ArticleJournal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR2016
Critical Analysis of Cardiovascular and Central Nervous System Fixed Dose Combinations Available in Indian Market.
Article in Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Assessment of the availability and rationality of unregistered fixed dose drug combinations in Nepal: a multicenter cross-sectional study.Global health research and policy · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionFixed Dose Combinations (FDCs) are being increasingly used to improve compliance and achieve greater benefits of the two or more active ingredients given together than the corresponding individual drug components given separately.
aimTo analyse the rationality of Cardiovascular (CV) and Central Nervous System (CNS) FDCs available in Indian market. MATERIALS AND
methodsCVS and CNS FDCs, enlisted in Indian Drug Review, 2014, were analysed by a pretested validated eight point criteria tool. Each FDC was assessed for number of active pharmacological ingredients, approval by regulatory authority, listing in WHO Essential Medicine List. While efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic interactions and advantages of each FDC were analysed by literature search. The total score of the tool was 12 and score ≥7 was considered rational. FDCs were divided in four groups as per rationality and DCGI approval. ANOVA was used for statistical analysis and p<0.05 was considering statistically significant.
resultsOut of 152 FDCs, 107 were CV and 45 belonged to CNS group and 40 had documented evidence of efficacy and safety. Majority of FDCs showed advantage of being convenient by reducing pill count and only 32 showed reducing adverse drug reactions. Out of 107 CV FDCs, 46 were rational and 61 were irrational with a mean rationality score of 6.72±2.82 (CI- 95 %, 3.90 - 9.54). While out of 45 CNS FDCs, 8 were rational and 37 were irrational with a mean rationality score of 6.22±2.08 (CI - 95 %, 4.14 - 8.30). A significant difference in mean rationality score of group A (DCGI approved + rational) was observed as compared to group B (DCGI approved + irrational) and group C (DCGI unapproved + rational) as compared to group D (DCGI unapproved + irrational) (p<0.05).
conclusionThe absence of watertight pre-requisite, critical analysis of the scientific validity of the formulations and 'convenience' category has resulted into proliferation of irrational FDCs. This calls for strict regulatory approval process to avoid miserable FDC scenario in the country.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.