A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY OF ADVERSE DRUG REACTION IN MULTIDRUG-RESISTANT TUBERCULOSIS PATIENTS AT TERTIARY CARE HOSPITAL

Amul Mishra, S. Mathur, S. Jain
{"title":"A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY OF ADVERSE DRUG REACTION IN MULTIDRUG-RESISTANT TUBERCULOSIS PATIENTS AT TERTIARY CARE HOSPITAL","authors":"Amul Mishra, S. Mathur, S. Jain","doi":"10.22159/ajpcr.2022.v15i8.45174","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: The objective of the study was to the analysis of different parameters including admission type, demographics, type of reaction, the seriousness of reaction, classification of organ system, drugs involved, action taken and outcome of reactions, causality assessment, severity assessment, and the preventability of ADRs for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis patients.\nMethods: This retrospective observational study was conducted during the period of September 2017 to June 2020 (34 months) at ADR Monitoring Centre, Department of Pharmacology, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Ajmer, Rajasthan. All spontaneously reported ADRs were evaluated using various parameters such as type of reaction, causality assessment, preventability, and severity.\nResults: In the present study, 92 (9.29%) ADRs were reported in relation to 68 MDR-TB patients. The majority of ADRs were considered probable (73.92%), moderate (41.30%), and definitely preventable (42.39%) in nature. In our study, most of the suspected drug names were included: 23 (25%) pyrazinamide, followed by 22 (23.91%) kanamycin, 12 (13.04%) cycloserine, and 11 (11.96%) linezolid. The majority of ADRs were non-serious (67.39%) in nature. ADRs were most commonly reported, with 17 (18.48%) reporting ototoxicity and 17 (18.48%) reporting joint pain, followed by 4 (4.35%) reporting burning feet syndrome, 4 (4.35%) reporting generalized itching, and 4 (4.35%) reporting psychosis.\nConclusion: Our study included 36 different types of suspected ADRs that were reported with multiple frequencies due to 16 categories of drugs and combinations of drugs. The majority of patients were recovering and recovered from concerns associated with ADR after necessary medical intervention and management. Our purpose is to rationale the use of medicines for drug safety as well as patient safety.","PeriodicalId":8528,"journal":{"name":"Asian Journal of Pharmaceutical and Clinical Research","volume":"25 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian Journal of Pharmaceutical and Clinical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22159/ajpcr.2022.v15i8.45174","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The objective of the study was to the analysis of different parameters including admission type, demographics, type of reaction, the seriousness of reaction, classification of organ system, drugs involved, action taken and outcome of reactions, causality assessment, severity assessment, and the preventability of ADRs for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis patients. Methods: This retrospective observational study was conducted during the period of September 2017 to June 2020 (34 months) at ADR Monitoring Centre, Department of Pharmacology, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Ajmer, Rajasthan. All spontaneously reported ADRs were evaluated using various parameters such as type of reaction, causality assessment, preventability, and severity. Results: In the present study, 92 (9.29%) ADRs were reported in relation to 68 MDR-TB patients. The majority of ADRs were considered probable (73.92%), moderate (41.30%), and definitely preventable (42.39%) in nature. In our study, most of the suspected drug names were included: 23 (25%) pyrazinamide, followed by 22 (23.91%) kanamycin, 12 (13.04%) cycloserine, and 11 (11.96%) linezolid. The majority of ADRs were non-serious (67.39%) in nature. ADRs were most commonly reported, with 17 (18.48%) reporting ototoxicity and 17 (18.48%) reporting joint pain, followed by 4 (4.35%) reporting burning feet syndrome, 4 (4.35%) reporting generalized itching, and 4 (4.35%) reporting psychosis. Conclusion: Our study included 36 different types of suspected ADRs that were reported with multiple frequencies due to 16 categories of drugs and combinations of drugs. The majority of patients were recovering and recovered from concerns associated with ADR after necessary medical intervention and management. Our purpose is to rationale the use of medicines for drug safety as well as patient safety.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
三级医院耐多药结核病患者药物不良反应的回顾性研究
目的:分析耐多药结核病患者的入院类型、人口学特征、反应类型、反应严重程度、器官系统分类、涉及药物、反应采取的措施及结局、因果关系评估、严重程度评估、adr可预防性等参数。方法:回顾性观察研究于2017年9月至2020年6月(34个月)在拉贾斯坦邦Ajmer贾瓦哈拉尔尼赫鲁医学院药学系ADR监测中心进行。使用各种参数评估所有自发报告的不良反应,如反应类型、因果关系评估、可预防性和严重性。结果:68例耐多药结核病患者共报告92例(9.29%)adr。大多数adr被认为是可能的(73.92%)、中度的(41.30%)和绝对可预防的(42.39%)。在我们的研究中,可疑药名最多的是吡嗪酰胺23(25%),卡那霉素22(23.91%),环丝氨酸12(13.04%),利奈唑胺11(11.96%)。绝大多数adr为非严重adr(67.39%)。最常见的不良反应报告,17例(18.48%)报告耳毒性,17例(18.48%)报告关节疼痛,其次是4例(4.35%)报告烧脚综合征,4例(4.35%)报告全身瘙痒,4例(4.35%)报告精神病。结论:我们的研究包括了36种不同类型的可疑不良反应,这些不良反应由于16种药物和药物联合而报告了多个频率。经过必要的医疗干预和管理,大多数患者正在康复,并从与ADR相关的担忧中恢复过来。我们的目的是为了药物安全和患者安全而合理使用药物。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
REVERSE-PHASE HIGH-PERFORMANCE LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPHY METHOD DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION FOR THE QUANTIFICATION OF SUGAMMADEX IN BULK AND PHARMACEUTICAL DOSAGE FORM CLINICAL PROFILE AND PREGNANCY OUTCOMES OF COVID POSITIVE PREGNANT WOMEN IN PHASE I ANDII INFECTION – A COMPARATIVE STUDY EFFECTIVENESS OF WRIST BLOCK FOR SURGERY OF FRACTURE PROXIMAL INTERPHALANGEAL JOINT: A CASE REPORT COMPARATIVE STUDY BETWEEN EARLY AND LATE LAPAROSCOPIC CHOLECYSTECTOMY IN TREATMENT OF ACUTE CHOLECYSTITIS IN BUNDELKHAND REGION POST-OPERATIVE URINARY RETENTION AFTER SPINAL ANESTHESIA IN HERNIA SURGERY: A PROSPECTIVE, COMPARATIVE DOUBLE-BLIND STUDY BETWEEN ROPIVACAINE HEAVY 0.75% AND BUPIVACAINE HEAVY 0.5%
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1