Background: Several studies have shown lack of sufficient knowledge and awareness among doctors on ADR reporting. Knowledge and attitude of doctors about ADR greatly influences extent of reporting. Identifying factors affecting ADR-reporting is vital to enable Pharmacovigilance teams to implement interventions to enhance rate and quality of reporting of ADRs. Hence, this study is done to evaluate perceptions of doctors towards ADR-reporting and to determine barriers for reporting ADR.Methods: Cross sectional study conducted among doctors using a validated questionnaire to assess knowledge, attitude, practice and barriers for reporting ADRs. The questionnaire captured the demographic details, knowledge (14), attitudes (7) and practice pattern (4) towards pharmacovigilance. Descriptive statistics was used to assess the response among doctors.Results: Of 157 doctors who responded to questionnaire, 90% of doctors were aware of pharmacovigilance program mainly through PVG activities by AMC and pharmacology classes. Only 47% doctors reported ADRs. The composite score on knowledge of ADR reporting and on knowledge of ADR burden was found to be moderate. 90% doctors opined ADR monitoring in hospital should be mandatory. 83% doctors opined ADR reporting by one person can make significant difference to community. One-third doctors felt there should be financial reward for ADR-reporting. In suspected cases, 57% doctors include ADR as differential diagnosis. 61% doctors said they will document ADR in patient file and 78% reports to AMC. More than one-third doctors don’t know where and how to report ADR. One-third doctors felt management of patients was more important than reporting ADR. Nearly one-fourth didn’t report fearing legal liabilities, difficulty diagnosing ADR and negative impact on doctors.Conclusions: Knowledge about ADR-reporting and attitude towards it is adequate. But, because of many barriers, actual practice of ADR-reporting is unsatisfactory. Hence, Pharmacovigilance training is essential for doctors to promote and improve ADR-reporting.

Objective:To examine the factors influencing the pattern and extent of anti-craving medication adherence and drinking outcomes in alcohol-dependent patients.Materials and Methods:Demographic data from 102 inpatients were collected at discharge from hospital. The pattern of anti-craving medication, extent of adherence, and drinking outcome was collected at 1st, 3rd, 8th, and 12th week follow-up. Patients’ self-reported adherence, medication diary, and simplified medication adherence questionnaire were used and data were analyzed using SPSS.Results:Majority (99%) were male patients with a mean age of 41.17 ± 9.86 years and 70% belonged to middle socioeconomic status. There was a decrease in the number of patients coming for follow-up over time from 99.01% to 77.45% on day 90. Acamprosate was used in 74% and naltrexone and disulfiram in 7% of patients each. A significant reduction in adherence to acamprosate and naltrexone (P < 0.001) was associated with simultaneous decrease in days to alcohol abstinence and increase in relapse rate compared to adherent group (P < 0.001). Main barriers to adherence included younger age (odds ratio = 1.05 95% [1.01-1.09]; P < 0.01), self-decision, emotional factors, and adverse effects.Conclusions:The study demonstrated the need for safer therapeutic options along with suitable intervention at grass root level for sustenance of adherence to anti-craving medication among young adults to prevent relapse and achieve near-complete abstinence from alcohol dependence.

Objectives:To compare the safety and efficacy of glucosamine HCl- sustained release (GLU-SR) with that of Glucosamine HCl- immediate release (GLU-IR) in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA).Materials and Methods:This study involved 59 patients with knee OA, randomised to receive single oral dose of 1,500 mg, GLU-SR and GLU-IR for 60 days with 31 and 28 patients, respectively. The primary efficacy (pain and function) was assessed using visual analogue scale (VAS) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores. Intention-to-treat principle, repeated measure of ANOVA and mixed model analysis were used.Results:The patients baseline, demographic and clinical characteristics were comparable between groups with female preponderance (71.20%). There was a significant reduction in algofunctional indices as primary outcome measure in both the groups across time (P < 0.001) and 29% lesser adverse events (AEs) in GLU-SR group, with no difference in the use of rescue medications.Conclusions:The study showed equal efficacy of the glucosamine formulations on algofunctional indices in reducing pain in patients with knee OA with less number of AEs in GLU-SR.

No abstract

Introduction:  The frequency of bacteria affecting urinary tract and their antibiotic susceptibility pattern vary from one territory to another. This study was conducted to determine spectrum of bacterial isolates causing UTI and their antibiotic susceptibility pattern among female patients attending tertiary care center Materials and Methods: A total of 577 female urine culture sensitivity reports (CS) were collected. The culture was done by inoculation by standard loop technique. Antibiotic susceptibility testing for identified bacteria was done by Kirby-Bauer disc diffusion method and result was interpreted as per CLSI guidelines. Data was analyzed using SPSS software. Results: Infection rates were similar up to reproductive age group with no significant difference between gram-positive (GP) and gram-negative organisms (GN) but post reproductive age group suffered more from GN. The most commonly infecting organism was Staphylococci followed by Escherichia coli showing resistance in >50% tests to cephalosporins, penicillin and fluoroquinolones. All antibiotics are showing resistance from one or the other organisms. Conclusion: The commonly infecting bacteria are developing resistance to regularly used antibiotics raising concerns of cross resistance and selection of antibiotics. This warrants due diligence by all stakeholders, including public-health authorities, health care providers, policymakers and even the public to prevent and control antimicrobial resistance.