AN ANALYSIS OF ANTIMICROBIAL AND ANTIDIABETIC FIXED DOSE COMBINATIONS BANNED IN INDIA

Jitendra Hotwani, ANKITA RAO
{"title":"AN ANALYSIS OF ANTIMICROBIAL AND ANTIDIABETIC FIXED DOSE COMBINATIONS BANNED IN INDIA","authors":"Jitendra Hotwani, ANKITA RAO","doi":"10.22159/ajpcr.2024.v17i6.50741","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: National regulatory authority reviewed various fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) in view of doubtful rationality status and subsequently 349 FDCs were banned in 2018. This study was conducted to analyze the antimicrobial and antidiabetic FDCs banned by the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization in India.\nMethods: Data were collected from the report of drugs technical advisory board subcommittee. Banned antimicrobial and antidiabetic FDCs were assessed for the following parameters – number of active pharmacological ingredients, routes of administration and dosage forms, indications for marketing, reasons for banning, and pharmacological group of FDCs.\nResults: Seventy antimicrobial and 25 antidiabetic FDCs were analyzed. These FDCs contained 2–7 drugs, available mostly as tablets (51.42%, 100%) in antimicrobial and antidiabetic groups, respectively. Antimicrobial FDCs were marketed most for respiratory tract infections and infection and inflammatory conditions of the skin (17, 24.28% each) while antidiabetic FDCs were marketed for Type 2 diabetes mellitus (14, 56%). The reasons for ban were pharmacodynamic (68.57%, 16%) and pharmacokinetic (20%, 40%) mismatches, lack of evidence of efficacy (7.14%, 36%), and safety concerns (4.28%, 8%) in antimicrobial and antidiabetic groups, respectively. In antimicrobial FDCs, the most common combination was that of an antibacterial with other miscellaneous drugs (like zinc, Vitamin E, serratiopeptidase, etc.) (19, 27.14%) whereas antidiabetic FDCs most commonly had biguanide with thiazolidinedione and sulfonylurea (7, 28%).\nConclusion: There is a need for scrutiny of other FDCs in larger interests of patient care and prescribers should be made aware about recently banned FDCs to promote rational pharmacotherapy.","PeriodicalId":8528,"journal":{"name":"Asian Journal of Pharmaceutical and Clinical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian Journal of Pharmaceutical and Clinical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22159/ajpcr.2024.v17i6.50741","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: National regulatory authority reviewed various fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) in view of doubtful rationality status and subsequently 349 FDCs were banned in 2018. This study was conducted to analyze the antimicrobial and antidiabetic FDCs banned by the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization in India. Methods: Data were collected from the report of drugs technical advisory board subcommittee. Banned antimicrobial and antidiabetic FDCs were assessed for the following parameters – number of active pharmacological ingredients, routes of administration and dosage forms, indications for marketing, reasons for banning, and pharmacological group of FDCs. Results: Seventy antimicrobial and 25 antidiabetic FDCs were analyzed. These FDCs contained 2–7 drugs, available mostly as tablets (51.42%, 100%) in antimicrobial and antidiabetic groups, respectively. Antimicrobial FDCs were marketed most for respiratory tract infections and infection and inflammatory conditions of the skin (17, 24.28% each) while antidiabetic FDCs were marketed for Type 2 diabetes mellitus (14, 56%). The reasons for ban were pharmacodynamic (68.57%, 16%) and pharmacokinetic (20%, 40%) mismatches, lack of evidence of efficacy (7.14%, 36%), and safety concerns (4.28%, 8%) in antimicrobial and antidiabetic groups, respectively. In antimicrobial FDCs, the most common combination was that of an antibacterial with other miscellaneous drugs (like zinc, Vitamin E, serratiopeptidase, etc.) (19, 27.14%) whereas antidiabetic FDCs most commonly had biguanide with thiazolidinedione and sulfonylurea (7, 28%). Conclusion: There is a need for scrutiny of other FDCs in larger interests of patient care and prescribers should be made aware about recently banned FDCs to promote rational pharmacotherapy.
对印度禁用的抗菌剂和抗糖尿病固定剂量复方制剂的分析
目的:国家监管机构对各种固定剂量复方制剂(FDC)进行了审查,认为其合理性存疑,随后在 2018 年禁用了 349 种固定剂量复方制剂。本研究旨在分析印度中央药品标准控制组织禁用的抗菌药和抗糖尿病 FDC:数据来自药品技术咨询委员会小组委员会的报告。对被禁用的抗菌药和抗糖尿病药的以下参数进行了评估:活性药理成分的数量、给药途径和剂型、上市适应症、禁用原因以及 FDCs 的药理组别:结果:分析了 70 种抗菌药和 25 种抗糖尿病药的 FDC。这些 FDC 含有 2-7 种药物,在抗菌药组和抗糖尿病组中大多为片剂(分别占 51.42%和 100%)。抗菌类 FDC 在市场上最多用于治疗呼吸道感染和皮肤感染及炎症(各占 17 和 24.28%),而抗糖尿病类 FDC 则用于治疗 2 型糖尿病(14 和 56%)。在抗菌药组和抗糖尿病组中,禁用的原因分别是药效学(68.57%,16%)和药代动力学(20%,40%)不匹配、缺乏疗效证据(7.14%,36%)和安全性问题(4.28%,8%)。在抗菌药 FDCs 中,最常见的组合是抗菌药与其他杂项药物(如锌、维生素 E、血清肽酶等)的组合(19,27.14%),而抗糖尿病 FDCs 最常见的组合是双胍类药物与噻唑烷二酮和磺酰脲类药物的组合(7,28%):结论:为了更好地照顾患者,有必要对其他复方制剂进行审查,并应让处方者了解最近禁用的复方制剂,以促进合理的药物治疗。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信