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

Users Online : 80904

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferencesDOI 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 : 2012 | Month : May | Volume : 6 | Issue : 3 | Page : 445 - 448

Cutaneous Adverse Drug Reactions: A 6-Month Teaching Hospital Based Study from Mid-Western Nepal

Saraswoti Neupane, Surya Raj Sharma

1. MD, Assistant Professor, Department of Dermatology, Gandaki Medical College, Pokhara, Nepal. 2. M Pharm, Assistant Professor, Department of Pharmacology, Nepalese Army Institute of Health Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal.

Correspondence Address :
Dr. Saraswoti Neupane (MBBS, MD)
Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Leprology
Gandaki Medical College Teaching Hospital, Pokhara, Nepal.
E mail: sarunpn@yahoo.com

Abstract

Background:
Cutaneous adverse drug reactions (CADRs) are a frequent problem in dermatology, but only a few prospective studies on these have been reported. This study was done to (i) evaluate the incidence of CADRs from systemic drugs; (ii) study the characteristics of the patients with CADRs; (iii) describe the CADRs; and (iv) evaluate the drug reaction imputability and preventability.
Materials and Methods:
This was a prospective, descriptive study which was conducted at the Department of Dermatology of Nepalgunj Medical College Teaching Hospital, Banke, Nepal. from May 2008 to October 2008. All the patients who attended the dermatology OPD and those patients who were admitted in the wards with suspected CADRs to systemic drugs were included in the study. Each case was assessed for its causality by using the WHO causality definitions. The data which was collected was subjected to descriptive analysis.
Results:
Out of 2904 dermatology patients, 1.6% had a diagnosis of CADRs. The ages of the patients ranged from 9-years to 52- years, with a mean of 30-years. The male to female ratio was 1.08. A majority of the patients had taken the drugs for underlying infections (56%). The major drug group which was implicated in the CADRs was antibiotics, followed by anti-convulsants. Among the antibiotics, Cotrimoxazole accounted for the highest number of CADRs, in 5 cases. Fixed drug eruption was the most common type of reaction which was observed (in 6 cases). As a whole, 28% of the CADRs were severe, that included exfoliative dermatitis, erythema multiforme, the Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis. There was mortality in one case of toxic epidermal necrolysis.
Conclusion:
The commonest type of drug reaction which was noted was fixed drug eruption. Antibiotics were the most common drugs which caused the CADRs. Most of the drug reactions were caused by Cotrimoxazole.

Keywords

Cutaneous adverse drug reactions, Antibiotics, Fixed drug eruptions

Introduction
According to the WHO, an adverse drug reaction (ADR) is defined as any noxious, unintended or undesired effect of a drug, which occurs at doses which are used in humans for prophylaxis, diagnosis or therapy (1). Cutaneous adverse drug reactions (CADRs) are a frequent problem in dermatology, but only few prospective studies have been done to evaluate their prevalence and to analyze their features in hospital settings (2),(3),(4). Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are among the major causes of morbidity, hospital admissions, increased health care expenditure, and even death (5). This study was designed to (i) evaluate the incidence of cutaneous reactions from systemic drugs; (ii) study the characteristics of patients with cutaneous drug reactions; (iii) describe the adverse cutaneous reactions; and (iv) evaluate the drug reaction imputability and preventability.

Material and Methods

This was a prospective descriptive study which was conducted at the Department of Dermatology of Nepalgunj Medical College, Banke, Nepal. All the patients who attended the dermatology OPD and those patients who were admitted in the wards with suspected cutaneous adverse drug reactions to systemic drugs were included in the study. The study period was from May 2008 to October 2008. Adverse cutaneous reactions which were caused by the use of topical medications were excluded from the study. Informed consent was obtained from each patient in our study, and the protocol conformed to the ethics committee guidelines. The patients' data were recorded in a preset proforma that included: the patient’s demographic data, their detailed clinical history, past history, any underlying disorders like HIV infection, connective tissue disease, liver disease, renal failure and malignancy, a detailed history of drug intake, reaction time, previous allergic history, duration of reaction, type of cutaneous reaction, and improvement after the dechallenge. Relevant investigations such as blood culture and serology were done to rule out any infectious aetiology. If a previous exposure to the suspected causative drug(s) or another drug of the same family had already caused an adverse skin eruption, the reaction was considered as preventable. Only those cases were included that satisfied the following criteria (6):
1. Those in which the diagnosis of the cutaneous adverse reaction was in accordance with the definition of ADRs which was provided by the WHO.
2. Those in which there was no alternate explanation for the reaction.
3. Those in which there was a plausible time relationship between the introduction of the drug and the onset of a reaction.
4. Those in which there was improvement in the condition of the patient after dechallenge/withdrawal of the suspected drug.
Each case was assessed for its causality by using the WHO definitions and was categorized as ‘certain’, ‘probable’, ‘possible’, and ‘unlikely’, as it was a very simple and widely accepted method to assess the causality. Only the ‘certain’ and ‘probable’ cases were included for the analysis. The data which was collected was subjected to descriptive analysis.

Results

Of the 2904 dermatology patients, 25 patients (1.6%) had a diagnosis of cutaneous adverse drug reaction. Among them, 7 patients with severe cutaneous ADRs were hospitalized and the rest were managed on an outpatient basis. The ages of the patients ranged from 9-years to 52-years, with a mean of 30-years. Most of the patients were in the 21-40 years (52%) age group and only a small number was there in the ≤ 10 yrs age group (only one case) (Table/Fig 1). There were 13 (52 %) males and 12 (48%) females with male to female ratio of 1.08.
Out of the 25 patients with adverse cutaneous drug reactions, 14(56%) had taken the drug for underlying infections, 5(20%) had taken it for seizure disorder, 3(12%) had taken it for pain management and 1(4%) each had taken it for heart disease, family planning and COPD. One patient with toxic epidermal necrolysis was HIV positive (4%). His CD4 count was 70 and he had been given cotrimoxazole prophylaxis. Otherwise, none of the other patients had HIV infection, underlying connective tissue diseases, liver disease, renal failure or malignancy.
The major drug group which was implicated in the adverse cutaneous drug reactions was antibiotics, which accounted for 14 cases (56%) of CADRs, followed by anti-convulsants, non-steroidal anti-inflammatoy drugs (NSAIDs), beta-2 agonists and hormones (Table/Fig 2). Among the antibiotics, cotrimoxazole accounted for the highest number of CADRs, in 5 cases (20%), followed in a decreasing order by tetracyclines (3 cases), aminopenicillins (3 cases) and cephalosporin, metronidazole and antitubercular drugs (combination of isoniazid and ethambutol) accounting for one case each. Anticonvulsants were the second most common drugs which caused CADRs, which were implicated in 6 cases (24%). Among these, 4 cases were caused by carbamazepine and 2 cases were caused by phenytoin. Three cases (12%) were caused by NSAIDs, which included two cases which were caused by ibuprofen and one which was caused by aspirin. One case each was caused by b2 agonists (salbutamol) and hormones (oral contraceptive pills).
The maximum number of the reactions in our study consisted of fixed drug eruptions which accounted for 24% (6 cases) of the total CADRs. This was followed by exanthematous drug reactions, acute urticaria and the Stevens-Johnson Syndrome [three cases (12%) each]. Exfoliative dermatitis and drug induced pigmentation constituted 2 cases (8%) each. Erythema nodosum, erythema multiforme, toxic epidermal necrolysis, pityriasis rosea, photosensitivity and acneiform eruptions were less common (one case or 4% each). As a whole, 28% of the CADRs were severe, which included exfoliative dermatitis, erythema multiforme, the Stevens-Johnson Syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis (Table/Fig 3).
A single type of CADR was caused by different groups of drugs in different individuals. Similarly, a single drug was responsible for different types of reactions in different individuals. In this way, heterogeneity was observed (Table/Fig 4). Among seven cases of severe CADRs, mortality was seen in one case of toxic epidermal necrolysis. That came to 4% mortality as a whole among all the drug reactions or to 14% among all the severe CADRs.

Discussion

There is no gold standard investigation for the confirmation of a cutaneous ADR. Instead, the diagnosis involves the analysis of factors such as timing of the drug exposure and the reaction time, the course of the reaction with drug withdrawal/ discontinuation, the timing and nature of a recurrent eruption on rechallenge, a history of a similar reaction to the suspected drug, and previous reports of similar reactions to the same drug (7). In this study, the WHO causality definitions were used to categorize the ADRs into ‘certain’, ‘probable’, ‘possible’, and ‘unlikely’ categories, as it is a very simple and widely accepted method which is used to assess the causality.
The incidence of cutaneous ADRs in our study was 1.6%, which was lower than that which was reported from India (8) (11.4%) but it was higher than that of a French survey (0.36%) (9). Both the studies had included only the hospitalized patients. The incidence of severe adverse cutaneous ADRs in our study was 0.45%, which is higher as compared to that of a Chinese study (0.032%). The Chinese study was based only on severe cutaneous adverse drug reactions, not including the mild cutaneous ADRs. A slight male preponderance which was noticed in our study was similar to the findings of other studies (8),(9),(10),(11),(12). The most common age group in our study was the 21 to 40 years age group , which was similar to that in other studies in our subcontinent (8),(10). But one of the studies had noticed two peaks, one in the 21–40 years age group and the other in the 61– 70 years age group (13).
The infections comprised of 56% of all the underlying diseases, which justified the use of the drugs, which was consistent with the findings of other studies (9),(13),(14),(15),(16),(17). Among 14 cases of infections, 4 cases (28.5%) were upper respiratory tract infections. Antibiotics were the most common drugs which caused cutaneous ADRs, followed by anti-convulsants and NSAIDs, which was consistent with the findings of other studies (10),(18). Antibiotics, followed by anticonvulsants have also been implicated as the commonest causative agents for the severe CADRs (13),(14),(15),(16),(17). A wide clinical spectrum of cutaneous ADRs was noticed in our study. Cotrimoxazole and cabamazepine caused a wide spectrum of cutaneous ADRs (4 types each). These two drugs were also responsible for most of the severe cutaneous ADRs. Cotrimoxazole is easily available in the rural health centers of Nepal and it is widely used for various infective disorders. Carbamazepine is predominantly used for seizure disorders. Carbamazepine is a drug which has been approved for epilepsy, trigeminal neuralgia, neuralgia of diabetes mellitus, glossopharyngeal neuralgia and post herpetic neuralgia. Our patients were given carbamazepine predominantly for seizure disorders and in one case, it was given for post-herpetic neuralgia. We could not know the total number of prescriptions of cotrimoxazole and carbamazepine at the same time, to calculate the risk of the drug reactions which were caused by the drugs.
Several studies have found exanthematous drug eruptions to be the most common drug reactions (8),(19),(20), but we had fixed drug eruptions as the commonest type, followed by exanthematous drug eruptions, acute urticaria and the Stevens-Johnson Syndrome, in equal frequency. Our study highlights the high proportion of severe cutaneous ADRs (28%). A similar higher incidence of severe cutaneous ADRs was also found in studies which were conducted in India (8) and France (9), but a lower incidence has been reported from other western countries (21),(22).
In a study which was conducted by Fiszenson-Albala F et al (9), one-third of the patients were found to have a previous allergic skin reaction to another drug, but none of our patients gave such history. Hence, the CADRs in our study were not preventable.
Four percent of our patients had concomitant HIV infection. A higher percentage (19 %) of the HIV infection was shown in another study (9). Other associated disorders in that study were immunosuppression, including HIV infection (25%), connective tissue disease (10%), viral or auto-immune hepatitis (12.5%) and diabetes mellitus (10%). None of our patients had such concomitant illnesses. In most of our cases [19 out of 25 cases (76%)], the culprit drug was stopped.

Conclusion

The commonest type of CADR which was noted in our study was fixed drug eruption. Antibiotics were the most common drugs which were implicated for CADRs in our study, followed by anticonvulsants and NSAIDs. Most of the drug reactions were caused by cotrimoxazole. Cotrimoxazole and cabamazepine caused a wide spectrum of cutaneous ADRs. These two drugs were also responsible for most of the severe CADRs.

References

1.
The World Health Organization. International Drug Monitoring. The Role of the Hospital. Technique series no. 425. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 1966.
2.
Bigby M, Jick S, Jick H, Arndt K. Drug-induced cutaneous reactions. A report from the Boston Collaborative Drug Surveillance Program on 15,438 consecutive inpatients, 1975 to 1982. JAMA-J Am Med Assoc 1986;256:3358-63.
3.
Bigby M. The rates of the cutaneous reactions to drugs. Arch Dermatol 2001;137:765-70.
4.
Rademaker M, Oakley A, Duffill MB. Cutaneous adverse drug reactions in a hospital setting. N Z Med J 1995;108:165-66.
5.
Nerurkar RP, Nadkar MY, Bichile SK. A need for monitoring adverse drug reactions. J Assoc Physician I 1998;46:673-74.
6.
Knowles S, Shapiro L, Shear NH. Drug eruptions. Curr Probl Dermatol 2000;12:58-62.
7.
Shear NH, Knowles SR, Sullivan JR, Shapiro L. Cutaneous reactions to drugs. In Fitzpatrick’s Dermatology in General Medicine (6th edn), Freedberg IM, Eisen AZ, Wolff K, et al. (eds). McGraw Hill, Medical Publishing Division: USA, 2003;1330-36.
8.
Sushma M, Noel MV, Ritika MC, James J, Guido S. Cutaneous adverse drug reactions: a 9-year study from a south Indian hospital. Pharmacoepidem Dr S 2005;14:567-70.
9.
Fiszenson-Albala F, Auzerie V, Mahe E, Farinotti R, Durand-Stucco C, Crickx B, et al. A 6-month prospective survey of cutaneous drug reactions in a hospital setting. Brit J Dermatol 2003;149:1018-22.
10.
Sharma VK, Sethuram G, Kumar B. Cutaneous adverse drug reactions: clinical pattern and causative agents—a 6 year series from Chandigarh, India. J Postgrad Med 2001;47:95-99.
11.
Regnier S, Descamps V, Boui M, Lebrun-Vignes B, Descamps D, Grossin M, et al. Parvovirus B19 infection mimicking the drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome. Ann Dermatol Venereol 2000; 127:505-06.
12.
Rademaker M. Do women have more adverse drug reactions? Am J Clin Dermatol 2001;2: 349-51.
13.
Li LF, Ma C. Epidemiological study of severe cutaneous adverse drug reactions in a city district of China. Clin Exp Dermatol 2006;31: 642-47.
14.
Pitché P, Padonou CS, Kombate K, Mouzou T, Tchangai-Walla K. The Stevens–Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis in Lome (Togo). Evolutional and etiological profiles of 40 cases. Ann Dermatol Venereol 2005;132:531-34.
15.
Schöpf E, Stühmer A, Rzany B, Victor N, Zentgraf R, Kapp JF. Toxic epidermal necrolysis and the Stevens–Johnson syndrome. An epidemiologic study from west Germany. Arch Dermatol 1991;127:839-42.
16.
Leenutaphong V, Sivayathorn A, Suthipinittharm P, Sunthonpalin P. The Stevens–Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis in Thailand. Int J Dermatol 1993;32:428-31.
17.
Roujeau JC, Kelly JP, Naldi L, Rzany B, Stern RS, Anderson T, et al. Medication use and the risk of the Stevens–Johnson syndrome or toxic epidermal necrolysis. N Engl J Med 1995;333:1600-07.
18.
Thong BY, Leong KP, Tang CY, Chng HH. Drug allergy in a general hospital: results of a novel prospective inpatient reporting system. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2003;90:342-47.
19.
Mani MZ, Mathew M. A study of 218 drug eruptions. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Lepr 1983; 49:109-17.
20.
Puavilai S, Timpatanapong P. A prospective study of cutaneous drug reactions. J Med Assoc Thai 1989;72:167-71.
21.
Naldi L, Conforti A, Venegoni M, Troncon MG, Caputi A, Ghiotto E, et al. Cutaneous reactions to drugs. An analysis of the spontaneous reports from four Italian regions. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1999;48:839-46.
22.
Hunziker T, Kunzi UP, Braunschweig S, Zehnder D, Hoigne R. Comprehensive hospital drug monitoring (CHDM): adverse skin reactions, a 20-year survey. Allergy 1997;52:388-93.

DOI and Others

DOI: JCDR/2012/3565:2058

Financial OR OTHER COMPETING INTERESTS:
None.


Date of Submission: Nov 06, 2011
Date of Peer Review: Jan 24, 2012
Date of Acceptance: Feb 21, 2012
Date of Publishing: May 01, 2012

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