Cutaneous drug reactions notified by ADR monitoring centre in a tertiary care hospital of Bihar

Authors

  • Pramod Kumar Manjhi Department of Pharmacology, ADR Monitoring Centre, Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Sheikhpura, Patna, Bihar, 800014, India
  • Lalit Mohan Department of Pharmacology, ADR Monitoring Centre, Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Sheikhpura, Patna, Bihar, 800014, India
  • Harihar Dikshit Department of Pharmacology, ADR Monitoring Centre, Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Sheikhpura, Patna, Bihar, 800014, India
  • Hitesh Mishra Department of Pharmacology, ADR Monitoring Centre, Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Sheikhpura, Patna, Bihar, 800014, India
  • Manish Kumar Department of Pharmacology, ADR Monitoring Centre, Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Sheikhpura, Patna, Bihar, 800014, India
  • Shambhu Dokania Department of Pharmacology, ADR Monitoring Centre, Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Sheikhpura, Patna, Bihar, 800014, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2319-2003.ijbcp20164756

Keywords:

Cutaneous drug reactions, Fixed drug eruption, Maculopapular rash, Naranjo’s algorithm

Abstract

Background: Cutaneous drug reactions are most frequent drug related adverse events which lead to early treatment discontinuations, high treatment cost and leading cause of morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study is to analyze the clinical patterns and offending drugs as well as their causality, severity and preventive strategies.

Methods: All adverse drug reactions (ADRs) forms filled from May 2015 to April 2016 were scrutinized and forms with cutaneous drug reactions were analyzed and assessed for causality, severity and preventability.

Results: Out of 300 ADR forms, 160 (53.34%) included cutaneous drug reactions. 68 (42.50%) patients were male and 92 (57.50%) were female. Maculopapular rash 58 (36.25%), fixed drug eruption (FDE) 31 (19.37), pruritus 27 (16.87%) and urticaria 19 (11.87%) were the common clinical patterns of cutaneous drug reactions. Most common offending drug classes included antibiotics, anti-inflammatory and steroidal agents. Causality assessment was done by using Naranjo’s algorithm. The result showed that out of 160 cutaneous drug reactions 141 (88.12%) ADRs were probable, 15 (9.37%) were classified as possible; 2 (1.25) doubtful and 2 (1.25%) were definitely related to the drug.

Conclusions: The present study shows cutaneous drug reactions are commonly reported at ADR monitoring centre of this tertiary care hospital. Our study suggests that there is a need of intensive monitoring for ADRs in tertiary care hospital for early detection and to ensure the patient safety.

References

Srinivasan R, Ramya G. Adverse drug reaction-Causality assessment. IJRPC. 2011;1:606-612.

Ghosh S, Leelavathi DA, Rao PM. Study and evaluation of various cutaneous adverse drug reactions in Kasturba Hospital, Manipal. Indian Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences. 2006;68:212-5.

Nayak S, Acharjya B. Adverse cutaneous drug reaction. Indian J Dermatol. 2008;53:2-8.

Shinkai K, Stern RS, Wintroub BU. Cutaneous drug reactions. In: Longo DL, Fauci AS, Kasper DL, et al., eds. Harrison’s principles of internal medicine. 18th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, United States of America; 2012:432-440.

Sharma VK, Sethuraman G, Kumar B. Cutaneous adverse drug reactions: Clinical pattern and causative agents-A six-year series from Chandigarh, India. J Postgrad Med. 2001;47:95-9.

Naldi L, Conforti A, Venegoni M. Cutaneous reactions to drug: an analysis of spontaneous reports in four Italian regions. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1999;48:839-46.

Yadav S. Status of adverse drug reaction monitoring and pharmacovigilance in selected countries. Indian J Pharmacol. 2008;40:4-9.

Segal AR, Doherty KM, Leggott J, Zlotoff B. Cutaneous Reactions to Drugs in Children. Pediatrics. 2007;120(4):e1082-96.

Naranjo CA, Busto U, Sellers EM, Sandor P, Ruis I, Roberts EA, et al. A method for estimating the probability of adverse drug reactions. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1981;30:239-45.

Hartwig SC, Siegel J, Schneider PJ. Preventability and severity assessment in reporting adverse drug reactions. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1992;49:2229-32.

Schumock GT, Thornton JP. Focusing on the preventability of adverse drug reactions. Hosp Pharm. 1992;27:538.

Balpande KG, Borkar AS, Badwaik RT. Study of clinical patterns in patients with cutaneous adverse drug reactions. IJMPS. 2013;3:34-9.

Mahapatra S, Keshri PdU. Adverse cutaneous drug reactions in a tertiary care centre patients: a prospective analysis. Journal of Applied Pharmaceutical Science. 2012;2:96-8.

Pudukadan D, Thappa DM. Adverse cutaneous drug reactions: clinical pattern and causative agents in a tertiary care center in South India. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2004;70:20-24.

Sharma R, Dogra D, Dogra N. A study of cutaneous adverse drug reactions at a tertiary center in Jammu, India. Indian Dermatol Online J. 2015;6:168-71.

Khafaga Y, Jamshed A. Stevens-Johnson Syndrome in Patients on Phenytoin and Cranial Radiotherapy; Act a Oncologica. 1999;111-116.

Package leaflet: Information for the user. www.medicines.org.uk/emc/24640.

Abanti S, Das KN, Hazra A, Gharami CR, Chowdhury NS, et al. Cutaneous adverse drug reaction profile in a tertiary care outpatient setting in Eastern India. Indian Journal of Pharmacology. 2012;44:792-7.

Downloads

Published

2016-12-24

How to Cite

Manjhi, P. K., Mohan, L., Dikshit, H., Mishra, H., Kumar, M., & Dokania, S. (2016). Cutaneous drug reactions notified by ADR monitoring centre in a tertiary care hospital of Bihar. International Journal of Basic & Clinical Pharmacology, 6(1), 80–84. https://doi.org/10.18203/2319-2003.ijbcp20164756

Issue

Section

Original Research Articles