An evaluation of self medication among undergraduate medical students of a rural medical school from western Uttar Pradesh.

Background: Common problems related to self medication are wastage of resources and increasing antimicrobial resistance. They generally entail serious health hazards such as adverse reaction and prolonged suffering. Aim: The study aimed to analyze the pattern, factors influencing and potential adverse effects of self-medication among the undergraduate medical students Material and methods: The present cross sectional study was carried out by the Department of Pharmacology, MSDS Medical College, Fatehgarh among the undergraduate students currently studying in a rural medical school from western Uttar Pradesh. A 25 item self administered questionnaire was administered to the students in the classrooms just after completion of classes. Time allocated for the completion of the questionnaire was 30 minutes. After compilation of collected data, analysis was done using Statistical Package for Social Sciences, version 21 (IBM, Chicago, USA). Results: Data of 256 study subjects was analyzed. Overall prevalence of self medication among study subjects was found to be 71.5% (87.6% among males and 50.5% among females). 82.5% had trust in allopathic medicine system. 81.5% students learnt self medication from doctors prescriptions provided during their prior illness. Regarding categories of drugs commonly self-prescribed, they commonly used antipyretics (81.4%), anti-tussives (72.1%) and analgesics (68.9%). ‘Illness too trivial for consultation’ was the most common (71%) reason for self-medication cited by them. Almost 69% of them were aware of possible adverse effects. 7.7% of them even experienced the side effects of self-medication. Conclusion: The study highlighted growing trend of self-medication among medical students. Policies prohibiting the supply of medicines without a valid prescription should be enforced strictly. A robust monitoring system among the physicians and pharmacists is need of an hour.

A prospective study of incidence and assessment of Adverse Cutaneous Drug Reactions as a part of Pharmacovigilance from a rural northern Indian medical school.

Background: The wide and indiscriminate use of drugs has increased the incidence and the modes of presentation of cutaneous drug reaction. Understanding the nature of ACDRs may help narrow down the search for the offending agent. Aim- The study aimed to evaluate incidence, assessment of causality, severity and preventability of Adverse Cutaneous Drug Reactions as a part of Pharmacovigilance from a rural northern Indian medical school. Material and methods: The current survey was executed by the department of Pharmacology in collaboration with Department of Dermatology, MSDS Medical College, Fatehgarh among 7692 patients attending Dermatology OPD during March-December 2014. CDSCO ADR Reporting Form, WHO causality assessment scale, Hartwig and Siegel’s Assessment scale and Modified Schomock and Thronton’s preventability assessment scale were used as study tools. All the doctors, residents, interns and students were encouraged to notify any suspected ACDRs. Patients were screened and recruited if they presented with visible skin lesions suspected to be drug related. As per Modified Schumock and Thornton Scale, 43.5% of ACDRs were ‘Definitely preventable’ followed by ‘Probably preventable’ (30.4%) and ‘Not preventable’ (26.1%). Results: 23 patients (0.3%) were detected to have one or other type of ACDRs. Fixed drug eruption was most common form (34.8%) of ACDRs followed by Acneform eruption and Urticaria in 21.7% and 13% respectively among study subjects. The most common drugs responsible for ACDRs were prednisolone, betamethasone and isoniazid for Fixed drug eruption, while matronidazole, cotrimoxazole and paracetamol for acneform eruption. Antimicrobials, other steroids and NSAIDs were responsible for other spectrum of ACDRs. On assessment of Causality of ACDRs, it was noted that more than half (52.2%) of them fall under probable category. Severity assessment of ACDRs revealed that majority (65.3%) of them was moderate in nature. Conclusion: Awareness on part of the physician can help in timely detection of cutaneous reactions, thereby restricting damage from them. Pharmacovigilance activity is significantly effective in increasing the reporting of ADRs. Study with long-term follow-up and monitoring of the patients with bigger sample size is warranted.