RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Effective control of pain postoperatively is essential in providing enhanced patient care and a cost-effective hospital stay. Though many treatment modalities exist for postoperative pain management in orthopedic surgeries they are often accompanied by adverse effects. This study was carried out to assess the efficacy of flupirtine and piroxicam in postoperative pain reduction using visual analog scale (VAS) score. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An open-label, parallel group, comparative study was conducted on patients undergoing lower limb orthopedic surgery, randomized into two groups of 38 patients each. They received either flupirtine 100 mg or piroxicam 20 mg 6 hours after surgery and then twice daily orally for 5 days. Pain was measured using VAS score, total pain relief score (TOTPAR24), and patient satisfaction score (PSS); the other scales used were behavioral pain assessment scale (BPAS) and functional activity score (FAS). Rescue medication used was tramadol 100 mg intravenously. WHO causality scale was used for assessing adverse effects. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used for assessment of various parameters. RESULTS: A total of 76 patients with mean ± standard deviation age of 35.08±10.3 years were recruited; 34 in the flupirtine and 37 in the piroxicam groups completed the study. Patients in both groups were comparable in baseline characteristics. Flupirtine and piroxicam reduced VAS score 48 hours postoperatively compared to baseline (p=0.006 and 0.001) and piroxicam produced significant reduction in pain at 8, 12, and 120 hours compared to flupirtine (p=0.028, 0.032, 0.021). TOTPAR24 and PSS at 24 hours were comparable between the treatments. BPAS scores at 24 hours were reduced significantly in patients receiving either drug (p=0.001). FAS improved at 72 hours in patients receiving piroxicam. Adverse effects were similar with both the medications. CONCLUSION: Flupirtine and piroxicam reduced pain effectively but the onset of pain relief was earlier with piroxicam.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Drug promotional literatures (DPLs) are used as a promotional tool to advertise new drugs entering the market to doctors. The objective of the present study is to evaluate the accuracy of DPLs by using the World Health Organization (WHO) criteria. METHODS: An observational study was conducted from March to August 2014. The DPLs were collected from various departments at R.L. Jalappa Hospital and Research Centre attached to Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College, Kolar, India. The literature was evaluated based on 11 criteria laid down by the WHO. FINDINGS: Two-hundred DPLs were evaluated. Cardiovascular drugs (34 [17%]) were promoted the most, followed by antidiabetic drugs (31 [15.5%]) and antimicrobial agents (29 [14.5%]). Single drug was promoted in 134 (67%) and fixed drug combination in 66 (33%) brochures. Manufacturer's name was mentioned in 194 (97%), but their address was mentioned in 109 (54.5%) claims only. Drug cost was revealed only in 12 (6%) DPLs. Each ingredient's generic name, brand name, and dosage form were mentioned in 197 (98%) brochures. Indication for use was stated in 193 (96.5%) claims. Contraindications, adverse effects, precautions, and drug interactions were listed in 68 (34.5%), 65 (32.5%), 65 (32.5%), and 58 (29%) advertisements. References were cited in 133 (66.5%) brochures. Only 63 (31.5%) literatures had relevant pictures of drugs being promoted and 59 (29.5%) had a graphical representation of pharmacological properties. A total of 131 (69%) DPLs followed 50% of the WHO criteria. CONCLUSION: Majority of DPLs satisfied only half of the WHO criteria for rational drug promotion and none of them fulfilled all the specified criteria. Incomplete or exaggerated information in DPLs may mislead and result in irrational prescription. Therefore, physicians should critically evaluate DPLs regarding updated scientific evidence required for quality patient care.