Refine your search
Collections
Co-Authors
Journals
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
Shrivastava, R.
- Drugs Prescribing Pattern in A Tertiary Care Hospital in Central India - Madhya Pradesh in Years 2013- 14
Abstract Views :201 |
PDF Views:0
Authors
Affiliations
1 Department of Pharmacology, IN
2 Department of Physiology, IN
3 PG. 3rd Year Student, Department of Pharmacology, S.s. Medical College, Rewa, MP, IN
4 PG.2nd Year Student, Integral Institute of Medical Science&research, Lucknow, UP., IN
1 Department of Pharmacology, IN
2 Department of Physiology, IN
3 PG. 3rd Year Student, Department of Pharmacology, S.s. Medical College, Rewa, MP, IN
4 PG.2nd Year Student, Integral Institute of Medical Science&research, Lucknow, UP., IN
Source
The Indian Practitioner, Vol 67, No 11 (2014), Pagination: 674-680Abstract
Irrational prescription of drugs is a common occurrence in clinical practice. The aim of the study is to assess the prescription pattern of drugs at the Outpatient Department of a tertiary care SGM Hospital, Central India, Madhya Pradesh. 3587 prescriptions were randomly collected from OPDs departments and were analysed according to the WHO/INRUD indicators. Results of this study show that the maximum patients - 43.57% attending OPD belonged to 33-42 age group, and maximum - 34.54% prescriptions were from the Department of Medicine. Nutritional supplements (25.83%), NSAIDs (25.43%), antibiotics (22.19%) and GIT drugs (18.75%) were the most commonly prescribed groups. Maximum (96.88%) drugs were prescribed by generic names. The average number of drugs per prescriptions was 3.11, most (36.71 %) of the prescriptions had 4 drugs, injectable drugs were used in 8.83% prescriptions, while fixed dose combinations were used in 33.43% prescriptions. Prescription rationality in this study is poor in terms of polypharmacy, and excessive use of nutritional supplements.Keywords
Drugs, Prescriptions, Rational / Irrational, WHO, Polypharmacy
- Cutaneous Adverse Drug Reaction (CADR): An Overview
Abstract Views :164 |
PDF Views:0
Authors
Affiliations
1 Department of Pharmacology, S.S. Medical College, Rewa, (MP) – 486001, IN
2 Department of Physiology, S.S. Medical College, Rewa, (MP) – 486001, IN
3 Department of Anatomy, Sukh Sagar. Medical College & Hospital, Jabalpur, MP, IN
4 Department of Medicine, S.S. Medical College, Rewa, (MP) – 486001, IN
5 Department of Ayurveda Rewa, (MP) – 486001, IN
1 Department of Pharmacology, S.S. Medical College, Rewa, (MP) – 486001, IN
2 Department of Physiology, S.S. Medical College, Rewa, (MP) – 486001, IN
3 Department of Anatomy, Sukh Sagar. Medical College & Hospital, Jabalpur, MP, IN
4 Department of Medicine, S.S. Medical College, Rewa, (MP) – 486001, IN
5 Department of Ayurveda Rewa, (MP) – 486001, IN
Source
The Indian Practitioner, Vol 70, No 1 (2017), Pagination: 11-15Abstract
Aims and Objectives: Aim of this prospective, hospital based study is to determine the pattern of cutaneous adverse drug reactions (ADR). Material and methods: The study was conducted in the department of Pharmacology and department of Medicine, at SS Medical College and associated SGM Hospital, Rewa, MP from Oct 2014 to Sept 2015; total 130 cases were enrolled with suspected ADRs. Results: In this study maximum (25%) patients belonged to 18-25 years of age group. Mean (± SD) age of these patients was 34.84 ± 20.99 years. The skin and mucous membrane are most commonly (52.29%) affected organ system with suspected ADRs followed by central nervous system (9.19%) and gastrointestinal system (8.62%). Among the cutaneous ADRs; 51.64% were skin rashes followed by 29.67% pruritus, 5.49% oral ulcers, 3.29% Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS), 2.19% bullous eruption, 2.19% lips swelling, 2.19% toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), 1.09% oral candidiasis, 1.09% red man syndrome and 1.09% hair changes. Of these ADRs; 82.41%were associated with use of antimicrobials followed by 14.28% NSAIDs. Amongst AMAs 20.97% ADRs were associated with fluoroquinolones, 18.68% with cephalosporin, 10.98% with penicillin and 5.49% with sulphonamide. Conclusions: In this study, skin and mucous membrane is most commonly (52.29%) affected organ system; skin rashes and pruritus are the most common cutaneous ADRs and majority of cases were associated with use of fluoroquinolones and cephalosporins AMAs.Keywords
Cutaneous Adverse Drug Reactions (CADR), Exanthematous Drug Eruptions, Antimicrobial Agents (AMAs), Fluoroquinolones.References
- Edward IR, Aronson JK. Adverse drug reaction: definition, diagnosis and management. Lancet 2000; 356 (9237): 1255-1259.
- Rabbur RSM, Emmerton L. An introduction to adverse drug reporting system in different countries. Int J Pharm Prac 2005; 13 (1): 91-100.
- Rao PGM, Archana B, Jose J. Implementation and result of adverse drug reaction reporting program at an Indian teaching hospital. Indian J Pharmacol2006; 38 (4): 293-4.
- Brown SD and Landry FJ. Recognizing Reporting and Reducing Adverse Drug Reactions. Southern Medical Journal 2001; 94: 370-372.
- Padmaja U, Adhikari P, Pereira P. A prospective analysis of adverse drug reaction in a south Indian hospital. Online J Health Allied Sci. 2009; 8 (3): 12.
- David WB, Nathan S, David JC. Elisabeth B, Nan L, Laura A and Petersen. The Cost of Adverse Drug Events in Hospitalized Patients. Journal of American Medical Association. 1997; 277 (4): 307-311.
- Bordet S, Gautier H, Lelouet B and Dupuis J. Caron. Analysis of the Direct Cost of Adverse Drug Reaction in Hospitalised Patients. European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 2001; 56: 935-39.
- Arulmani R, Rajendran SD, Suresh B. Adverse drug reaction monitoring in a secondary care hospital in South India. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2007; 65 (2): 210-216.
- Murphy BM, Frigo LC. Development, implementation and results of a successful multidisciplinary adverse drug reactions reporting program in a university teaching hospital. Hosp Pharm 1993; 28: 1199-1204.
- Jose J, Rao PG. Pattern of adverse drug reaction notified by spontaneous reporting in a Indian tertiary care teaching hospital. Pharmacol Res 2006; 54: 226-233.
- Glassen DC, Pestotnik SL, Evans RS, Burke JP. Computerized surveillance of adverse drug events in hospital patients. JAMA 1991; 266: 2847-2851.
- Prosser TR, Kamysz PL. Multidisciplinary adverse drug reaction surveillance programme. Am J Hosp Pharm 1990; 47: 1334-1339.
- Surajit Nayak and Basanti Acharjya. Adverse cutaneous drug reaction. Indian J Dermatol. 2008; 53 (1): 2–8.
- DeShazo RD, Kemp SF. Allergic reactions to drugs and biologic agents. JAMA. 1997; 278: 1895–906.
- 3. Anderson JA, Adkinson NF. Allergic reactions to drugs and biologic agents. JAMA. 1987; 258: 2891–9.
- Roujeau JC, Stern RS. Severe adverse cutaneous reactions to drugs. N Engl J Med 1994; 331: 1272-1285.
- Sharma VK, Sethuraman G. Adverse cutaneous reactions to drugs: An overview. J Postgrad Med 1996; 42: 15-22.
- 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): 1142-1143.
- Chawla S, Kalra BS, Dharmshaktu P, Sahni P. Adverse drug reaction monitoring in a tertiary care teaching hospital. J Pharmacol Pharmacother 2011; 2 (3): 196-198.
- Gruchalla R. Understanding drug allergies. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2000; 105: 637–44.
- 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 Pharmacol. 2006; 38: 429–31.
- Stern RS, Wintroub BU. Cutaneous reactions to drugs. In: Freedberg IM, Eisen AZ, Wolff K, Austen KF, Goldsmith LA, Katz SI, editors. Fitzpatrick’s Dermatology in general medicine. 5th ed. McGraw-Hill: New York; 1999. pp. 1634–42.
- Sullivan JR, Shear NH. Drug eruptions and other adverse drug effects in aged skin. Clin Geriatr Med. 2002; 18: 21–42.
- Kauppinen K, Stubb S. Drug eruptions: Causative agents and clinical types. Acta Derm Venereol. 1984; 64: 320–4.
- Pudukadan D, Thappa DM. Adverse cutaneous drug reactions: Clinical pattern and causative agents in a tertiary care center in South India. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2004; 70: 20–4.
- Ajayi FO, Sun H, Perry J. Adverse drug reactions: A review of relevant factors. J Clin Pharmacol. 2000; 40: 1093–101.
- 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 reactions (ADR) 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.
- Leape LL, Brennan TA, Laird N, Lawthers AG, Localio AR, Barnes BA. The nature of adverse events in hospitalized patients. N Engl J Med 1991; 324 (6):377-384.
- V K Sharma, G Sethuraman, B Kumar. Cutaneous adverse drug reactions: clinical pattern and causative agents--a 6 year series from Chandigarh, India. Journal of Postgraduate Medicine 2001; 47 (2): 95-99
- F. Fiszenson-Albala, V. Auzerie,E. Mahe, R. Farinotti,C. Durand-Stocco, B. Crickx, V. Descamps. A 6-month prospective survey of cutaneous drug reactions in a hospital setting. British Journal of Dermatology 2003; 149, (5): 1018–1022