Carcinoma is one of the most common cause of morbidity and mortality all over the world. Chemotherapy is main stay of treatment with other modalities in the management. Present study had been conducted to evaluate prescribing pattern of anticancer drugs. An observational, retrospective study was conducted in the oncology department of ESI hospital over a period of one year. Data of patients greater than 19 years and diagnosed as carcinoma were included in the study. Out of 197 enrolled patients, majority were female (134, 68%) and in the age group of 41-60 years (147, 74.61% patients). Carcinoma of breast (58, 29.44%) was most commonly reported followed by carcinoma head and neck (46, 23.35%), and carcinoma cervix (34, 17.25%). Chemotherapy was commonly used as combination regimens (160, 81.21%). 5-Fluoro Uracil (5-FU) and platinum based combination were most frequently prescribed (60, 30.45%) especially in head and neck carcinoma (46, 23.35%). Platinum based combinations were also used in management of lung carcinoma. Dexamethasone, Ranitidine, Ondansetron, were used as palliative therapy either to prevent or manage adverse reactions of anticancer drugs.

<p class="abstract"><strong>Background:</strong> An adverse cutaneous drug reaction (ACDR) is defined as an undesirable clinical manifestation resulting from administration of a particular drug. With an ever increasing number of drugs and varied formulations being continuously made available it is important that a close watch on the risks of adverse drug reactions is looked for, to ensure safe use of medicines in the interest of the patient. In the present study our aim is to study the prevalence &amp; pattern of cutaneous adverse drug reactions reported to department of dermatology at MediCiti Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad, India<span lang="EN-IN">.</span></p><p class="abstract"><strong>Methods:</strong> All suspected cutaneous adverse drug reactions reported to the department of dermatology at MediCiti Institute of Medical Sciences during the two year period from January 2013 to December 2014 were included in this study. A thorough clinical examination of all these cases &amp; details related to the drug use and clinical manifestations of the cutaneous adverse drug reaction were documented using a structured proforma. Naranjo scale was used to assess causality in all the causes of cutaneous adverse drug reactions.<strong></strong></p><p class="abstract"><strong>Results:</strong> The mean age of the patients was 42 years (age range: 1-64 years). Most of them were in the age group of 30-39 years. The male to female ratio was 1.78:1. The most common type of skin eruptions observed were maculopapular rash (35.55%), urticaria (26.19%) and fixed drug eruption (17.87%). The mean duration between drug intake and appearance of rash was 4 days (range: 1-120 days)<span lang="EN-IN">. </span></p><p class="abstract"><strong>Conclusions:</strong> The pattern of ACDRs and the drugs causing them in this study were similar to that reported in other studies both in terms of disease burden and clinical pattern. Knowledge of adverse cutaneous drug reactions will help to identify common medications contributing to dermatological reactions, so as to anticipate, prevent and limit their undue consequences<span lang="EN-IN">.</span></p>

Background: Hypertensive disorders represent the most common medical complication of pregnancy, with a reported incidence of 6-10% and accounts for 15% of maternal mortality. Effective management of pregnancy induced hypertension is vital to improve maternal and foetal outcomes. As data are scarce on comparison of labetolol and methyldopa this study was undertaken. The objective of present study is compare the efficacy and safety of Labetalol versus Methyldopa in the management of Mild to Moderate pregnancy induced hypertension. To evaluate effect of both drugs on maternal and foetal outcomes.Methods: A comparative observational study is designed. 30 patients who received methyldopa and 30 patients who received labetalol were included in the study. Methyldopa was started at a dose of 250-500 mg thrice daily while labetalol was started at a dose of 100-400 mg twice daily. Patients were followed up during antenatal, intrapartum and postpartum period for efficacy, safety, maternal, and perinatal outcomes.Results: Methyldopa and Labetalol reduced mean systolic and mean diastolic blood pressures significantly. safety profile of both drugs was similar. Spontaneous vaginal deliveries were observed more with labetolol significantly.Conclusions: Labetalol is equally efficacious as methyldopa and well tolerated in the treatment of new onset hypertension during pregnancy.

Background: Hypertensive disorders represent the most common medical complication of pregnancy, with a reported incidence of 6-10% and accounts for 15% of maternal mortality. Effective management of pregnancy induced hypertension is vital to improve maternal and foetal outcomes. As data are scarce on comparison of labetolol and methyldopa this study was undertaken. The objectives of the study were to evaluate effect of both drugs on fetal outcomes.Methods: A comparative observational Study is designed. 30 patients who received Methyldopa and 30 patients who received Labetolol were included in the study. Methyldopa was started at a dose of 250-500mg thrice daily while Labetolol was started at a dose of 100-400mg twice daily. Patients were followed up during antenatal, intrapartum and postpartum period for perinatal outcomes.Results: Intra Uterine Growth Retarded (IUGR) babies were 10% in Methyldopa group and 6.66% in Labetolol group. 20% of new borns in Methyldopa group and 10% of new borns in Labetolol group got admitted in Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) because of distress. 13.3% of new borns in Methyldopa group are small for gestational age(SGA), whereas only 3.33% in Labetolol group are small for gestational age.Conclusions: Chances of development of IUGR, NICU admissions of neonates with respiratory distress syndrome and small for gestational age babies were more with methyldopa compared to Labetolol, but there was no statistically significant difference between two drugs.

BACKGROUND: Effective postoperative pain control is an essential component of the care of the surgical patient. Inadequate pain control, apart from being inhumane, may result in increased morbidity or mortality. Opioids have been the mainstay of treatment for postoperative pain but their side effects such as respiratory depression, sedation, constipation, urinary retention, nausea, vomiting, hypotension, bradycardia, and itching limit their use. Tramadol is a semi-synthetic opiate which has the advantage of less respiratory depression (<1%) besides its good analgesic effect. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have recently gained wide spread popularity in postoperative pain management. Most NSAIDs have been used for treatment of postoperative pain. However, associated side effects include peptic ulcer disease, gastrointestinal hemorrhage, renal dysfunction, altered liver function, and platelet dysfunction. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of Tramadol and Diclofenac in relieving postoperative pain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A randomized, open labelled, prospective, comparative clinical study was conducted in 80 postoperative patients, to compare the efficacy and safety of Diclofenac and Tramadol. Diclofenac was prescribed to 40 post-operative patients and Tramadol to another 40 post-operative patients for treatment of pain. Patients were assessed for pain score only once in a day. They were asked to report the average pain intensity over the past 24 hours. Pain was assessed from the time of shifting of the patient to post-operative ward till discharge of the patient from the hospital or number of days the study drugs was given, whichever was earlier. RESULTS: The mean pain score on post op day 0 in Diclofenac group was 9.25 and that in Tramadol group was 8.97 (P =0.16).The mean pain score on post-operative day 7 in Diclofenac group was 2.50 and that in Tramadol group was 3.00 (P =0.67.5).The overall incidence of adverse effects was 2.5% in Diclofenac group and 7.5% in Tramadol group (p=0.31) CONCLUSION: Both, Tramadol and Diclofenac were equally effective in reducing post-operative pain. The difference in requirement of rescue analgesia and incidence of adverse effects was statistically insignificant in both the groups.