Background: Approximately 80% of deaths in diabetic patients are attributable to cardiovascular disease (CVD), which in turn is highly correlated with diabetic dyslipidemia. Statins are drug of choice for raised LDL-C in treating dyslipidemia. The present study compares the efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin against commonly used atorvastatin in patients of type 2 diabetes mellitus with dyslipidemia, so as to guide the present treatment strategies in the management of the same in Indian population.Methods: The study was a single blinded study conducted in a district level tertiary care hospital attached to a medical teaching institute. Patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria were randomized in two groups. Group I received atorvastatin (10mg) and group II received rosuvastatin (5mg) at bedtime orally daily. Serum TC, serum LDL-C, serum HDL-C and serum TG were assessed on week 0, week 6 and week 12.Results: At the end of 12 weeks, the percentage reduction of LDL-C levels in atorvastatin group was 33.58% whereas in rosuvastatin group, it was 43.12%. The percentage reduction in total cholesterol (TC) in atorvastatin group was 24.85% while in rosuvastatin group, it was 30.8%. Rise in HDL-C levels in atorvastatin group was 7.1% whereas in rosuvastatin group, it was 11.16%. All these differences were statistically significant. There was no significant difference in reduction of TG levels between the two groups.Conclusions: Rosuvastatin 5mg causes greater reduction in LDL-C and TC, comparable reduction of TG and greater rise in HDL-C when compared with atorvastatin 10mg therapy.

Background: Bronchial asthma is one of the most common chronic disease in the world affecting around 334 million people. Management of bronchial asthma includes multidrug therapy for long duration, which leads its association with adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Pharmacovigilance studies of antiasthmatic agents are scare in india.Therefore, the present study was planned to monitor and evaluate adverse drug reactions associated with antiasthmatic agents. Objectives: The present study was conducted to evaluate the pattern, causality and severity analysis of adverse drug reactions associated with antiasthmatic agents in a tertiary care centre. Materials and Methods: 150 patients of either gender, ageing above 18 years with established bronchial asthma attending outpatient and inpatient department of medicine at a tertiary care centre interviewed during the time period of October 2016 to February 2017.Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation (CDSCO) ADR forms were filled. World Health Organisation-Upasala Monitoring Centre (WHO-UMC) causality categories were used for assessment of causality. Severity of ADRs was assessed by using Hartwig and siegel scale. Results: A total 33 ADRs were reported in 23 patients out of 150 bronchial asthma patients. Among the 23 patients reported with ADRs 10 (43.47%) were male while 13 (56.52%) were female. Oral thrush was most common ADR (33.33%) followed by palpitation (15.15%), sore throat (12.12 %), running nose, tremors (each 9.09%), dry mouth, GI distress, bitter taste (each 6.06%) and headache (3.03%) among the patients of bronchial asthma receiving antiasthmatic agents. Most ADRs were associated with inhalational Beclomathasone (58.33%) followed by inhalational budesonide (25%), montelukast (23.07%), salbutamol (18.75%), theophylline (14.29%), ipratropium (7.4%) and salmeterol (02.22%). According to WHO-UMC categories 48.57% ADRs were found to be probable while 51.42% were possible. Highest percentage of ADRs 75.79% were classified as mild and 24.24% were moderate on Hartwig and Siegle scale. Conclusion: Results of our study highlighted the need for ADR monitoring of antiasthamatics in asthma patient. Patients receiving inhalational steroids needs to be proper councelling and also written

With continuous rapid expansion of the human population there is escalating demand for resources, including human and veterinary pharmaceuticals. This has lead to rapid development of global pharmaceutical industry and with that increase in issues caused by pharmaceutical products. In recent years a great concern has been expressed over the occurrence and persistence of pharmaceutical products in the environment and their potential impact on environment. Owing to this the new branch of science called environmental pharmacology has sprouted. Environmental pharmacology deals with dispersion and impact of pharmaceutical products on environment. Solutions need to be suggested to save this only liveable planet from ill effects of these pharmaceutical products. This has given birth to the science of Ecopharmacovigilance (EPV).

Background: Metformin has been recommended as a first-line therapy for T2DM in many guidelines. Adding a sulfonylurea to metformin has been a conventional and gold standard for decades to achieve tight glycaemic control. dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, an incretin-based therapy has emerged as important adjunctive drugs in T2DM. Therefore, the present study was planned to evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of combination metformin-vildagliptin and metformin-glimepiride in patients of T2DM inadequately controlled with metformin monotherapy.Methods: A total 45 patients were allocated to each metformin-vildagliptin group and metformin-glimepiride group. Fasting plasma glucose, post prandial plasma glucose, body weight, adverse events were recorded at 0 week, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks. Glycosylated haemoglobin was recorded at 0 week and 12 weeks.Results: There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (p>0.05) at the end of 12 weeks in the mean percentage reduction in FPG, PPPG and HbA1c.There was statistically highly significant (p<0.0001) difference between the two groups in mean percentage change in weight at the end of 12 weeks. Hypoglycemic events were significantly (p<0.05) more in metformin-glimepiride group. There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of other adverse events between the two groups (p>0.05).Conclusions: In patients of T2DM with inadequately controlled metformin monotherapy, combination metformin-vildagliptin provides comparable efficacy in terms of FPG, PPPG and HbA1c to that of combination metformin-glimepiride with no risk of weight gain reduction in risk of hypoglycemic events.