RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to analyze the various aspects of serious adverse drug reactions (serious ADRs) such as clinical presentation, causality, severity, and preventability occurring in a hospital setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All serious ADRs reported from January 2010 to May 2015 at ADR Monitoring Centre, Department of Pharmacology, B. J. Medical College and Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad, were selected as per the World health Organization -Uppsala Monitoring Center (WHO-UMC) criteria. A retrospective analysis was carried out for clinical presentation, causality (as per the WHO-UMC scale and Naranjo's algorithm), severity (Hartwig and Siegel scale), and preventability (Schumock and Thornton criteria). RESULTS: Out of 2977 ADRs reported, 375 were serious in nature. The most common clinical presentation involved was skin and appendageal disorders (71, 18.9%). The common causal drug group was antitubercular (129, 34.4%) followed by antiretroviral (76, 20.3%) agents. The criteria for the majority of serious ADRs were intervention to prevent permanent impairment or damage (164, 43.7%) followed by hospitalization (158, 42.1%). Majority of the serious ADRs were continuing (191, 50.9%) at the time of reporting, few recovered (101, 26.9%), and two were fatal. The majority of serious ADRs were categorized as possible (182, 48.8%) followed by probable (173, 46.1%) in nature. CONCLUSION: Antitubercular, antiretroviral, and antimicrobial drugs were the most common causal drug groups for serious ADRs. This calls for robust ADR monitoring system and education of patients and prescribers for identification and effective management.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Fixed Dose Combinations (FDCs) improve patient compliance and decrease pill burden. However, irrational prescribing of FDCs is a major health concern. As resident doctors are primarily involved in patient management at tertiary care hospitals, knowledge about prescribing FDCs is of paramount importance. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate knowledge, attitude and practice, regarding use of FDCs by resident doctors at a tertiary care teaching hospital. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was carried out among resident doctors working at Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad, a tertiary care teaching hospital. One hundred resident doctors from the departments of medicine, obstetrics and gynaecology, surgery, paediatrics, skin and psychiatry, who gave their informed consent, were enrolled. A prevalidated questionnaire regarding knowledge, attitude and prescribing practice of fixed dose combinations was filled up. Data was analyzed with suitable statistical tests. RESULTS: Out of the 100 residents recruited for the study, 34, 33 and 33 residents were selected from the 1(st), 2(nd) and 3(rd) year respectively. The resident doctors were not aware about all of the advantages and disadvantages of FDCs. On an average, only 31% of the residents (lowest 16% among 1(st) year residents) had knowledge about the Essential Medicine List (EML). Knowledge about rationality of given FDCs was lacking in 81% of the residents. Only 47% could name a single banned FDC in India. Common sources of information about FDCs were medical representatives, colleagues/peers, the Monthly Index of Medical Specialities (MIMS) and Continuous Medical Education (CMEs). A majority of residents (96%) agreed that FDCs should be allowed to be marketed. The residents opined that most commonly prescribed FDCs were of antimicrobial drugs, amongst which amoxicillin + clavulanic acid was the most frequent. CONCLUSION: There is need to improve knowledge about rationality, EML, usage and banned FDCs in post graduate medical students to promote the rational use of drugs.