A study evaluating knowledge, attitude and practices of practitioners in the medicine department of tertiary care teaching rural hospital with respect to antihypertensives.

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate knowledge, attitude and practices of practitioners in the medicine department of tertiary care teaching rural hospital with respect to antihypertensives and find out the disparity between the recommended and actual practices for pharmacological management. Methods: It was survey type of study, carried out using feedback questionnaire related to use of antihypertensives. Total 25 consultants were included in the study. Results: It was found that in mild hypertension single drug and two drugs in combination were preferred by 15 and 10 practitioners respectively. In moderate hypertension single drug, two drugs in combination, and greater than two drugs were preferred by 3, 13, and 7 practitioners respectively. In severe hypertension two drugs in combination and greater than two drugs were preferred by 16 and 9 practitioners respectively; none preferred single drug. Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors /angiotensin receptor blockers, beta blockers, Calcium channel blockers, diuretics were preferred as first line drug by 7, 4, 8, and 16 practitioners respectively. Most commonly preferred combination was Losartan and amlodipine by 16 practitioners. In pregnancy nifedipine was preferred as the first line drug while in elderly diuretics were preferred. In hypertensive patients with age less than 40 years all practitioners preferred ACEIs/ARBs. In diabetics ACEIs/ARBs was preferred by all practitioners. Each practitioner claimed to follow Joint National Committee (JNC) 7 criteria. Cost of drug was an important consideration in all their prescribing patterns. Conclusion: The knowledge, attitudes and practices followed by the practitioners of Dhiraj hospital were satisfactory and guidelines oriented.

A study of adverse drug reactions to radio contrast media in a tertiary care teaching rural hospital.

Background: Most common ADRs associated with radiocontrast media are rash, fever, nausea, vomiting and shivering. Rarely life threatening anaphylaxis and acute hypersensitivity reaction may also occur. Very few studies are carried out in India focusing on this aspect. Aims & Objective: To study and report the Adverse Drug Reactions (ADR) caused by radio contrast media in a tertiary care teaching rural hospital. Material and Methods: Two hundred and fifty seven patients from Radiology department were observed for occurrence of adverse drug events (ADEs) from 01 Jul 2012 to 31 Jul 2012. ADEs were either spontaneously reported or elucidated from personal interviews were analysed. Results: Total 8 (3.11%) out of 257 patients who had undergone for ionic radio contrast dye investigation had a single event of ADR. Total occurrence rate of ADR is 3.11%. Most common ADR was rash followed by shivering, nausea, vomiting and fever with use of ionic contrast media. All Adverse Drug Reactions, according to WHO-UMC and Naranjo’s scale were of “probable” category. All the ADRs were at level-3 according to Modified Hartwig and Siegel severity scale. All the ADRs according to Modified Schumock and Thornton criteria for Preventability of an ADR are of “not preventable” category. All the ADRs were of “Bizarre” type. All the patients were treated with antihistaminic and steroids. Conclusion: It is recommended to use non-ionic contrast media instead of ionic media by all the health care professionals. Treatment with steroids and antihistaminic in patients who develop ADRs due to radiocontrast media can be effective.

Study of utilization pattern of anti-hypertensive drugs in hypertensive diabetic patients with or without reduced renal function at tertiary care teaching hospital.

Background: The benefits of optimum blood pressure (BP) control in patients with diabetes exceed the benefits of glycaemic control and extend to the prevention of both macro-vascular and micro-vascular complications in patients suffering from both hypertension and diabetes mellitus. Aims & Objective: To investigate the utilization patterns of anti-hypertensive drugs and to evaluate blood pressure (BP) control among diabetic-hypertensive patients with and without reduced renal function. Material and Methods: A prospective, observational study carried out at medicine department of SBKS Medical College and Research Centre, Piparia. The pattern of use of antihypertensive drugs in 50 hypertensive-diabetic patients was evaluated in correlation with its renal function and BP control achieved was compared in patients with and without reduced renal function. Results: Total 63 antihypertensive medication episodes were prescribed for 50 patients. Out of which 76% patients were receiving 1 drug, 22% receiving 2 drugs and 2% receiving 3 drugs of different antihypertensive class. Most patients were receiving Angiotensin-Converting-Enzyme-Inhibitors (ACE-I)/Angiotensin-Receptor-Blockers (ARBs) (60%), followed by CCBs (24%), beta-blockers (20%), and diuretics (16%). Patients on monotherapy were mostly receiving ACE-I/ARB (65.78%). Beta blockers were more commonly prescribed in patients with reduced renal function (p=0.005). BP control was achieved in 63.15% patients in monotherapy and 33.33% in polytherapy group. Control of systolic and diastolic BP was significantly higher in patients without reduced renal function than patients with reduced renal function (p<0.05). Conclusion: There was suboptimum use of combination therapy among diabetic-hypertensive patients in general and specifically in developing countries as reflected by control achieved in systolic and diastolic BP which requires concern of all healthcare professionals.

An open-label, prospective study comparing efficacy, tolerability and cost of therapy of losartan with enalapril in stage 1 and stage 2 hypertension.

Background: Hypertension is a chronic disease which insidiously affects multiple systems in the body especially the cardiovascular and cerebrovascular systems. Also being a chronic disease the patient is required to take medications lifelong and this has financial implications. This study was attempted to evaluate drugs in two antihypertensive groups: Angiotensin II antagonist losartan v/s angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor enalapril. Methods: A total of 100 patients as per the selection criteria were enrolled in the study and allocated randomly to either group A (losartan group) or group B (enalapril group). The study period was for 12 weeks, during which regular assessments were done - first on recruitment and then at 2nd week, 4th week, 8th week, and 12th week. The assessment parameters were diastolic, systolic pressures and pulse rate. Routine investigations were performed during the 1st visit and after 12 weeks of the study period. Results: There were no significant differences between the treatment groups with respect to baseline patient demographic data and clinical characteristics like systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure and heart rate. The cost benefit ratio and less adverse effects (cough), can be appreciated in group A (losartan group). Conclusions: Losartan and enalapril were well tolerated after 12 weeks of treatment with notable tolerability advantages of losartan especially with respect to the respiratory system (cough). The cost of therapy for losartan group was almost half the cost of therapy for enalapril group and hence being cost effective. Thus, losartan could be preferred as a suitable alternative to enalapril as an antihypertensive agent.