No abstract

Hypersensitivity reactions are common adverse drug reactions (ADRs) associated with antiepileptics. Carbamazepine is one of the routinely prescribed drugs for the treatment of epilepsy and neuropathic pain. ADRs due to carbamazepine range from mild maculopapular rash to severe anticonvulsant hypersensitivity syndrome (AHS). AHS is the triad of fever, rash, and internal organ involvement occurring 1-8 weeks after exposure to an anticonvulsant (1 in 1,000 to 10,000 exposures). Spontaneously reported three cases of AHS-drug hypersensitivity reactions induced by carbamazepine are discussed here. Seven to ten days after starting therapy, patients developed maculopapular skin rashes, fever and liver or kidney involvement. The causal relationship between drug and ADR was found to be ‘certain’ in one case and ‘probable’ in other two cases with both WHO-UMC and Naranjo causality assessment scale. All the three cases show category 4a according to Hartwig's severity scale as ADR was the cause for hospital admission. On assessing preventability of ADRs by modified Schumock and Thorntons’ scale, one case was falling into category of ‘definitely preventable’ and other two were ‘not preventable’. AHS is rare but serious reaction with carbamazepine which requires vigilant monitoring by physicians to avoid major consequences.

Background: The benefits of optimum blood pressure (BP) control in patients with diabetes exceed the benefits of glycaemic control and extend to the prevention of both macro-vascular and micro-vascular complications in patients suffering from both hypertension and diabetes mellitus. Aims & Objective: To investigate the utilization patterns of anti-hypertensive drugs and to evaluate blood pressure (BP) control among diabetic-hypertensive patients with and without reduced renal function. Material and Methods: A prospective, observational study carried out at medicine department of SBKS Medical College and Research Centre, Piparia. The pattern of use of antihypertensive drugs in 50 hypertensive-diabetic patients was evaluated in correlation with its renal function and BP control achieved was compared in patients with and without reduced renal function. Results: Total 63 antihypertensive medication episodes were prescribed for 50 patients. Out of which 76% patients were receiving 1 drug, 22% receiving 2 drugs and 2% receiving 3 drugs of different antihypertensive class. Most patients were receiving Angiotensin-Converting-Enzyme-Inhibitors (ACE-I)/Angiotensin-Receptor-Blockers (ARBs) (60%), followed by CCBs (24%), beta-blockers (20%), and diuretics (16%). Patients on monotherapy were mostly receiving ACE-I/ARB (65.78%). Beta blockers were more commonly prescribed in patients with reduced renal function (p=0.005). BP control was achieved in 63.15% patients in monotherapy and 33.33% in polytherapy group. Control of systolic and diastolic BP was significantly higher in patients without reduced renal function than patients with reduced renal function (p<0.05). Conclusion: There was suboptimum use of combination therapy among diabetic-hypertensive patients in general and specifically in developing countries as reflected by control achieved in systolic and diastolic BP which requires concern of all healthcare professionals.

Background: Revised National Tuberculosis Control Programme (RNTCP) based on Directly Observed Treatment Short-course (DOTS) strategy has been made available in entire country by March 2006. Given high rate of unfavourable treatment outcomes reported in some provinces, there is a need to analyse outcomes and identify possible trends and associated risk factors that can help for improvement in RNTCP.Methods: After getting Institutional Ethics Committee (IEC) approval, total of 76 cases diagnosed and treated for Tuberculosis (TB) under Category I of RNTCP were recruited from January to March 2017. All patients were followed up for six months from date of initiating the treatment. The data was obtained from TB treatment register, by patient visit and regular follow-up. The information collected include age and gender of patient, category of treatment, date of treatment initiation, initial sputum conversion, outcome of treatment and date of outcome.Results: Out of total 76 patients, 64 (84.21%) were cured, 5 (6.57%) were lost to follow-up, 4 (5.26%) were failed to treat, 1 (1.32%) patient was died, 1 (1.32%) patient had completed treatment but status was unknown and 1 (1.32%) patient was not evaluated because of transfer. Overall treatment outcome of TB patients under DOTS was matching goal of RNTCP with cure rate of 84.21%.Conclusions: Efforts by DOT providers, adequate patient education, motivating ones in need can bring positive outcomes. In this region, DOTS center is at good working condition in terms of functionality as well as ethically. Gender, age group, residence and initial culture colony did not significantly affect treatment outcome.

Tuberculosis prevention treatment (TPT) is crucial to the eradication of tuberculosis (TB). Through a comprehensive review and meta-analysis, we compared the efficacy and safety of different TPT regimens. We searched PubMed, Google Scholar, and medrxiv.org with search terms Tuberculosis Preventive Treatment, TPT, efficacy, safety, and drug regimens for TPT and all RCT, irrespective of age, setting, or co-morbidities, comparing at least one TPT regimen to placebo, no therapy, or other TPT regimens were screened and those reporting either efficacy or safety or both were included. The meta-analysis data were synthesized with Review Manager and the risk ratio (RR) was calculated. Out of 4465 search items, 15 RCTs (randomized-controlled trials) were included. The TB infection rate was 82/6308 patients in the rifamycin plus isoniazid group (HR) as compared to 90/6049 in the isoniazid monotherapy (H) group (RR: 0.89 (95% CI: 0.66, 1.19; p=0.43). A total of 965/6478 vs 1065/6219 adverse drug reactions (ADRs) occurred in HR and H groups respectively (RR: 0.86 (95%CI: 0.80 0.93); P<0.0001). Efficacy analysis of the rifampicin plus pyrazinamide (RZ) vs H showed that the risk ratio of infection rate was not considerably varied (RR: 0.97 (95% CI: 0.47, 2.03); P=0.94). Safety analysis showed in 229/572 patients developed ADRs in rifampicin plus pyrazinamide as compared to 129/600 ADRs in the isoniazid group. (RR: 1.87 (95% CI: 1.44, 2.43)). Safety analysis of only rifamycin (R) vs H group showed 23/718 ADRs in R vs 57/718 ADRs in H group (RR: 0.40 (95% CI: 0.25 0.65); P=0.0002). Rifamycin plus isoniazid (3HP/R) has no edge over other regimens in terms of efficacy but this regimen was found significantly safer as compared to any other regimens used for TPT. Rifampicin plus pyrazinamide (RZ) was found equally efficacious but less safe as compared to other regimens.