TO MONITOR THE ADVERSE DRUG REACTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE USE OF ANTIHYPERTENSIVE AGENTS IN A TERTIARY CARE HOSPITAL IN CENTRAL KERALA

ASHIN T SENOJ; SANTOSH PILLAI; SAJIT VARGHESE; NISHA KURIAN; JITHIN YESUDAS; JOMON S JOHN; LIYA ROSLIN JOSEPH

doi:10.22159/ajpcr.2024v17i7.50010

Authors

ASHIN T SENOJ Department of Pharmacology, Pushpagiri Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Tiruvalla, Kerala, India https://orcid.org/0009-0009-1666-5078
SANTOSH PILLAI Department of Pharmacology, Pushpagiri Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Tiruvalla, Kerala, India https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2089-6751
SAJIT VARGHESE Department of Internal Medicine, Pushpagiri Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Tiruvalla, Kerala, India. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8810-8766
NISHA KURIAN Department of Community Medicine, Pushpagiri Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Tiruvalla, Kerala, India. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7541-8557
JITHIN YESUDAS Department of Pharmacology, Pushpagiri Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Tiruvalla, Kerala, India
JOMON S JOHN Department of Pharmacology, Pushpagiri Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Tiruvalla, Kerala, India.
LIYA ROSLIN JOSEPH Department of Pharmacology, Pushpagiri Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Tiruvalla, Kerala, India. https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2757-1295

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22159/ajpcr.2024v17i7.50010

Keywords:

Adverse drug reactions, Antihypertensive agents, Edema.

Abstract

Objective: The objective of the study is to monitor the adverse drug reactions (ADRs) due to anti-hypertensive drugs prescribed in a tertiary care hospital.

Methods: The study was conducted in the outpatient department of General Medicine of a tertiary care hospital in Kerala. The demographic details and suspected ADRs were collected from the patients and evaluated, and causality assessment was done.

Results: More women developed ADRs compared to men due to the anti-hypertensive drug. The occurrence of adverse reactions was seen to be more in older patients over 50 years of age compared to younger individuals. The occurrence of ADR was more in patients using a combination of drugs (74.3%) rather than monotherapy. Calcium channel blockers were associated with more number of adverse reactions (62.5%) with amlodipine showing the maximum ADRs (64.8). The commonly seen ADR was edema. When the causality assessment was done, most were probable/likely followed by possible.

Conclusion: This study shows that calcium channel blockers were the therapeutic class of drugs that caused the most number of ADRs, especially pedal edema; there was a higher frequency of ADRs to various antihypertensive drugs. Females and those more than 50 years old had shown a higher proportion of ADRs though not statistically significant. Furthermore, those individuals who took more drugs to treat hypertension also showed more ADRs. This study of adverse reactions toward antihypertensive medications will help physicians to choose a better option to treat their patients which will eventually help in patient satisfaction and medication safety.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Daskalopoulou SS, Khan NA, Quinn RR, Ruzicka M, McKay DW, Hackam DG, et al. The 2012 Canadian Hypertension education program recommendations for the Management of hypertension: Blood pressure measurement, diagnosis, assessment of risk, and therapy. Can J Cardiol. 2012;28(3):270-87. doi: 10.1016/j.cjca.2012.02.018, PMID: 22595447

Dahlöf B, Sever PS, Poulter NR, Wedel H, Beevers DG, Caulfield M, et al. Prevention of cardiovascular events with an antihypertensive regimen of amlodipine adding perindopril as required versus atenolol adding bendroflumethiazide as required, in the Anglo-Scandinavian cardiac outcomes trial-blood pressure lowering arm (ASCOT-BPLA): A multicentre randomized controlled trial. Lancet. 2005;366(9489):895- 906. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67185-1, PMID: 16154016

Wright JM, Musini VM. First-line drugs for hypertension. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;3:CD001841.

Husserl FE, Messerli FH. Adverse effects of antihypertensive drugs. Drugs. 1981;22(3):188-210. doi: 10.2165/00003495-198122030- 00002, PMID: 7021123

Hernandez-Vila E. A review of the JNC 8 blood pressure Guideline. Tex Heart Inst J. 2015 Jun 1;42(3):226-8. doi: 10.14503/THIJ-15-5067, PMID: 26175633

Caspersen CJ, Powell KE, Christenson GM. Physical activity, exercise, and physical fitness: Definitions and distinctions for health-related research. Public Health Rep. 1985;100(2):126-31. PMID: 3920711

Edwards IR, Aronson JK. Adverse drug reactions: Definitions, diagnosis, and management. Lancet. 2000;356(9237):1255-9. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02799-9, PMID: 11072960

Kessler DA. Introducing MEDwatch. A new approach to reporting medication and device adverse effects and product problems. JAMA. 1993;269:2765-8.

Jose J, Rao PG. Pattern of adverse drug reactions notified by spontaneous reporting in an Indian tertiary care teaching hospital. Pharmacol Res. 2006;54(3):226-33. doi: 10.1016/j.phrs.2006.05.003, PMID: 16781163

Ahmad SR. Adverse drug event monitoring at the food and drug administration. J Gen Intern Med. 2003;18(1):57-60. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2003.20130.x, PMID: 12534765

Hussain A, Aqil M, Alam MS, Khan MR, Kapur P, Pillai KK. A pharmacovigilance study of antihypertensive medicines at a South Delhi hospital. Indian J Pharm Sci. 2009 May;71(3):338-41. doi: 10.4103/0250-474X.56018, PMID 20490310

World Health Organization. Pharmacovigilance: Ensuring the Safe Use of Medicines. Geneva: WHO; 2004 Oct.

Uppsala Monitoring Centre. The Use of the World Health Organization- Uppsala Monitoring Centre (WHO-UMC) System for Standardised Case Causality Assessment. Sweden: Uppsala Monitoring Centre; 2006.

Dhikav V, Singh S, Anand KS. Adverse drug reaction monitoring in India. J Indian Acad Clin Med. 2004;5:27-33.

Khurshid F, Aqil M, Alam MS, Kapur P, Pillai KK. Monitoring of adverse drug reactions associated with antihypertensive medicines at a university teaching hospital in New Delhi. Daru. 2012;20(1):34. doi: 10.1186/2008-2231-20-34

Rodenburg EM, Stricker BH, Visser LE. Sex differences in cardiovascular drug-induced adverse reactions causing hospital admissions. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2012;74(6):1045-52. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2012.04310.x, PMID: 22533339

Olsen H, Klemetsrud T, Stokke HP, Tretli S, Westheim A. Adverse drug reactions in current antihypertensive therapy: A general practice survey of 2586 patients in Norway. Blood Press. 1999;8(2):94-101. doi: 10.1080/080370599438266, PMID: 10451036

Kearney PM, Whelton M, Reynolds K, Whelton PK, He J. Worldwide prevalence of hypertension: A systematic review. J Hypertens. 2004 Jan;22(1):11-9. doi: 10.1097/00004872-200401000-00003, PMID: 15106785

Aqil M, Imam F, Hussain A, Alam MS, Kapur P, Pillai KK. A pharmacovigilance study for monitoring adverse drug reactions with antihypertensive agents at a South Delhi hospital. Int J Pharm Pract. 2006;14(4):311-3. doi: 10.1211/ijpp.14.4.0012

Basak SC, Ravi K, Manavalan R, Sahoo RK. A study of adverse drug reactions to antihypertensive drugs perceived by patients in a rural hospital. Indian J Pharm Sci. 2004;66:814-8.

Biston P, Meélot C, Degaute JP, Clement D, Quoidbach A. Prolonged antihypertensive effect of amlodipine: A prospective double-blind randomized study. Blood Press. 1999;8(1):43-8. doi: 10.1080/080370599438383, PMID: 10412882

Meyboom RH, Hekster YA, Egberts AC, Gribnau FW, Edwards IR. Causal or casual? The role of causality assessment in pharmacovigilance. Drug Saf. 1997 Dec;17(6):374-89. doi: 10.2165/00002018-199717060- 00004, PMID: 9429837

Olowofela AO, Isah AO. A profile of adverse effects of antihypertensive medicines in a tertiary care clinic in Nigeria. Ann Afr Med. 2017 Jul- Sep;16(3):114-9. doi: 10.4103/aam.aam_6_17, PMID: 28671151