ABSTRACT
Objectives: To compare the effects of atorvastatin and rosuvastatin in type II diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients with dyslipidemia. Materials and Methods: Eighty patients with history of T2DM of more than 3 months duration, glycated hemoglobin <7%, dyslipidemia, and normal electrocardiogram were included in the randomized double-blind trial. The patients received either tablet atorvastatin 20 mg or rosuvastatin 10 mg once a day along with metformin and glimepiride twice daily orally. Patients were evaluated by the change in estimated average glucose (eAG), lipid profile, and incidence of adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Results: Rise in fasting blood sugar (FBS), postprandial blood sugar, and eAG were significant in the atorvastatin group as compared to the rosuvastatin group where there was a significant increase only in FBS levels. Changes in lipid parameters and incidence of ADR were similar in both the groups. Conclusion: Rosuvastatin can be preferred to atorvastatin in T2DM with dyslipidemia due to less variation in the blood sugar parameters, effective control over lipid profile, pleiotropic effects, and less microsomal interactions.
ABSTRACT
Acute Muscle Dystonia (AMD) due to medication error is rarely reported in the literature. We are reporting a case of adverse drug reaction due to a single dose of haloperidol. Patient was free from any psychiatric illness and still he developed AMD with use of haloperidol because of medication error. The patient recovered completely from AMD symptoms in one hour after receiving the treatment. This case report intends to improve the awareness among clinicians to be cautious while writing the prescriptions.
ABSTRACT
Background: Package inserts are the authentic source of information for the new molecules in the market. Incomplete and incorrect product information may promote irrational prescribing and may have serious consequences. Hence, our aim was to analyse and compare the information supplied in the package insert according to the section 6.2 and section 6.3 of schedule D of Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940 in public (government) and private (non-government) sector. Methods: Package inserts of allopathic drugs which were supplied by government from drug store of tertiary care centre and hospital and from pharmacies on request were collected. A total of 270 package inserts in English were collected that is 38 from government hospital and 232 from the pharmacies nearby the hospital. The package inserts were analysed for the presentation of completeness of the information as per section 6.2 and 6.3. Results: The presentation of information on analysing 233 package inserts (28 government and 205 non government) was not uniform and it was difficult to locate and retrieve information easily due to lack of common layout and heading. Moreover, the package inserts were of variable shape and size with different font size which made it inconvenient for analysing as well as for reference. Posology and method of administration was incomplete in 3% package insert in non- government cases whereas in government supply it was 7%. Use of drug in pregnancy and lactation was deficient in 11% and 14% packages inserts of non-government sources and government sources respectively. Instructions for use were lacking in 25% and 29% package inserts of government and non-government sources respectively. Conclusions: The need of the hour is to further refine contents of the circulated package inserts to make them complete, reliable and up to date. This can be a step forward for ethical and effective dissemination of healthcare services in our growing society.