Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 74351

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionAcknowledgementReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"



Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dematolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018




Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."



Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018




Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."



Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018




Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
Knowledge is treasure of a wise man. The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."



Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
Lucknow
On Sep 2018




Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."



Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata




Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
Muzaffarnagar.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".



Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
Bengaluru.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help ones reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".



Dr. Mamta Gupta
Consultant
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018




Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.


Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journalsNo manuscriptsNo authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."



Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011




Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."



Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011
Anuradha

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.


Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2012 | Month : February | Volume : 6 | Issue : 1 | Page : 42 - 46

ADR Monitoring of NSAIDs among the In-Patients of the Orthopaedic Ward in a Tertiary Care Centre: A Prospective Observational Study

Sivasankari Venkatachalam, Ramachandra Bhat

1. Assistant Professor, Department of Pharmacology, Vinayaka Mission’s Kirupananda Variyar Medical College, Salem – 636308, Tamilnadu, India. 2. Professor and HOD, Department of Pharmacology, Kilpauk Medical College, Chennai, Tamilnadu, India.

Correspondence Address :
Dr. Sivasankari Venkatachalam,
Department of Pharmacology,
Vinayaka Mission’s Kirupananda Variyar Medical College,
Salem - 636308, Tamilnadu, India.
Phone: 9443515035.
E-mail: drvsivasankari@gmail.com

Abstract

Background: The non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are among the most widely used of all the drugs. Despite their wide clinical use, their gastro-intestinal toxicity is a major limitation. A number of studies describe NASIDs as the leading causes of adverse drug reactions (ADRs). To augment an adverse drug reaction monitoring system, an active surveillance was planned and a pilot study was started in a tertiary care teaching hospital in Chennai.
Objectives: The main aim of this study was to identify the incidence of the ADRs of the NSAIDs among the in - patients of the orthopaedic ward. It also aimed to assess the causality and the severity of the adverse effects with the monitoring of rational prescribing.
Materials and Methods: This prospective, observational study was conducted among 200 in-patients of the orthopaedic ward over a period of 6 months. The incidences of the ADRs were collected and analyzed. The causality was analyzed by using Naranjo’s Algorithm and the severity was analyzed by using the Hartwing and Siegel scale.
Result: Totally, 200 in- patients were studied, among which 5.5% (n=11) reported the occurrence of ADRs. Nearly 63.64% (n=7) of the ADRs were reported by men and 36.36% (n=4) were reported by females. The reactions which were observed were nausea, vomiting, gastritis, abdominal pain, diarrhoea, headache, rashes and oliguria. The most commonly reported ADR was gastritis and the system which was involved was the gastro-intestinal system. With the given drugs, Tablet (Tab) Diclofenac accounted for 72.73% (n=7) and Tab.Ibuprofen for 27.27 %( n=3) of all the ADRs. As per Naranjo’s Algorithm, 63.63% of the adverse reactions were “possible” and 36.37% were “Probable”. The severity assessment showed that 72.73% of the adverse effects were mild and that 27.27% were moderate.
Conclusion: The incidence rate of the ADRs in the orthopaedic ward was found to be 5.5% and the ADRs were mild in nature. This shows that rational drug therapy and better prescription practices had brought down the ADRs to minimal in our tertiary care teaching hospital in Chennai.

Keywords

Adverse drug reactions, rational drug therapy, Naranjo’s Algorithm, NSAIDs

INTRODUCTION
An ‘adverse drug reaction’, as defined by the World Health Organization, is a noxious, unintended effect of a drug, which occurs at normal doses in humans for the prophylaxis, diagnosis, or the therapy of the disease or for the modification of its physiological function (1). ADRs are considered as the 4th to 6th leading causes of death among hospitalized patients. These are associated with significant morbidity, mortality and permanent disability and are a huge economic burden on the patients due to prolonged hospitalization (2). It has been estimated that the incidence of ADRs throughout the world is 5% and 5-6% of all the hospital admissions which are caused by drug - induced problems (3). In south Indian hospitals, ADRs accounted for 0.7% of the total admissions and 1.8% of the total deaths (4). An important risk factor for developing ADR is the previous occurrence of ADR. Re-exposure to offending drugs due to poor documentation can cause the patient to experience the same ADR again, thus emphasizing the importance of the accurate Original Article Pharmacology Section documentation of ADR at the time of the event and providing relevant information to the patient about the ADR to help prevent its further occurrence. Pharmacovigilance deals with the detection, assessment and the prevention of adverse drug reactions (5). Adverse drug reactions can occur in any treatment regimen (6). Multiple drug therapy, increasing age (>70yrs) and co-morbid diseases were identified as the major predisposing factors for the occurrence of ADRs (7). There are very few centres in India which can monitor ADRs and hardly have any detailed ADR surveys which have been done in India been published (8). Lack of awareness and poor reporting resulted in inadequate ADR monitoring in India (9). Effective pharmacovigilance programs are needed in India, as genetic diversity is present (10). To augment an adverse drug reaction monitoring system, an active surveillance was planned and a pilot study was started in our hospital. Since the in-patient stay was prolonged in orthopaedic patients, the orthopaedic ward of a tertiary care teaching hospital of Govt. Kilpauk Medical College,Chennai, Tamilnadu, was chosen to evaluate the various ADRs to NSAIDs.
AIM
The main aim of this study was to identify and report the adverse drug effects of NSAIDs among the in-patients of the orthopaedic ward. It also aimed to assess the causality and the severity of the adverse effects with the monitoring of rational prescribing.

Material and Methods

A prospective, observational study was carried out in the Department of Orthopedics, in collaboration with the Department of Pharmacology, Kilpauk Medical College, Chennai. Totally, 200 orthopaedic in-patients were selected. The study was conducted for 6 months from January 2010 to June 2010. All the patients of either sex, of the ages of 18 years and above, who were on NSAIDs therapy for inflammatory disorders like ankylosing spondilitis and osteoarthritis, were included for the study. Patients with cardiovascular diseases, liver disorders and kidney damage, pregnant women, patients who were shifted to other wards, those who were severely ill, outpatient cases and those who were not willing to take part in the study were all excluded. Written informed consent from all the patients and necessary approval from the Institutional Ethical Committee were obtained. The patient’s demographic details, their past history of adverse events, details of their examination, details of regular investigations like blood sugar, urea and creatinine and details of drug therapy and concomitant medication use were collected and recorded in the proforma. The subjects and their accompanying family members were interviewed and their past prescriptions and case notes were noted. The data which was collected on ADRs included the drugs which were received, the nature of the ADRs, the drugs which were implicated, the reaction time and the time of reverting in accordance to the proforma. A structured questionnaire was used to record the adverse effects of the commonly used NSAIDs which were relevant to the in-patients of the orthopaedic ward. The monitoring of the adverse effects was done, as the investigator visited daily, so that all the patients had the opportunity to convey the details about the adverse effects. The drugs were purchased from the hospital pharmacy. The Kilpauk Medical College Government hospital receives drugs from the Tamilnadu State Medical Services Corporation, Chennai, which is the central body that purchases drugs and surgicals for the entire state, based on the Essential Drug list of the State Government. The patients were asked to submit the empty foils of the past ADRs and the current drug which was responsible for the ADR was obtained from the staff nurse. The rechallenge test was not done due to ethical reasons. The causality was assessed by using Naranjo’s Algorithm, which is one of the most widely used methods for evaluating adverse reactions (11). It consists of ten objective questions with 3 types of answers – Yes, No or don’t know. Scores are given accordingly and the drug reaction can be classified as definite (total score - >9), probable (total score -5-8), or possible (total score- l -4). The severity of the drug was assessed by using the Hartwing and Siegel scale, which classified the severity of the ADRs as mild, moderate or severe according to factors like the requirement for the change in treatment, duration of the hospital stay and the disability which was produced by the ADR (12). No follow-up was done. The data which was collected was compiled and tabulated. The data were analyzed by using the Chi-square(X2) test. A P value of <0.05 was considered as significant. Simple frequencies and percentages were obtained for various variables.

Results

Out of the 200 in-patients, 11 had developed ADR. The male: female ratio of the study group was 1.8:1 and the demographic features are listed in (Table/Fig 1). Out of the 11 patients who experienced adverse effects, 7 (63.63%) were males and 4 (36.36 %) were females. Nine ADRs were reported in the age group of 18-65 years and 2 were reported in the age group of above 65 years. According to our study, age and gender have no effect on the occurrence of ADRs due to NSAIDs and this was statistically insignificant (Table/Fig 2),(Table/Fig 3). The reactions which were observed in the study subjects were nausea (n=2), vomiting (n=l), gastritis (n=4), abdominal pain (n=l), diarrhoea (n=l), rashes (n=l), headache (n=l) and oliguria (n=l). The most common adverse effect which was reported in our study was gastritis and the most common system which was involved was the gastrointestinal system. The ADRs and the implicated drugs are shown in (Table/Fig 4). Among the NSAIDs, Tab. Diclofenac, Tab. Ibuprofen and Tab. Paracetamol were commonly prescribed in our hospital’s orthopaedic ward. In the 200 prescriptions, Tab. Diclofenac was given to 152 patients (76%)), Tab. Paracetamol was given to 25 patients (12.5%) and Tab. Ibuprofen was given to 23 patients (11.5%)). Out of the 11 ADRs, 8 (72.73%) were caused by Tab. Diclofenac and 3 (27.27%) were caused by Tab. Ibuprofen. No ADR was found to be caused by Tab.Paracetomal. A gastro protective agent (GPA) was used with the NSAIDs in 172 (86%) prescriptions. Tab. Ranitidine was given to 128 patients and Tab. Omeprazole was given to 44 patients to prevent gastritis and the remaining 28 patients did not receive any gastro protective agents (Table/Fig 5). In the present study, the incidence rate of the ADRs was found to be 5.5%. The causality assessment revealed that 7 ADRs (63.64%) belonged to the “possible” category, whereas 4 (36.36%) were “probable” reactions according to the Naranjo, s Algorithm. Due to ethical reasons, a rechallenge was not performed in our study (Table/Fig 6). The Hartwing and Siegel scale severity assessment showed 77.7% of the adverse effects were mild and that 22.3% were moderate in nature. They were managed symptomatically by using routine treatment protocols.

Discussion

The present study has reported the incidence of ADRs to NSAIDs in the orthopaedic in-patient setting in the Indian scenario.According to our study, the incidence of ADRs was found to be 5.5%. A recent study on the adverse drug reactions of nonsteroidal anti inflammatory drugs in orthopaedic patients in a tertiary care teaching hospital, Delhi, showed that the prevalence rate of the ADRs was 26% (13). A study which was conducted on orthopaedic patients in Mumbai showed that the incidence rate of various kinds of ADRs of NSAIDs ranged from 28 to 33 % (14). Our study showed a lower incidence of ADRs as compared to the findings of the above studies. This may probably be due to the proper selection of the NSAIDs and their rational use. Among the in-patients, 2 out of 12 who were above the age of 65 years and 9 out of 188 who were in the age group of 18 to 65 years experienced ADR. This finding differed from that of Egger et al study, where the elderly were more commonly affected (15). Of the patients who experienced ADRs during the study period, 7 (63.63%) were males and 4 (36.37%) were females. Reports from various studies showed a female preponderance, while our study did not show much difference with respect to gender, as our study had only limited number of patients. Epidemiological studies showed that gastro-intestinal tract (GIT) complications were the most common ADRs with ketoprofen and piroxicam and that they had a lower incidence with ibuprofen, diclofenac and paracetamol (16). One study reported that 20% of the patients experienced side effects due to Tab.Diclofenac, but that only 2% discontinued the drug (17). On the administration of Tab.Ibuprofen, 5 to 15% of the patients experienced side effects. Bates et al, in a study on 247 patients, found that 30% of the ADRs were caused by analgesics, 24% by antibiotics, and 8% by sedatives (18). As our study was carried out in the orthopaedic department, the ADRs which were caused by NSAIDs were studied, where 8 cases reported ADRs due to Tab.Diclofenac out of 152 prescriptions (5.26%) and 3 reported ADRs due to Tab. Ibuprofen out of 23 prescriptions (13.3%). Since the number of patients who received Tab.Diclofenac was more than those who received other NSAIDs, the ADRs were more with the same drug. The pattern of NSAID usage was very similar in different places, where Tab.Diclofenac was commonly used, followed by Ibuprofen and Paracetamol. In our setup, only low risk drugs were prescribed, which were related to gastro protection. Gastro protective agents were also given in 86% of the total patients, which minimized the GIT complications in our study, as has been described in evidence based medicine. According to Naranjo’s Algorithm, 63.63% ADRs were assessed as “possible” ADRs and 36.37% as “probable” ADRs. These results were comparable with the findings of Davies et al’s study and Shanmugam Sriram et al study (7). Both the above mentioned studies showed that 63% of the ADRs were possibly drug related, whereas 37% were classified as probably or definitely related to the drug. The severity assessment scale revealed that 72.73% were mild and that 27.27% were moderate adverse reactions. A study which was conducted by Arulmani et al on ADR monitoring in a secondary care hospital in South India, showed that 53.7% were mild ADRs, whereas our study showed more number of mild cases. No severe ADRs were found in our study (9) In a recent study review, Pir Mohamed et al reported ADR frequencies between 10 and 20% in in-patients (19). A number of studies have described NASIDs as the leading causes of ADRs, while others have shown that they ranked 4th or 5th in causing ADRs. Two studies by Chan denotes that NSAIDs were responsible for 28% of the drug related admissions in Hong Kong and that NSAIDs related GIT bleeds were about 18% in an another study (20). An Australian study of 5623 admissions reported a high incidence of GI bleeds which were associated with NSAIDs (21). In a Scottish study, 17 patients reported ADRs due to NSAIDs (22). Our study showed that GIT side effects were common and that they were mild in nature. When compared with the above studies, the incidence rate of the adverse drug effects in our orthopaedic in-patients was 5.5%, which was lower than that which was found in the above mentioned studies. As our study involved active surveillance for adverse effects, we could detect 11 adverse effects, which in a routine set up, would have gone unrecorded. The treating doctors were considering risk factors like peptic ulcer in the patients. They prescribed drugs to prevent adverse effects whenever they anticipated adverse effects. So, the adoption of rational drug therapy by the treating doctors in a tertiary care teaching hospital where the study was done, might have contributed to the lower incidence of the adverse effects. The prevention of adverse reactions by identifying persons who are at a high risk is important to improve patient care (23). In our study, we found only a 5.5% incidence of adverse reactions which were caused due to rational drug uses. Despite the study being limited to one department, it has provided baseline data for further larger studies and it has ascertained the importance of prospective ADR monitoring in pharmacovigilance studies.

Conclusion

The present study has reported the incidence of ADRs of NSAIDs among the orthopaedic patients in the south Indian population. Overall, the incidence rate of ADRs in the orthopaedic ward was 5.5% and the ADRs were mild in nature. It showed that rational drug therapy had brought down the adverse effects to minimal and that it had attributed to the better prescription practice which was followed in our tertiary care teaching hospital in Chennai. The pharmacovigilance system usually consists of notification forms, drop boxes and a coordinated Drug Information Centre (5). The main sources of the ADR data include the ADR monitoring schemes of hospitals (24). This has been validated in our study. The physician’s considerate prescription of NSAIDs with a good understanding of each patient’s GI risk factors is strongly encouraged, in order to maximize the cost effectiveness and to prevent serious GI complications. Therefore, the setting up of an ADR monitoring centre at a more regional or hospital level and integrating it with a sound network can reveal unusual or rare ADRs which are prevalent in the Indian population.

Acknowledgement

We wish to express our sincere thanks to Dr. K. Sankaralingam, Professor of Orthopaedics and Dr. K. V. Chandrasekaran, Professor of Orthopaedics, Kilpauk Medical College, Chennai, for their valuable suggestions during the period of this work.

References

1.
Edwards IR, Aroson JK. Adverse drug reactions: Definitions, diagnosis and management. Lancet 2000; 356:l255-56. Back to cited no.l
2.
Joshua L, Devi PD, Guido S. Adverse drug reactions in nephrology ward in-patients of a tertiary care hospital. Indian Journal of Medical Sciences. 2007Oct; 6l (l0): 562-69.
3.
Ramesh KV, Shenoy A. Chowta MN. Chapter 4, Pharmacovigilance and adverse drug reaction monitoring. In: KV Ramesh, Ashok Shenoy, Mukta N Chowta editors. Practical Pharmacology for MBBS, 1st ed. New Delhi, Arya Publishing company; 2006; 102-04.
4.
Ramesh M, Pandit J, Parthasarathi G. Adverse drug reactions in a south Indian hospital – their severity and cost involved. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2003 Dec; 12(8): 687-92.
5.
Surendiran A,.Balamurugan N,. Gunaseelan K, Akhtar S,. Reddy K.S, .Adithan C. Adverse drug reaction profile of a cisplatin- based chemotherapy regimen in a tertiary care hospital in India: An evaluative study. Indian J Pharmacol 2010 Feb; 42(1):40-43.
6.
International Drug Monitoring. The role of the hospital. WHO Tech Rep Ser. 1969; 5-24.
7.
Sriram S, Ghasemi A, Ramasamy R, Devi M, Balasubramanian R. Prevalance of ADRs at private tertiary care hospital in south India. J Res Med Sci. 2011 January; 16(1): PMCID: 16-25.
8.
Padmaja U, Adhikari P, Pereira P. A prospective analysis of adverse drug reactions in a south Indian hospital. Online J Health Allied Scs. 2009; 8(3):12.
9.
Arulmani R, Rajendran SD, Suresh B. Adverse drug reaction monitoring in a secondary care hospital in South India. Br J Clin Pharm 2008 Feb; 65(2): 210-16.
10.
Palphia SS. Genetic variation in India. Hum Biol 1996; 68:607-28.
11.
Naranjo CA, Busto U, Sellers EM, Sandor P, RuisI, Roberts EA. A method for estimating the probability of adverse drug reactions. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1981; 30:239-45.
12.
Hartwig SC, Siegel J, Schneider PJ. Preventability and severity assessment in reporting adverse drug reactions. Am J Hosp Pharm 1992; 49:2229-32.
13.
Gor AP, Saksena M. Adverse drug reactions of non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs in orthopedic patients. J Pharmaco Pharmacother. 2011 Jan-Mar; 2(1):26-29.
14.
Shahani S, Nerleker S. Adverse drug reactions in dermatology and a growing need for pharmacovigilance. J Pharmacovig drug Saf. 2009;6:35-37.
15.
Egger T, Dormann H, Ahne G, Runge,U, Neubert A, Criegee-Rieck M. Identification of adverse drug reactions in geriatric in-patients by using a computerized drug database. Drugs Aging 2003; 20:769-76. Back to cited text no. 8.
16.
Grosser T, Smyth E, Garret A, Fitz Gerald. Chapter 34, Antiinflammatory, Antipyretic and Analgesic agents, Pharmacotherapy of Gout. In:Laurence. L.Bruton.PhD, Bruce A.Chabuer, editors. Goodman and Gilman’s The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics, 12th edition. New York, McGraw-Hill; 2011; 966-93.
17.
Boelsterli UA. Diclofenac induced liver injury: A paradigm of idiosyncratic drug toxicity. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2003; 192:307-22.
18.
Bates DW, Cullen DJ, Lavid N. Incidence of adverse drug events and potential adverse drug events; implications for prevention. JAMA. 1995; 274: 29-34.
19.
Gor AP, Desai SV. Adverse drug reactions in the inpatients of the medicine department of a tertiary care teaching hospital and the influence of pharmacovigilance in the reporting of ADRs. Indian J Pharmacol 2008; 40:37-40.
20.
Wiften P, Gill M, Adverse drug reactions in hospital patients. A systematic review of the prospective and retrospective studies. Evidence based health care, Bandolier Extra, June 2002; 1-15.
21.
Larmour I, Dolphin RG, Baxter H, Morrison S, Hooke DH, Mc Grath BP. A prospective study of hospital admissions due to drug reactions. Australian J Hosp Pharm 1991; 21(2) 90-95.
22.
Cunnngham G, Dodd TRP, Grant DT, Murdo MET, Richards RME. Drug –related problems in elderly patients who were admitted to Tayside hospitals, methods for prevention and subsequent reassessment. Age and Ageing 1997; 26:375-82.
23.
Editorials-Adverse drug reactions in the elderly: challenges in identification and improving preventative strategies. Age and ageing 2009-38:2009:358-59.
24.
CH Shashindren, B Gitanjali, Chapter 6. Adverse drug reaction monitoring. Health Administrator Vol:XIX Number 1: 20-21.

DOI and Others

ID: JCDR/2012/3464.3762:1857

FINANCIAL OR OTHER COMPETING INTERESTS: NONE.

Date of Submission: Oct 10, 2011
Date of Peer Review: Nov 15, 2011
Date of Acceptance: Dec 22, 2011
Date of Publishing: Feb 15, 2012

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)
  • www.omnimedicalsearch.com