CELLMED (셀메드)

Cellmed Orthocellular Medicine and Pharmaceutical Association (셀메드 세포교정의약학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Study of adverse drug reactions in pulmonary medicine department of a Tertiary care hospital, Srinagar, Jammu & Kashmir, India

  • Maqbool, Mudasir (Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University Of Kashmir) ;
  • Zehravi, Mehrukh (Department of Clinical Pharmacy Girls Section, Prince Sattam Bin Abdul Aziz University Alkharj) ;
  • Maqbool, Rubeena (Department of Pharmacology, GMC Baramulla) ;
  • Ara, Irfat (Regional Research Institute of Unani Medicine)
  • Received : 2021.04.02
  • Accepted : 2021.05.12
  • Published : 2021.05.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: ADRs (adverse drug reactions) are becoming a vital aspect of patient care and assessment. ADRs account for about 2% of all hospitalizations, according to the incidence rate. Medications with a narrow therapeutic index need ADR control rather than others. ADR research is required to determine the prevalence of ADRs in medical inpatients, estimate the impact of ADRs to hospital admissions, classify the types of ADRs found, identify possibly contributing risk factors, as well as estimate the costs of ADRs in terms of ADR-related excess stay in the hospital. For several years, theophylline has been used to treat asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Theophylline-related adverse events (ADRs) were found to be 4.71 percent of the time, with nausea, anorexia (loss of appetite), and palpitation being the most common. Objective: The main objective of the study was to study adverse drug reactions in pulmonary medicine department of a Tertiary care hospital, Srinagar, Jammu & Kashmir, India. Methodology: For an eight-month period, a prospective, descriptive, cross-sectional study was conducted in the pulmonary medicine department of a Tertiary care hospital in Srinagar, Jammu & Kashmir, India. ADRs that occurred in the ward were closely tracked, and the collected reports were analyzed for demographic profile, type of ADRs, ADR occurrence and drug causing ADR, severity assessment, and ADR management. Results: During the study period, 420 patients' records were obtained from the pulmonary medicine department of a Tertiary care hospital. ADRs were registered in 60 of the patients. The demographics of ADR patients were analyzed, and it was discovered that the prevalence of ADR was highest in the age group of 50-59 years (21 out of 60) and lowest in the age group of <=19 years. The therapeutic drug groups most often involved in ADRs were investigated. The most common culprits among the medications are first-line TB drugs, which account for 21(35%) ADRs, corticosteroids, which account for 9 (15%) ADRs and other drugs used for different indications, such as ipratropium, furosemide, tramadol, and so on, which account for 30 (50%) ADRs. Hepatitis, loss of appetite, nausea, and vertigo were the most widely recorded ADRs in this study. Conclusion: ADRs are more prevalent in the elderly, and first-line TB drugs are more often implicated. The majority of the reactions were moderate. As a result, early identification, assessment, and control of ADRs are critical for reducing patient harm and improving public health.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

We appreciate all of the department's and hospital's medical and non-medical staff's hard work and support on this project.

References

  1. Baniasadi S and F Fahimi. Adverse drug reactions in a pulmonary teaching hospital: Incidence, pattern, seriousness, and preventability, Current drug safety, 2011;6(4): 230-236. https://doi.org/10.2174/157488611798280942
  2. Bhananker SM, et al. The risk of anaphylactic reactions to rocuronium in the United States is comparable to that of vecuronium: an analysis of food and drug administration reporting of adverse events, Anesthesia & Analgesia, 2005; 101(3): 819-822. https://doi.org/10.1213/01.ANE.0000175213.87556.D8
  3. Brettner A, et al. Pulmonary complications of drug therapy, Radiology, 1970; 96(1): 31-38. https://doi.org/10.1148/96.1.31
  4. Fens T, et al. Economic evaluations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease pharmacotherapy: how well are the real-world issues of medication adherence, comorbidities and adverse drug-reactions addressed?, Expert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy, 2021;1-13.
  5. Gallelli L, et al. Retrospective analysis of adverse drug reactions to bronchodilators observed in two pulmonary divisions of Catanzaro, Italy, Pharmacologicalresearch, 2003; 47(6): 493-499.
  6. Galli JA, et al. Pirfenidone and nintedanib for pulmonary fibrosis in clinical practice: tolerability and adverse drug reactions, Respirology, 2017;22(6): 1171-1178. https://doi.org/10.1111/resp.13024
  7. Hanlon P, et al. Examining patterns of multimorbidity, polypharmacy and risk of adverse drug reactions in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a cross-sectional UK Biobank study, BMJ open, 2018; 8(1): e018404. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018404
  8. Hartwig SC, et al. Preventability and severity assessment in reporting adverse drug reactions, American journal of hospital pharmacy, 1992;49(9): 2229-2232.
  9. Hire R, et al. A prospective, observational study of adverse reactions to drug regimen for multi-drug resistant pulmonary tuberculosis in central India, Mediterranean journal of hematology and infectious diseases, 2014; 6(1).
  10. Johnson DB, et al. Neurologic toxicity associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: a pharmacovigilance study, Journal for immunotherapy of cancer, 2019; 7(1): 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40425-018-0484-x
  11. Maqbool M, et al. Drug safety and Pharmacovigilance: An overview, Journal of Drug Delivery and Therapeutics, 2019; 9(2-s): 543-548.
  12. Maqbool M, et al. Adverse Drug Reaction Monitoring And Occurrence In Drugs Used In Pulmonary Disorders, Indo American Journal Of Pharmaceutical Sciences, 2018; 5(8): 8060-8065.
  13. Maqbool M, et al. Adverse Events Of Blood Transfusion And Blood Safety In Clinical Practice, Indo American Journal Of Pharmaceutical Sciences, 2018; 5(8): 8254-8259.
  14. Naranjo C, et al. Naranjo ADR probability scale, Clin Pharmacol Ther, 1981; 30: 239-245. https://doi.org/10.1038/clpt.1981.154
  15. Petrova G, et al. Assessment of the expectancy, seriousness and severity of adverse drug reactions reported for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease therapy, SAGE open medicine, 2017;5: 2050312117690404.
  16. Salem JE, et al. Cardiovascular toxicities associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: an observational, retrospective, pharmacovigilance study, The lancet oncology, 2018; 19(12): 1579-1589. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30608-9
  17. Singh A, et al. Prevalence of adverse drug reaction with first-line drugs among patients treated for pulmonary tuberculosis, Clinical Epidemiology and Global Health, 2015; 3: S80-S90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cegh.2015.10.005
  18. Sossai P, et al. Can a drug-induced pulmonary hypersensitivity reaction be dose-dependent? A case with mesalamine, The Mount Sinai journal of medicine, New York, 2001; 68(6): 389-395.