ABSTRACT
Background: The aim of the study was to evaluate the seizure modifying potential of Ondansetron in experimental models of seizures in mice.Methods: Mice were treated with three different doses of ondansetron i.p., at 3mg/kg, 6mg/kg and 8mg/kg and control group received normal saline 0.1 ml i.p. for 3 days. On 3rd day, mice were subjected to MES, of different strength half an hour after ondansetron administration and findings were recorded. The minimum threshold current at which tonic hind limb extension occurred was recorded. Each animal was observed for incidence and duration of tonic hind limb extension and the strength of current was noted. In PTZ model, mice were subjected to subconvulsive dose of PTZ 45mg/kg and convulsive dose of PTZ 60mg/kg. The incidence and onset of convulsion at 45 and 60mg/kg dose of PTZ were recorded.Results: Mice receiving ondansetron 3mg/kg, showed significant decrease in duration of tonic hind limb extension at convulsive current strength of 50mA (p<0.001). While group receiving 6mg/kg, showed decrease in seizure threshold. (40mA current strength) Mice receiving 3mg/kg, showed significant increase in onset of seizures (p<0.001) at convulsive 60mg/kg dose of PTZ. While mice receiving 6mg/kg showed decrease in seizure threshold at sub convulsive 45mg/kg dose of PTZ. Group receiving 8mg/kg ondansetron, showed 100% mortality due to convulsions caused by ondansetron.Conclusions: Ondansetron at low therapeutic dose (3mg/kg) has an anticonvulsant action, while it has a proconvulsant action at a high therapeutic dose (6mg/kg). Ondansetron causes convulsions at toxic dose (8mg/kg). So, care should be taken while giving ondansettron in high doses to prevent chemotherapy induced emesis.
ABSTRACT
Backgrounds: The aim of this study was to assess physician’s opinion regarding pharmaceutical promotional material and make an objective assessment about their opinion on current drug promotional methods. Methods: 250 questionnaires were sent to physicians. Questionnaires was based on question assessing physicians opinion about 1) Influence of information provided on their prescription writing pattern. 2) Most common information which they seek for and find missing, was assessed on a Likert scale of 1 to 5 for each type of information 3) Type of promotional material preferred for drug information. 4) Significance of the various types of references cited which was assessed on likert scale of 1 to 5. Results: 207 questionnaires were returned. 59.5 % of the physicians were of the opinion that the information provide in promotional literature mostly influences their prescription. Physicians feel that there is minimal information on adverse drug reaction, comparison with other drugs, price, drug interactions and clinical trial results and contraindications. Likert score of 4.8, 4.7, 4.6, 4.6, 4.5 and 3.9 respectively. 41.07% physicians prefer pamphlets, and leave behind leaflet. Whereas they consider randomized controlled trials, meta-analysis and case controlled or cohort studies as significant references, with likert score 4.9, 4.7, and 4.6 respectively. Conclusion: There is need for strong regulatory infrastructure and monitoring of the content of pharmaceutical promotional activities. Therefore, in the absence of effective regulations and standards physicians should be aware of the risks of using non independent information sources.