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

Users Online : 92666

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionKey MessageReferencesDOI and Others
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
Lucknow
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,
Muzaffarnagar.
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,
Bengaluru.
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
Consultant
(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)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
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.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011
Anuradha

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
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2011 | Month : October | Volume : 5 | Issue : 5 | Page : 1069 - 1075

A Retrospective Drug Utilization Study of Antidepressants in the Psychiatric Unit of a Tertiary Care Hospital

Kingshuk Lahon, Harsha M. Shetty, Amith Paramel, Gyaneswar Sharma

Corresponding Author. Postgraduate in Pharmacology, Mahatma Gandhi Medical College and Research Institute, Pondicherry. Core Trainee in Psychiatry- 2, SHO in Psychotherapy, Therapeutic Community and Unity House, London, UK. Earlier affiliation as Junior resident in Psychiatry, Mahatma Gandhi Medical College and Research Institute, Pondicherry.Professor and HOD of Psychiatry, Mahatma Gandhi Medical College and Research Institute, Pondicherry.

Correspondence Address :
Kingshuk Lahon, Associate Professor,
Department of Pharmacology, Mahatma Gandhi Medical
College and Research Institute, Pondicherry-607402, India.
E-mail: kingshukl@yahoo.co.in

Abstract

Introduction: Drug utilization is the marketing, distribution, prescription and the use of drugs in a society. Antidepressant prescribing patterns have changed globally over the last few years. Hence, we wanted to observe the prescribing pattern of antidepressants at our hospital and assess the rationality of the prescriptions and the prevalence of antidepressant usage in the community.

Methods: A retrospective, observational analysis of the case records of patients who received antidepressant prescriptions at the Psychiatry outpatients clinic of a tertiary care hospital during the period from 1st January 2006 to 31st December 2006, to study the pattern and the rationality in prescription of antidepressant drugs, the WHO prescribing indicators, the Defined daily dose (DDD)/1000/day (DID), the Prescribed daily dose (PDD) and the PDD to DDD ratio.

Results: Antidepressants were prescribed in 76.18% prescriptions (duloxetine – 50%, escitalopram – 22.40%, mirtazapine – 17.19%, sertraline – 6.77% and others – 3.64%). The average number of drugs/prescription was 2.32, the number of drugswhich were prescribed by their generic names was 88.54% and the number of drugs which were prescribed from WHO EML was 1.56%. There were no prescriptions for FDCs or injectibles. The DID of the antidepressants was 0.02 mg. The PDD to DDD ratios were < 1 for duloxetine and mirtazapine; for others, they were ≥1.

Conclusion: Antidepressants were the most commonly prescribed psychotropic medicines. Duloxetine, escitalopram, mirtazapine and sertraline were the most commonly used ones. The prescriptions were complete and without polypharmacy. Favourable and unfavourable outcomes were seen for 3 and 2 WHO prescribing indicators respectively. The antidepressant consumption in the community was low. Adequate dosing was seen for all the antidepressants, except for duloxetine and mirtazapine (under-dosing). Adherence to standard treatment guidelines, choosing drugs from the EML and restricting the prescription of concomitant sedative hypnotics will decrease the number of drugs and the cost of the therapy and they will promote the rational use of medicines.

Keywords

Antidepressants, Drug utilization, ATC, DDD, PDD

Introduction
The World Health Organisation (WHO) defines drug utilization as the marketing, distribution, prescription and the use of drugs in a society, with special emphasis on the resulting medical, social and economic consequences (1). Often, drugs are not used, keeping in mind their safety and efficacy (2). Rational drug prescribing is the use of the least number of drugs to obtain the best possible effect in the shortest period and at a reasonable cost (3). Irrational prescribing and disparity between the prescription and the consumption of medicines may offset the benefits which are demonstrated by randomized controlled trials on drug efficacy (4)(5)(6)(7). Moreover, the optimistic expectations of a drug, based on the results of clinical trials, may not materialize when they are used outside controlled settings (8). The recent proliferation of newdrugs, the increasing recognition of delayed adverse effects and the focus on pharmacoeconomic considerations have stimulated interest in the prescribing patterns of physicians (5).

Antidepressant prescribing patterns have changed globally over the last few years, with conventional drugs like tricyclics and MAO inhibitors being gradually replaced by selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIS) and novel antidepressants. The prevalence of antidepressant usage in the community is rising in Western populations, with Iceland, Australia and Sweden having the highest consumption (9).

Therefore, our aim was to study the drug utilization of antidepressant drugs in the psychiatric unit of a tertiary care hospital in Pondicherry. Our objectives were:• To observe the prescribing pattern of antidepressants among psychiatrists at our hospital • To assess the rationality of the prescriptions • To assess the prevalence of antidepressant usage in the community

Material and Methods

A retrospective observational study was carried out in the psychiatric unit of a tertiary care hospital in Pondicherry, which covered the period from 1st January 2006 to 31st December 2006. We used the following inclusion/exclusion criteria for the study:

Inclusion criteria:
1. All patients who attended the Psychiatry outpatients (OP) clinic of the hospital from 1st January 2006 to 31st December 2006. 2. All patients who were diagnosed with depressive or adjustment disorders (diagnosed as per the International Classification of Diseases – ICD 10 criteria) (11) or any condition where antidepressants were indicated.

Exclusion criteria:
1. Patients who did not receive antidepressant drugs. 2. Patients continuing on only those antidepressant drugs which were prescribed outside the hospital.

Case records of the Psychiatry outpatients clinic were taken from the medical records section of the hospital. The data were entered into a pre-designed proforma (Table/Fig 1).

By following the method of Baldessarini RJ et al (11) for defining drug use, we selected prescriptions containing at least one antidepressant as one prescription, from the multiple prescriptions in the case records with follow-up visits. Thus, if the initial prescription was continued, it was regarded as the same prescription for the given duration. Any dose change in that prescription was noted for calculating the drug consumption. The addition of another antidepressant to or a change of the antidepressant from the existing regimen was regarded as a separate prescription. In both the cases, the number of drugs in the prescription included the added or changed antidepressant(s), along with concomitant medications from the earlier prescription. However, prescriptions containing drugs for co-morbid conditions (non-psychiatric) which were not prescribed in the department of Psychiatry were excluded.

The data were then subjected to analysis for: 1. Demographic details (Age and gender distribution) 2. Psychiatric diagnosis 3. Antidepressant drugs prescribed 4. Rationality of the prescription according to the WHO prescribing indicators. 5. Defined daily dose (DDD) of the antidepressants per thousand inhabitants per day (DID) 6. Prescribed daily dose (PDD) of the antidepressants 7. The PDD to DDD ratio of the antidepressants

The Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification and the Defined Daily Dose (DDD) per thousand inhabitants per day (DID) calculations were used for estimating the antidepressant use in the community.

By following the methodology which was outlined by the WHO (11), we calculated the DID as follows: Amount of antidepressant prescribed in 1 year (mg) Ă— 1000 inhabitants DDD (mg) Ă— 365 days Ă— Population of Pondicherry and Cuddalore

All patients belonged to either Pondicherry or the Cuddalore district of Tamil Nadu. So, for the calculation of DID, we used the population of Pondicherry as well as the Cuddalore district as per the available census.

The total number of DIDs was calculated by adding up the DIDs for the individual antidepressants.

The PDD was calculated as follows: • For each prescription, there were multiple doses of the antidepressants. We took the average of the daily doses for the antidepressant as the PDD. This process was repeated for all the indications of each antidepressant and the final value was the average of the PDDs which were thus obtained. • The PDD to DDD ratio was then calculated.

Statistical analysis: A descriptive statistical analysis was carried out in the present study. The results on the continuous measurements were presented as Mean ± SD (Min-Max) and the results on the categorical measurements were presented as Number (%). The significance was assessed at a 5% level of significance (P<0.05) with 95% confidence interval. The following assumptions were made on the data:

1. The dependent variables should be normally distributed. 2. Samples which are drawn from the population should be random and the cases of the samples should be independent.

The Chi-square/Fisher’s Exact test was used to find the significance of the study parameters on the categorical scale between two or more groups. All statistical calculations were carried out with SPSS Statistical package (Version 15.0).

As it was a non-interventional study, the institutional research committee granted a waiver on the assurance that the subject confidentiality would be maintained. We took the following steps in this regard:

1. Identification of patients by the hospital number only and not by name. 2. Case records to be accessed by investigators in the Medical Records section only. 3. Patient details not to be divulged to any party other than the co-investigators. 4. Proformas to be destroyed after the conclusion of the study.

Results

Out of 222 patients who received psychotropic medicines during the study period, 170 (76.58%) received one or more antidepressants. (Table/Fig 2) shows the different antidepressants which were prescribed(10)(12).

The age distribution of the patients who received antidepressants is shown in (Table/Fig 3) (Table/Fig 4).

Among these 170 patients, 82 were males and 88 were females. The gender distribution of the patients who received antidepressants is shown in (Table/Fig 5).

The distribution of the primary psychiatric diagnoses of the patients who received antidepressants is shown in (Table/Fig 6).

The total number of prescriptions which were given was 192 and a total of 446 drugs were prescribed. Of them, 192 were antidepressant medications of 8 types, as per the ATC class. The number of antidepressant prescriptions along with their indications is shown in (Table/Fig 7).

A change of antidepressant was required on 18 occasions. Duloxetine was substituted on 10 occasions, escitalopram on 4, mirtazapine on 3 and imipramine on 1 occasion. The addition of a second antidepressant was seen on 3 occasions because of the poor response with a single drug. Of them, duloxetine was the first antidepressant on 2 occasions and mirtazapine on 1.

(Table/Fig 8) shows the concomitant medications which were prescribed in the Department of Psychiatry.

(Table/Fig 9) shows the number of drugs per prescription among the 192 prescriptions. More than 5 drugs were not prescribed to any patient.

As per the WHO prescribing indicators, we observed: • Average number of drugs per prescription: 2.32 (446/192) • Percentage of antidepressant drugs which were prescribed by their generic names: 88.54% (170/192 × 100) • Percentage of fixed dose combinations (FDCs) of antidepressants: Nil• Percentage of encounters for prescribing injections of antidepressants: Nil • Percentage of antidepressant drugs which were prescribed from the Essential Medicines List (16th EML of WHO): 1.56 % (3/192 × 100)

Percentage of drugs which were prescribed from the National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM, endorsed 2002) was 2.60 % (5/192 Ă— 100).

The ATC coding, DDD and the calculation of DID are summarized in (Table/Fig 10). The total number of DIDs of the antidepressants was 0.02.

The PDD and the PDD to DDD ratios are also summarized in (Table/Fig 10).

Discussion

Antidepressants were prescribed more in females than in males. This was consistent with the findings of other studies (13), (14). Mirtazapine was prescribed significantly (P<0.05) more in females than in males. The age distribution shows that the majority of patients who received the antidepressants belonged to the 21-40 years age group, in contrast to the results of a study on antidepressant use in East Asia, wherein the mean age of the patients who received antidepressant prescriptions was more than 40 years (15). In another study in Europe, where antidepressants were the second most commonly prescribed psychotropic drugs, a majority of the users were between 35 and 49 years, with a mean age which was greater than 40 years (14). Preferential prescription of sertraline in the 21-40 years age group and of fluoxetine in patients above 60 years was highly significant (P<0.01) as compared to other age groups. There was also a suggestive correlation between prescriptions of escitalopram and 21-40 years age group.

Depressive disorder was the most common psychiatric diagnosis among the population (n=222), with a prevalence of 47.75%. It was also the most common indication for using antidepressants (62.72%), followed by mixed anxiety, depressive disorder and schizophrenia, with post schizophrenic depression among the top three diagnoses.

Antidepressants were the most common psychotropic drugs which were prescribed (76.58%). The choice of the antidepressant was based on the ICD diagnosis, the severity of the disease/ disorder, co-morbidity, drug efficacy and considerations for the patients’ tolerability. Most common antidepressant which was prescribed was the selective noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor (SNRI), duloxetine (50%). The newer antidepressants – duloxetine, escitalopram, sertraline and mirtazapine accounted for the bulk of prescriptions (96.36%), which followed the global trend towards antidepressant prescribing (15)(16)(17)(18)(19). In many studies, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) accounted for the bulk of the prescribed antidepressants, with high prescribing rates (15)(16)(17)(18). In our study, the SSRIs – escitalopram, sertraline and fluoxetine were prescribed on 57 out of192 occasions (29.69%). Among the SSRIs, escitalopram was the preferred drug. Again, this was in contrast to findings of the east Asian study on antidepressant use, wherein fluoxetine and sertraline were prescribed more frequently than escitalopram and the use of escitalopram use was lower than that of trazodone, mirtazapine, imipramine and amitryptiline. However, the prescribing rates of the tricyclic antidepressants, imipramine and amitryptiline were lower than the prevailing norms for their use (15). The doses of antidepressants were decided upon according to the severity of the disease/disorder, starting with low doses and titrating upwards or downwards according to the clinical response and the patients were kept on regular follow-up. Duloxetine was the most common antidepressant which was prescribed for depressive disorder (56.56%), mixed anxiety and depressive disorder (41.38%) and for BPAD (62.50%). The most common antidepressant which was prescribed for Schizophrenia with postschizophrenic depression was escitalopram (44.44%), and for OCD, sertraline was prescribed (80%). However, the widespread use of duloxetine as the first line drug did not conform to the National institute of Clinical Excellence or the American Psychiatric Association guidelines for the prescribing of antidepressants which existed at that time, wherein SSRIs were unanimously regarded as the first choice agents (20), (21).

The prescription of a single antidepressant was common and it occurred in 98.44% of the cases. The reasons for changing an antidepressant were poor therapeutic response or intolerable adverse effects. Duloxetine was the most commonly substituted antidepressant. It was also the most common antidepressant for which an adjunctive antidepressant drug was prescribed.

Sedative hypnotics were the most common group of drugs which were prescribed (65.10%) concomitantly with antidepressants, followed by antipsychotics, mood stabilizers, trihexiphenidyl, acamprosate, propranolol and vitamin B1. Except for Vitamin B1 which was prescribed for alcohol dependence, and propranolol, which was prescribed for the treatment of tremors, all others were psychotropic medications. Trihexiphenidyl was prescribed to counter the extrapyramidal adverse effects of concomitant antipsychotics.

Rational prescribing was followed as per the principles of prescription order writing (22). Considering the definitions of polypharmacy which are most commonly cited, there was no polypharmacy, because there was no prescription of antidepressant medication which did not match the diagnosis and there was no prescription with more than 5 drugs (23). 68.23% of the prescriptions (131 out of 192) had 2 drugs or less, which was recommended. However, there were cases where incorrect diagnosis led to the prescribing of inappropriate drugs initially; it was rectified when the primary diagnosis was revised on follow up. The clinicians’ choice of drugs was not based primarily on the affordability for the patient and so the cheapest drug was not always prescribed.

The average number of drugs per prescription was more than 2, which was high. Prescribing by generic names was high (88.54%). No fixed dose combinations (FDCs) or injectible preparations were prescribed, which indicated rational prescribing practices. The percentage of drugs which were prescribed from the 16th WHO Essential Medicines List and the National Essential Medicines List (endorsed 2002) was low.

The anatomical therapeutic chemical (ATC) classification system divides drugs into different groups according to the organ or system on which they act and their chemical, pharmacological and therapeutic properties (24), (25). Each drug is assigned a particular combination of letters and numbers. The defined daily dose (DDD) is the assumed average maintenance dose per day for a drug which is used for its main indication in adults (24). DDD was developed to overcome the objections against the traditional units of the measurement of drug consumption and to ensure comparability between the drug utilisation studies which were carried out at different locations and at different time periods. The total DID of the antidepressants showed low consumption, in sharp contrast to the trends of western European countries and the USA, especially during the last decade, with high rates of antidepressant prescribing and consumption (9), (26), (27). The DID for duloxetine can be interpreted as 0.0025 out of 1000 patients or 0.025% patients would have used a dose of 60mg. Similarly, the DIDs of escitalopram, mirtazapine, sertraline, imipramine, trazodone, amitryptiline and fluoxetine can be interpreted as the consumption of their respective DDDs by a population of 0.019%, 0.004%, 1.007%, 0.003%, 0.019%, 0.12% and 0.00007% patients.

The prescribed daily dose (PDD) is defined as the average dose which is prescribed according to a representative sample of prescriptions. It is important to relate the PDD to the diagnosis on which the dosage is based. The PDD will give the average daily amount of a drug that is actually prescribed. PDD is especially important for drugs where the recommended dosage differs from one indication to another (e.g. psychotropic drugs). When there is a substantial discrepancy between the PDD and the DDD, it is important to take this into consideration when evaluating and interpreting drug utilization figures, particularly in terms of morbidity (28).

The ratio of PDD to DDD is often used as an indication of the adequacy of dosing. A ratio which was less than 1, as was seen in case of duloxetine and mirtazapine, indicated under-dosing. A ratio which was greater than 1 was seen for sertraline and amitryptiline. All other antidepressants showed a PDD to DDD ratio which was equal to 1, thus reflecting the adequacy of the dosing in these cases (27).

Limitations of the study Our results should however be seen in the light of our small sample size, as compared to the studies with which they have been compared. The limitations of this study were the lack of patient care indicators and some of the facility indicators like the availability of drugs and the impact of cost on the drug treatment, which can increase the utility of the study, but they can only be derived from a prospective design. As with any drug utilization study, it was not possible to monitor the actual use or compliance with the prescribed antidepressant, more so, as it was a retrospective study of case records, where notes on compliance were lacking. Moreover, we could not quantify the data on the comparative clinical effectiveness of the antidepressants.

Strengths of the study The strengths of this study are the use of a structured proforma for data collection with the details of drug prescriptions on follow up visits, and a comprehensive application of drug utilization tools like the ATC/DDD classification and the calculation of the DID and the PDD/DDD ratios to assess the prevalence of antidepressant use in the community of the study population. The documentation of the longitudinal follow-up data gave a better idea of the drug consumption than the cross sectional data. The data on drug substitutions and augmentations as well as concomitant psychotropic medications have also been provided.

Conclusion

Our study shows that depressive disorder was the most common psychiatric diagnosis in the population and that antidepressants were the most commonly prescribed psychotropic medicines. There was a higher prevalence of antidepressant prescribing for women. A majority of the antidepressants were prescribed to young and older adults between 21and 40 years. The SNRI, duloxetine, the SSRIs, escitalopram and sertraline and the atypical antidepressant, mirtazapine, were the most commonly prescribed antidepressants, with or without other concomitant psychotropic medicines. The preference for duloxetine over SSRIs as the first line drug in depressive disorders did not conform to the standard prescribing guidelines. Most of the patients were treated by a single antidepressant. However, poor response and/or tolerability considerations made the prescribers change the antidepressant or add a second antidepressant. Antidepressants were prescribed for many indications other than depressive disorders and the psychiatrists’ choice of the drug was influenced by the diagnosis, the severity of the disease/disorder, co-morbidity, drug efficacy, and the considerations for the patients’ tolerability, but not primarily on the cost of medication. The prescriptions were complete and polypharmacy was not seen. Favourable and unfavourable outcomes were seen for 3 and 2 WHO prescribing indicators respectively. The consumption of antidepressants in the community was low. Adequate dosing was seen for all the antidepressants, except for duloxetine and mirtazapine, for which under-dosing was prevalent.

Recommendations
There is a need for prospective drug utilization studies to overcome some of the limitations of our study. The prescribing habits among psychiatrists should follow a standard treatment national or international guidelines. They can be improved further by creating awareness about the choice of drugs from the Essential Medicines List and by reducing the prescription of sedative hypnotics. Such measures can decrease the number of drugs per prescription and also the cost of therapy. The prescribers should also be encouraged to check for the patients’ compliance with the prescribed medications and to record them in the case sheets. Such measures will promote the rational use of medicines and ultimately, the quality of healthcare.

Key Message

There is a need for prospective drug utilization studies to adequately evaluate patient care and facility indicators. The prescribing habits among psychiatrists can be improved by creating awareness about the choice of drugs according to the standard treatment guidelines and from the Essential Medicines List. Prescriber education can also focus on the reduction in the prescriptions of concomitant sedative hypnotics. The prescribers should also be encouraged to check for the patients’ compliance with the prescribed medications and to record them in the case sheets. Such measures will promote the rational use of medicines and ultimately, the quality of healthcare.

References

1.
World Health Organisation. Introduction to drug utilisation research. Oslo: World Health Organisation, 2003.
2.
Lunde PKM, Levy M. Drug utilization – geographical differences and clinical implications. Introductory remarks. In: Duchene-Marullaz, P, ED. Advances in pharmacology and therapeutics. Oxford, Pergamon Press 1978;6:79-82.
3.
Gross F. Drug utilization therapy and practice. The present situation in the Federal Republic of Germany. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1981;19: 387-94.
4.
Cochrane AL. Effectiveness and efficiency – Random reflections on health services. London, The Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust, 1982.
5.
Stolley PD, Lasagna L. Prescribing patterns of physicians. Journal of chronic diseases 1969; 22:395-405.
6.
Westerholm B. Therapeutic auditing at the national and international levels. Br J Clin Pharmacol, 1986;22:55S-9S.
7.
Pullar T, Kumar S, Tindall H, Freely M. Time to stop counting the tablets? Clin Pharmacol Ther 1989;46:163-8.
8.
Tognoni G, Laporte JR. From Clinical trials to Drug utilization studies. In: Dukes, M.N.G., ED. Drug utilization studies – Methods and uses. Denmark: WHO Regional publications, European Series 1993;45: 28-30.
9.
Organisation for economic cooperation and development. OECD Policy brief – Mental health in OECD countries. Paris: OECD, 2008 Nov . Accessed February 7, 2011.
10.
World Health Organisation. The ICD-10 Classification of Behavioural and Mental Disorders. Diagnostic criteria for research. Geneva: World Health Organisation, 1993. . Accessed December 6, 2010.
11.
Baldessarini RJ, Leahy L, Arcona S, Gause D, Zhang W, Hennen J. Patterns of psychotropic drug prescription for US patients with the diagnoses of bipolar disorders. Psychiatr Serv 2007 Jan;58(1):85-91.
12.
WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology. Guidelines for defined daily doses. Oslo: WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology, 1991.
13.
Morabia A, Fabre J, Dunand JP. The influence of patient and physician gender on the prescription of psychotropic drugs. J Clin Epidemiol 1992;45:111-6.
14.
The ESEMeD/MHEDEA 2000 investigators. Psychotropic drug utilization in Europe: results from the European Study of the Epidemiology of Mental Disorders (ESEMeD) project. Acta Psychiatr Scand 2004;109 (Suppl. 420):55-64.
15.
Uchida N, Chong MY, Tan CH, Nagai H, Tanaka M, Lee MS et al. International study on antidepressant prescription pattern at 20 teaching hospitals and major psychiatric institutions in East Asia: Analysis of 1898 cases from China, Japan, Korea, Singapore and Taiwan. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences 2007;61:522-8.
16.
Olfson M, Marcus SC, Pincus HA, Zito JM, Thompson JW, Zarin DA. Antidepressant prescribing practices of outpatient psychiatrists. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1998; 55:310-16.
17.
Hamels ME, Koren G, Einarson TR. Increased use of antidepressants in Canada: 1981-2000. Ann Pharmacother 2002;36:1375-9.
18.
Hansen DG, Sondergaard J, Vach W, Gram LF, Rosholm JU, Kragstrup J. Antidepressant drug use in general practice: Inter-practice variation and the association with practice characteristics. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2003;59:143-9.
19.
Pirraglia PA, Stafford RS, Singer DE. Trends in the Prescribing of Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors and other newer antidepressant agents in adult primary care. Primary care companion. J Clin Psychiatry 2003;5:153-7.
20.
National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health. National clinical practice guideline No 23 – Depression: Management of depression in primary and secondary care. Leicester: British Psychological society and Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2004.
21.
Fochtmann LJ, Gelenberg AJ. Guideline watch: Practice guidelines for the treatment of patients with major depressive disorders, 2nd edition. Focus 2005;3:34-42.
22.
Buxton ILO. Principles of Prescription Order Writing and Patient Compliance. In: Brunton LL, Lazo JS, Parker KL, editors. Goodman and Gilman’s The Pharmacological basis of Therapeutics. 11th edition. USA: McGraw Hill, 2006: 694.
23.
Bushardt RL, Massey EB, Simpson TW, Ariail JC, Simpson KN. Polypharmacy: misleading, but manageable. Clin Interv Aging 2008 June; 3(2): 383–9.
24.
WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology. Guidelines for ATC classification and DDD assignment. Oslo: WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology, 2002.
25.
WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology. ATC index with DDDs. Oslo: WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology, 2002.
25.
De las CC, Sanz E, De La F J. Variations in antidepressant prescribing practices: clinical need or marketing influences? Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2002; 11: 515–22.
26.
Stafford RS, MacDonald EA, Finkelstein SN. National Patterns of Medication Treatment for Depression, 1987 to 2001. Primary Care Companion J Clin Psychiatry 2001; 3(6): 232–5.
27.
WHO International Working Group for Drug Statistics Methodology, WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology, WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Utilization Research and Clinical Pharmacological Services. Introduction to Drug Utilization Research. Oslo: World Health Organisation, 2003.
28.
Smalbrugge M, Jongenelis LK, Pot AM, Beekman ATF, Eefsting JA. Pain among nursing home patients in the Netherlands: prevalence, course, clinical correlates, recognition and analgesic treatment – an observational cohort study. BMC Geriatrics 2007;7:3.

DOI and Others

JCDR/2011/1521

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)
  • www.omnimedicalsearch.com