ABSTRACT
Prescription pattern monitoring studies (PPMS) are a tool for assessing the prescribing, dispensing and distribution of medicines. The main aim of PPMS is to facilitate rational use of medicines (RUM). There is paucity of published data analysing the effectiveness of PPMS. The present review has been done to assess the effectiveness of prescription pattern monitoring studies in promoting RUM. Data search was conducted on internet. A multitude of PPMS done on different classes of drugs were collected and analyzed. PPMS using WHO prescribing indicators were also included. The present article reviews various prescription pattern monitoring studies of drugs conducted all over country and abroad. It was observed in the majority of such studies that physicians do not adhere to the guidelines made by regulatory agencies leading to irrational use of medicines. This in turn leads to increased incidence of treatment failure, antimicrobial resistance and economic burden on the patient and the community as a whole. The treatment of diseases by the use of essential drugs, prescribed by their generic names, has been emphasized by the WHO and the National Health Policy of India. We conclude that the prescription monitoring studies provide a bridge between areas like rational use of drugs, pharmacovigilance, evidence based medicine, pharmacoeconomics, pharmacogenetics and ecopharmacovigilance. In India, this is the need of the hour to utilise the data generated by so many prescription pattern monitoring studies done in every state and on every drug, so that the main aim of promoting rational use of drugs is fulfilled.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Hypertension is one of the major public health challenges worldwide. Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and Calcium channel blockers (CCBs) are among the first line antihypertensive drugs. However, optimal treatment strategies in mild to moderate hypertensives who failed to achieve blood pressure (BP) control with low-dose mono-therapy are not well established. This study was done to compare efficacy and safety of high dose mono-therapy of Amlodipine, Telmisartan and their low dose combination in mild to moderate hypertensives who failed to achieve BP control with low dose mono-therapy of either drug. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 96 patients, fulfilling inclusion and exclusion criteria were enrolled in the study after obtaining informed consent. Patients were randomized into three treatment groups i.e. Telmisartan 80 mg, Amlodipine 10 mg and low dose combination of Telmisartan 40 mg +Amlodipine 5 mg once daily for two months. The systolic BP, Diastolic BP, and ADRs were recorded at 0, 2, 4, 8 weeks. RESULTS: In the present study, significant reduction of mean systolic blood pressure (SBP) and mean diastolic blood pressure (DBP) was seen in all the three treatment groups. Low dose combination of Amlodipine 5 mg and Telmisartan 40 mg showed statistically significant reduction in SBP as compared to Telmisartan 80 mg mono-therapy and in DBP as compared to Amlodipine 10 mg mono-therapy. Maximum adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were reported in Amlodipine mono-therapy group, like ankle oedema, constipation, headache and fatigue. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: In term of BP control, low-dose combination therapy appears a better therapeutic approach than high-dose mono-therapy.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: The study aimed to review the prescribing knowledge of first-year postgraduate doctors in a medical college in India, using the principles of good prescribing, to suggest strategies to improve rational prescribing, and to recommend what curriculum planners can do to accomplish this objective. METHODS: Fifty first-year postgraduate doctors were asked to fill in a structured questionnaire that sought information regarding their undergraduate training in clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, prescribing habits, and commonly consulted drug information sources. Also, the questionnaire assessed any perceived deficiencies in their undergraduate clinical pharmacology teaching and sought feedback regarding improvement in the teaching. RESULTS: Eighty-eight percent of residents said that they were taught prescription writing in undergraduate pharmacology teaching; 48% of residents rated their prescribing knowledge at graduation as average, 28% good, 4% excellent, 14% poor, and 4% very poor; 58% felt that their undergraduate training did not prepare them to prescribe safely, and 62% felt that their training did not prepare them to prescribe rationally. Fifty-eight percent of residents felt that they had some specific problems with writing a prescription during their internship training, while 92% thought that undergraduate teaching should be improved. Their suggestions for improving teaching methods were recorded. CONCLUSIONS: This study concludes that efforts are needed to develop a curriculum that encompasses important aspects of clinical pharmacology and therapeutics along with incorporation of the useful suggestions given by the residents.
