Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 11763

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferences
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"

Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018

Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."

Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018

Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."

Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018

Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."

Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
On Sep 2018

Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."

Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata

Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
On Aug 2018

Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".

Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
On Aug 2018

Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".

Dr. Mamta Gupta
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018

Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.

Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."

Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
On May 11,2011

Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."

Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
On April 2011

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.

Dr. Anuradha
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2009 | Month : April | Volume : 3 | Issue : 2 | Page : 1395 - 1401 Full Version

Safety Evaluation Of Antitubercular Therapy Under Revised National Tuberculosis Control Programme In India

Published: April 1, 2009 | DOI:

*,**,**** Deptt of Pharmacy Practice, Manipal College of Pharmaceutical SciencesManipal, Udupi District, Karnataka, (India). ***,Deptt of Tuberculosis and Respiratory DiseasesKasturba Medical College, Manipal, Udupi District,Karnataka, (India). *****Deptt of Hospital and Clinical Pharmacy/ Deptt of PharmacologyManipal Teaching Hospital / Manipal College of Medical Sciences, Pokhara, (Nepal)

Correspondence Address :
Leelavathi D Acharya M.Pharm
Selection Grade Lecturer
Department of Pharmacy Practice
Manipal College of Pharmaceutical Sciences
Manipal, Udupi District, India.
Phone No: 0091- 0820- 2922403


Introduction: The World Health Organization declared tuberculosis (TB) as a global emergency in 1993. To intensify the efforts to control TB, the Government of India gradually replaced the National Tuberculosis Programme by the Directly Observed Short Course Therapy (DOTS) programme which is now known as the Revised National Tuberculosis Programme (RNTCP).
Objectives: The present study was carried out to evaluate the safety of the DOTS therapy by monitoring adverse drug reactions (ADRs).
Methodology: All the TB patients admitted at the DOTS centre Kasturba Hospital, Manipal, and at the DOTS Centre, Udupi, were enrolled as per the study criteria and were monitored for ADRs. The data were evaluated for patient demography, types of TB, types of DOTS treatment, incidence of ADRs, predisposing factors for developing ADRs and the types, onset, management and outcome of the ADRs. ADRs were also assessed for their causality and severity as per the standard algorithms.
Results: Out of 94 TB patients, a majority of them were males (70%) and belonged to the age group of 18-40 years (52%). The incidence of ADRs was 17.02%. Gastritis was the most common ADR and multiple drug therapy was the major predisposing factor. We found that 28.51% of the total ADRs belonged to Type-A ADRs. In 87.1% of the cases, the suspected drug was continued in spite of the ADR, without any complications. On evaluation of the causality of ADRs, a majority of them were found to be ‘possible’ by both WHO and Naranjo’s scales. The severity assessment of ADRs showed that 31(51%) reactions were moderate and 30 (49%) were of the ‘mild’ nature.
Conclusion: We found DOTS therapy to be safer. But regular monitoring is required for ADRs, so that certain percentage of ADRs can be prevented.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) declared tuberculosis (TB) as a global emergency in 1993. Southeast Asia dominates the worldwide distribution of notified cases (36% of the total cases). The global rate of tuberculosis is growing at approximately 1.1% per year(1). India ranks first in the estimated number of tuberculosis cases, and approximates to1761 (thousands) cases per 10, 49,549 population at the rate of 168 cases per 1, 00, 000 population (1). Before the advent of the DOTS programme, high prevalence countries like India had a National TB Programme to combat the problem of TB. India’s National Tuberculosis Programme (NTP) was started in 1962 (NTP employs a daily regimen of anti-TB drugs) as a truly integrated programme, implemented through District Tuberculosis Centres (DTCs) and peripheral health institutions. After more than three decades, the NTP has made notable, but not spectacular progress. The overall case- finding programmes are about 33% and treatment efficiency is of the same order or worse(2).

In order to intensify the efforts to control TB, the Government of India gradually replaced NTP by the DOTS strategy/programme in 1993 and it is now known as the Revised National Tuberclusis Programme (RNTCP). The objective of this revised strategy is to achieve a cure rate of 85% for infections and seriously ill patients through intermittent (three days a week) supervised short course chemotherapy or the directly observed treatment, short course (DOTS) (3). Under RNTCP, the doses of first line anti-TB drugs (Isoniazid, Rifampicin, Pyrazinamide, Streptomycin and Ethambutol) were standardized on the basis of body weight and were given in different regimens. All regimens have an initial intensive phase lasting 2-3 months, aimed to rapidly kill the TB bacilli, bring about sputum conversion and to afford symptomatic relief .This is followed by a continuation phase lasting 4-6 months, during which the remaining bacilli are eliminated so that relapse does not occur (4).

Antitubercular drugs, just like other drugs used in clinical practice, are not free from ADRs. The added problem is that combinations of drugs are always used for prolonged periods of time and therefore, it is likely that the adverse reactions of one drug may be potentiated by the companion drugs used. Moreover, the Adverse Drug Reactions (ADRs) to the drugs used is one of the major reasons for the patient default for treatment. A general knowledge of the various ADRs and their management is essential for the effective management of TB (5). All antitubercular drugs can cause adverse drug reactions6 and may result in ADRs involving almost all systems in the body, including the gastrointestinal tract, liver, skin, nervous system, otovestibular apparatus and the eyes (7). Numerous clinical trials have determined that there is a 15% probability of an adverse effect occurring in a patient who is on a multiple antitubercular drug regimen and adverse reactions mostly tend to occur in the first three months of treatment (8).

In various clinical trials, it was found that intermittent short course regimens that are administered thrice weekly, have largely equivalent efficacy as that of the daily regimen (9). The WHO defines ADR as ‘A response to a drug that is noxious and unintended and occurs at doses normally used in man for prophylaxis, diagnosis or therapy of disease, or for modification of physiological function (10),(11). Identification of the ADR profile of drugs can be useful for the prevention, early detection and management of ADRs. Identifying the causality and severity assessments of ADRs is an important step in ADR monitoring programs. Naranjo’s Algorithm (12) and the WHO Probability Scales (11) are commonly used to carry out the assessment of the causality of the ADRs. Similarly, the Hartwig et al Scale (13) is a commonly used scale for identifying the severity of ADRs. Various studies on DOTS vs daily regimen conducted till date, evaluated the efficacy of the dosage regimen (14),(15),(16),(17). There are studies done to evaluate the safety in regular regimens; however, very few studies have been done till date to evaluate the safety of the DOTS regimen. Hence, there is a need to study the safety of patients on DOTS through the monitoring of ADRs in a hospital set up. Hence, the present study was undertaken with the following objectives.

1. To collect the demographic details of the patients receiving DOTS therapy

2. To identify the incidence and pattern of ADRs caused by the antitubercular drugs in DOTS patients.

3. To assess the causality and severity assessments of the reported ADRs

Material and Methods

Study Design
Prospective observational study.

Study Site
The study sites were the DOTS entre, Kasturba Hospital, Manipal, Karnataka, India, and the DOTS Centre, Government Hospital, Udupi, Karnataka, India.

Ethical Committee Approval
The Ethical Committee approval was taken from the Ethical Committee of Kasturba Hospital, Manipal, India.

Study Duration
Eight months (October 2005-May2006)

Operational Modality
All the patients of tuberculosis, admitted in the above centers, were enrolled for the study as per study criteria, by taking their informed consent and were monitored for ADRs. The patient profile of all the patients was maintained by using case sheets to identify the type of treatment (DOTS category), disease classification, the type of patient, date of start and completion of DOTS treatment, record of follow-up and the outcome of the patient’s treatment. ADRS are identified or reported by following ways:

1. Participation in ward rounds: Investigators (Pharmacists) participated in ward rounds along with the clinicians and collected the ADR reports.

2. Review of patient case files by the investigators (Pharmacists).

3. Interviewing of the patients by the investigators (Pharmacists).

All the suspected ADRs were also evaluated for their causality using Naranjo’s Algorithm (12) and the WHO Probability Scale (11). Severity assessment was done using the Hartwig et al Scale (13).


A total of 94 tuberculosis patients who were on DOTS therapy were enrolled for the study. Out of this, 87 patients were from the DOTS Centre, Govt. Hospital, Udupi, and 7 were from the DOTS Centre, Kasturba Hospital, Manipal. The demographic details of the patients receiving DOTS, are listed in (Table/Fig 1).

The Demographic Details Of The Patients Experiencing ADRs
Out of 94 patients, 16 patients developed 21 ADRs with an overall incidence of 17.02%. Among the 16 patients, 11(69%) developed only one ADR and 5 (31%) developed two ADRs each. Among 21 reported ADRs, the highest numbers of ADRs [20 (95%)] were observed in males and the remaining 1 (5%) was observed in a female. Out of 21 ADRs, 9 (42.85%) each, were observed in the age group of 18-40 years and 41-60 years. Three (14.28%) ADRs were observed in the age group of 61 and above. Out of 21 ADRs, 10 (47%) were from patients on Category II of the DOTS therapy, followed by 9 (43%) from Category I and the remaining 2 (10%) were from patients on Category III treatment.

Types Of ADRs
The different types of ADRs reported, are listed in (Table/Fig 2).

Predisposing Factors
The commonest predisposing factors for the development of ADRs were multiple drug therapy in 8 cases (38.09%) and there were no predisposing factors in the 8 (38.09%) cases. Dose, age, and alcoholism were found to be the other predisposing factors in 1 (4.76%), 3 (14.28%) and 1 (4.76%) cases, respectively.

Time Of Onset Of ADRs
Out of the 21 ADRs, most of them [7(33.33%)] occurred within a week of treatment, followed by 6 (28.57%) in the second week, 3 (14.28%) in the third week and 1(4.76%) each in the fourth, fifth and sixth weeks of the initiation of DOTS treatment. Two (9.52%) of the ADRs occurred on the first day of the treatment itself.

Management Of ADRs
In 3 (14.28%) cases, the ADRs were managed by withdrawing the suspected drugs. Out of these, in 2 (9.52%) cases, symptomatic treatment was given whereas in 1(4.76%) case, specific treatment was given. In 18 (85.71%) cases, the drug was continued in spite of the occurrence of ADRs. Out of these, in 9 (42.85%) cases, symptomatic treatment was given, whereas in 9 (42.85%) cases, no treatment was given. In none of the cases was the dose of the drug altered/reduced.

Outcome of the ADR
In 13 (61.90%) cases, the patients recovered from ADRs without any complications and in 6 (28.57%) cases, the reactions continued on discharge, while in 2 (9.52%) cases, the outcome was unknown as patients got discharged. There were no fatal reactions during the study period.

Pattern Of Dechallenge And Rechallenge
Out of the 21 cases, dechallenge of the suspected drug was done in 3 (14.28%) cases, in 18 (85.71%) cases, there was no dechallenge of the drug, and definite improvement was observed in all the 3 (14.28%) cases where dechallenge was done. Out of 3 cases of dechallenge, in 2 (9.53 %%) cases, rechallenge of drugs was done, whereas in one case (4.76%), there was no rechallenge done. In both the cases of rechallenge, there is no recurrence of symptoms observed.

Number Of Drugs Involved In ADRs
Among 21 ADRs, 6 (28.57%) ADRs were caused by single drug, whereas in the other 15 (71.42%), ADRs were suspected to be caused by more than one drug. It was found that 47% of ADRs were caused by the CAT II regimen, which may due to a majority of patients receiving the CAT II DOTS treatment and it included a 5 drug combination as compared to CAT I (4 drug combination) and CAT III ( 3 drug combination).

Causality Assessment
According to the WHO probability scale, a majority of reactions 47(77.04%) were found to be ‘Possible’, followed by ‘Unassessable’- 7 (11.47%), ‘certain’- 5 (8.19%) and ‘Probable’- 2 (3.27%). As per the Naranjo algorithm, 54 (88.52%) reactions were ‘Possible’, 5 (8.19%) reactions were ‘Unlikely’ and 2 (3.27%) reactions were ‘Probable’.

Severity Assessment Of ADRs
Out of 61 suspected drugs causing 21 ADRs, 31 (51%) reactions of ADRS were moderate, 30 (49%) were mild and no severe reactions were reported as per the Hartwig etal scale.


The recent WHO guidelines on the treatment of tuberculosis mentions extra pulmonary tuberculosis to be accountable for 20-25% of reported cases, being relatively more frequent in children and persons with HIV infection, whereas in our study, 4% were of the extra pulmonary type and the remaining were of pulmonary tuberculosis. It could be so, as children and HIV patients were not included in the present study (18). While evaluating the treatment category, it was observed that a majority of the patients received CAT II DOTS treatment. It shows that these patients were of either type relapse or failure or treatment after default (Total of 52 numbers). A large number of patients (87) were transferred out to their local DOTS Center for further treatment. Three patients died because of tuberculosis itself.

The overall incidence of ADRs in the study was found to be 17.02%, which is almost double as compared to that found in the study carried out by Dhingra et al (19)., which showed that 8.37% of ADRs occurred in patients on DOTS treatment at the New Delhi Tuberculosis Center. Other studies by Dosmu et al(20). showed around 14% and 13% incidence of ADRs in 6 months and 8 months, in patients on DOTS therapy, respectively. A study conducted by the Hong-Kong Chest Services showed around 21% reactions in the intermittent therapy. These variations could be attributed to the number of patients included in each study (14),(15). Moreover, in our study, many patients were on the Category II regimen with five drugs and this could also have contributed to a high incidence of ADRs.

A study conducted by Ormeod et al (21). showed that 64 patients had single adverse drug reactions, while 3 patients suffered from two drug reactions in each case, giving a total of 70 ADRs, whereas in the present study, 11 patients had single adverse drug reactions, while 5 patients suffered from two drug reactions in each case, giving a total of 21 ADRs.

Most of the literature says that the female gender is the one of the predisposing factors for ADRs and also, a study conducted by Daphne et al (22) showed that the female gender is at a high risk of developing ADRs. But in the present study, males developed more ADRs, and it could be because more numbers of males were included in the study. A study conducted by Daphne et al (22) showed that ADRs occur in patients above the age of 60 years. But in the present study, a majority of ADRs were observed in patients with ages below 60 years. It could be because less number of patients with ages above 60 years were included in this study.

The most common ADR was gastritis, out of which 3 occurred within the first week, two occurred within the second week and the remaining three occurred within the third week, whose occurrence was less as compared to that seen in the study by Dhingra et al (20), where it was around 53%. The second most common reaction was skin reaction, whose occurrence was comparable to that found in the study conducted by Dhingra et al (19), where it was found to be around 17%. The third most common reaction was hepatitis- 9.52%, whose occurrence was more as compared to that found in the studies conducted by Dhingra et al (19) and Zierski et al (16), where it was found to be around 1% and 3.6-4.6%, respectively.

Vestibular symptoms (Vertigo and Ototoxicity) were noted in two patients who were on DOTS CAT II regimen, aged 47 years and 62 years respectively, in the fourth and seventh week of treatment. The patients were referred for ENT consultation for the confirmation of Ototoxicity. Still, streptomycin was continued, as only a few doses were left. No confirmatory test of Audiometry was done to confirm Ototoxicity, since the patients were poor.

A 62 year old patient developed INH induced psychosis within the first week of treatment and the drug was withdrawn immediately. Antipsychotic drugs were given, after which the reaction subsided and after 4 days, rechallenge was done and there was no further complaint. Peripheral neuropathy occurred in one patient and the predisposing factor was found to be alcoholism. Symptomatic treatment (Diclofenac sodium) was given and the complaint continued, as pyridoxine (specific treatment) was not available in the government hospital set-up. Other reactions observed within a week of treatment were dizziness and anorexia and those observed within the second week were weakness and arthralgia. A number of patients were included in the each study and it was found that various predisposing factors like age, sex, genetics, race, pharmacokinetic parameters, etc, might contribute to the variation in incidences of different ADRs at different sites.

Multiple drug therapy was noticed to be a major predisposing factor for 38.09% of the ADRs. 14.28% of the ADRs were age related and in one patient, it was due to an alcohol habit while in another patient, it was due to an increased dose of pyrazinamide. In the first four weeks, around 76.18% of the ADRs occurred within four weeks of DOTS therapy, which was approximately similar to that found by Dhingra et al (19), where it was found to be around 67%.

Causality assessment using standard methods is probably the best way to establish the causal relationship between a drug and its effect. The Naranjo algorithm 12 is used widely in the causality assessment of ADRs. It is based on the score calculated on the basis of points assigned to each of the ten questions that comprises the table. On a scale with a maximum of 13 points, scores greater than 9 confirmed the adverse reaction by the incriminate drug. A score of 5-8 was considered as ‘probable’, while a score of 1-4 was categorized as ‘possible’ ADR. In our study, we found a majority of the ADRs to be ‘possible’.

In order to take appropriate initiatives towards the management of ADRs, it is necessary to assess the severity of the ADRs. The Hartwig’s scale (13) is widely used for the purpose. This scale categorizes the adverse drug reactions into different levels as mild, moderate or severe, which is helpful in deciding whether hospitalization is required or not. The severity assessment of the reported ADRs revealed that most of the ADRs were mild and moderate. Among the reported ADRs, 28.57% were type A reactions which were dose related, pharmacologically predictable and were likely to improve if the medicine was withdrawn e.g. pyrazinamide induced hepatitis due to increased dose administration. Hepatitis due to DOTS, CAT I, INH induced psychosis and peripheral neuropathy is also dose related and others include dizziness, weakness which was common with ATT drugs. Others (71.43%) belonged to type B, which were unrelated to the known pharmacological actions of the drug and were generally unrelated to the dosage of the drug.


An incidence of 17.02% of ADRs was identified under the Revised National Tuberculosis Control programme in India. Males had a higher incidence of ADRs. In general, the number of ADRs was high in males. Gastritis was the most common ADR and multiple drug therapy was the major predisposing factor. In 87.1% of the cases, the suspected drug was continued in spite of the ADR, without any complications. On evaluation of the causality of ADRs, a majority of them were found to have a ‘possible’ association with the suspected ADRs. Nearly half- 31(51%) of the ADRs were ‘moderate’ in severity. No severe life threatening ADRs were observed during the study period. Most of the ADRs belonged to the ‘mild’ or ‘moderate’ severity category. We found DOTS therapy safer, but regular monitoring is required for ADRs, so as to prevent the ADRs at the initial stage.


. Maher D, Raviglione M. Global Epidemiology of Tuberculosis. Clinics in Chest Medicine 2005; 26: 167-82.
. Banavaliker NJ. Control in high prevalence countries. In: Davies PDO. Clinical tuberculosis, Mumbai: K M. Varghese Company, 2003; 381-401.
. Shashikant. Control of tuberculosis. In: Sharma. S.K, Mohan, Tuberculosis. New Delhi: Jaypee Brothers, 2004; 556-58.
. Tripathi.K.D. Antitubercular drugs, Essentials of Medical Pharmacology. New delhi: Jaypee Brothers, 2003; 705-8.
. Devi S, Ramchandran R, Santha S. Adverse reaction to antituberculosis drugs and their management. Bulletin 1997 July and Oct; 4 (3 and 4).
. Bedi RS. Pyrazinamide- induced hypersensitivity reaction. Indian Journal of Tuberculosis 1990; 37: 41.
. Tandon. RK, Garg PK. Antituberculosis treatment induced hepatotoxicity. In: Sharma. S K, Mohan, Tuberculosis. New Delhi: Jaypee Brothers, 2004; 500.
. Stork CM, Hoffman RS. Toxicology of Antituberculosis drugs. In: Rom. W.N, Gary.S., Tuberculosis. Newyork: Little, Brown and company, 1996; 829-837.
. Yew WW. Chemotherapy of Tuberculosis: present future and beyond . In: Davies P.D.O, Clinical tuberculosis, Mumbai: K.M. Varghese Company, 2003: 191-200.
. Edwards IR, Aronson JK. Adverse drug reactions: definition; diagnosis and management. Lancet 2000; 356: 1255-9.
. Parthasarthi.G, Karin N, Milap C Nahata. A Text of Clinical Pharmacy Practice, Essential Concepts of Skills, 1st Edition, Orient Longman, India 2001; 84-97.
. Naranjo CA, Busto U, Sellers EM. A method of Estimating the probability of Adverse Drug Reactions. Clin Pharm Ther 1981; 30: 239-45.
. Hartwig SC, Sieegel JJ, Schneider PJ. Preventability and severity assessment in Reporting Adverse Drug Reactions. Am J Hosp Pharm 1992; 49: 2229-32.
. Hong Kong chest service /Tuberculosis research centre, Madras/ British medical research council. A controlled trial of 3-month, 4 month and 6 month regimens of chemotherapy for sputum- smear-negative pulmonary tuberculosis. Results at 5years. Am Rev Respir Dis 1989; 139: 871-6.
. Hong Kong chest service/ British medical research council. Controlled trial of four thrice –weekly regimens and a daily regimen all given for 6 months for oulmonary tuberculosis. Lancet 1981; 1: 171-4.
. Zierski, M, Bek, E; Side effects of drug regimens used in short-course ... tuberculosis: A controlled clinical study. Tubercle. 1980; 61: 41- 9.
. Poole G, Stradling P, Worlledge S. Potentially serious side effects of High-dose twice –weekly rifampicin. Br Med J 1971; 3: 343-7.
. World Health Organization. Treatment of tuberculosis: guidelines for national programmes. Third edition, 2002. Available on
. Dhingra VK, Rajpal S, Aggarwal N, Aggarwaln JK, Shadab K, Jain SK.. Adverse drug reactions observed during DOTS. J Commun Dis 2004; 36: 251-9
. Dosumu A. Side Effects Of drugs Used in Directly Observed Treatment Short – Course In Newly Diagnosed Pulmonary Tuberculosis Subjects In Neigerians : A controlled Clinical Study. Niger Post Grad Medical Journal- 2002; 9(1): 34-7.
. Ormerod LP, Horsfield N. Frequency and Type of reactions to antituberculosis drugs: observations in routine treatment. Tubercle and Lung Disease 1996; 77: 37-42.
. Daphne Y, Marthe P et al. Incidence of serious side effects from First-line antituberculosis drugs among patients treated for Active Tuberculosis. Am J Resp Crit Care Med 2003: 167; 1472-7.

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)