopra D, Kakkar A. Physician’s guide to pharmacovigilance: Terminology and causality assessment. European Journal of Internal Medicine. 2009;20:3-8.
- Mohanta GP, Manna PK. Textbook of Pharmacovigilance concept and practice.1st ed. Hyderabad: Pharma Med Press; 2016.
- Kumar A, Khan H. Signal detection and their assessment in Pharmacovigilance. Open Pharmaceutical Sciences Journal. 2015;2:66-73.
- World Health Organization. Requirements for adverse reaction reporting. Geneva, Switzerland: 1975.
- Vrabie M, Marinescu V. Polypharmacy in bipolar disorder-a focus on drug-drug interaction. Revista Romana de Psihiatrie. 2011;13:128‒133.
- Fracas A, Bojita M. Adverse drug reaction in clinical practice: a causality assessment of a case of drug-induced pancreatitis. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis. 2009;18(3):353-58.
- Padmaja U, Adhikari P, Pereira P. A prospective analysis of adverse drug reaction in a south Indian hospital. Online J Health Allied Scs. 2009;8(3):12.
- Sriram S, Ghasemi A, Ramaswamy R, Devi M, Balasuramanian R, Ravi TK, Sabzghabaee AM. Prevalence of adverse drug reaction at a private tertiary care hospital in south India. JRMS. 2011;16(1):16-25.
- Sajin G. Joseph, Dinesh K. Badyal. Spontaneous Adverse Drug Reaction Monitoring in a Tertiary Care Hospital in Northern India. JK Science. 2016;18 (2):103-106.
- John LJ, Arifulla M, Cheriathu J, Sreedharan J. Reporting of adverse drug reactions: A study among Clinicians. J App Pharmaceut Sci. 2012;2(6):135-9.
- Daulat MP, Abhishake VJ, Singh P, Raj B. A prospective study of adverse drug reactions in a tertiary care teaching hospital. International Journal of Basic & Clinical Pharmacology. 2018;7(10):1965-69.
- Jose J, Rao PG. Pattern of adverse drug reaction notified by spontaneous reporting in Indian tertiary care teaching hospital. Pharmacol Res. 2006;54: 226-233.
- Mandavi SD, D’Cruz S, Sachdev A, Tiwari P. Adverse drug reactions & their risk factors among Indian ambulatory elderly patients. Indian J Med Res. 2012;136:404–410.
- Gupta R, Sheik A, Strachan D, Anderson HR. Increasing hospital admission for systemic allergies disorders in England: analysis of national admission data. Br Med J. 2003; 327(7424):1142-3.
- Chawla S, Kalra BS, Dharmshaktu P, Sahni P. Adverse drug reaction monitoring in a tertiary care teaching hospital. J PharmacolPharmacother. 2011;2(3):196-8.
- Pandey V, Singh A, Singh P, Bhupendra R, Dubey V. Adverse drug reaction monitoring and assessment of causality in intensive care unit, in the department of medicine at a tertiary care hospital of Central India. EJPMR. 2018;5(12):290-294.
- Solunke RR, Dharmadhikari SC, Jaju JB, Parekar S, Gurung A. Pharmacovigilance Study of Antiretroviral Drugs in Tertiary Care Hospital- A Prospective Study. JMSCR. 2018;6(8):1048-1059.
- Singh H, Dulhani N, Tiwari P, Singh P, Sinha T. A prospective, observational cohort study to elicit adverse effects of antiretroviral agents in a remote resourcerestricted tribal population of Chhattisgarh. Indian J Pharmacol. 2009; 41 (9): 224-6.
- Camargo AL, Cardoso Ferreira MB, Heineck I. Adverse drug reactions: A cohort study in internal medicine units at a university hospital. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2006;62:143–149.
- Kumar N, Shekar C, Kumar P, Kundu AS. Kuppuswamy’s Socio-economic status scale-updating for 2007. Indian Journal of pediatrics. 2007;74:1131-1132.
- Chatterjee S, Ghosh AP, Barbhuiya J, Dey SK. Adverse cutaneous drug reactions: A one year survey at a dermatology outpatient clinic of a tertiary care hospital. Indian J Pharmacology. 2006;38:429-431.
- Kathiria JM, Sattigere BM, Desai PM, Patel SP. A study of adverse drug reactions in patients admitted to intensive care unit of a tertiary care teaching rural hospital. Int J Pharm Pharm Sci. 2013;5(1):160-163.
- Murphy BM and FrigoLC. Development, Implementation and results of a successful multidisciplinary adverse drug reaction reporting program in a University Teaching Hospital. 1993;28:1199-1204.
- Prosser TR, Kamysz PL. Multidisciplinary adverse drug reaction surveillance programme. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1990;47:1334-1339.
- Arulmani R, Rajendran SD, Suresh B. Adverse drug reaction monitoring in a secondary care hospital in South India. Br J ClinPharmacol. 2008;65(2):210–216.
- Wester K, Jonnson AK, Spigset O, Druid H, Hagg S. Incidence of fatal adverse drug reactions: a population based study. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2007;65(4):573-579.
- Gor AP, Desai SV. Adverse drug reaction in the inpatients of Medicine Department of a rural tertiary care teaching hospital and influence of pharmacovigilance in reporting ADR. Indian J Pharmacol. 2008;40(1):37-40.
- Vora MB, Trivedi HR, Shah BK, Tripathi CB. Adverse drug reaction in inpatient of internal medicine wards at a tertiary care hospital: a prospective cohort study. J Pharmacol Pharmacother. 2011;2 (1):21-25.
- Harsha R. A prospective study of adverse drug reactions in outpatients and inpatients of medicine department in a tertiary care hospital, Kempegowda institute of medical sciences. Int J Basic Clin Pharmacol. 2015;4(3):515-521.
- Shamna M, Dilip C, Ajmal M, Linu Mohan P, Shinu C, Jafer CP, Mohammed Y. A prospective study on Adverse Drug Reactions of antibiotics in a tertiary care hospital. Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal. 2014;22:303–308.
- Marques J, Ribeiro-Vaz I, Pereira AC, Polõnia J. A survey of spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions in 10 years of activity in a pharmacovigilance centre in Portugal. Int J Pharm Pract. 2014;22:275–282.
- Vijendra R, Pundarikaksha HP, Gopal MG, Girish K, Vasundara K, Jyothi R. A prospective study of cutaneous adverse drug reaction in a tertiary care hospital. National journal of basic medical sciences. 2013;3(1):44-51.
- Khurshid F, Aqil M, Alam MS, Kapur P, Pillai KK. Monitoring of adverse drug reaction associated with antihypertensive medicines at a university teaching hospital in New Delhi. J Phar Sci. 2012;34:1-6.
- Aqil M, Imam F, Hussain A, Alam MS, Kapur P, Pillai KK. A pharmacovigilance study for monitoring adverse drug reactions with antihypertensive agents at a south Delhi hospital. Int J Pharm Pract. 2006;14:311-3.
- Biston P, Melot C, Degaute JP, Clement D, Quoidbach A. Prolonged antihypertensive effect of amlodipine: a prospective double-blind randomized study. Blood Press. 1999;8:43-48.