This observational study evaluates prescribing patterns and adverse drug reactions in women with UTIs, indicating potential issues with drug use safety and compliance with guidelines.
<ns3:p>Background Urinary tract infection (UTI) is a frequent bacterial infection among women of reproductive age. Inappropriate and irrational prescribing of antibiotics<ns3:bold>—such as the use of unapproved fixed-dose combinations or empirical broad-spectrum therapy—</ns3:bold>has contributed to growing antimicrobial resistance. Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) further complicate treatment outcomes, yet remain underreported, especially in routine outpatient practice. Therefore, an assessment of current prescribing patterns is essential to promote rational drug use. Additionally, evaluation of adverse drug reactions remains important for patient safety and pharmacovigilance. Objectives <ns3:list list-type="bullet"><ns3:list-item><ns3:p> • To describe the prescribing patterns of drugs used for urinary tract infections (UTIs) among women of reproductive age (15–44 years). </ns3:p></ns3:list-item><ns3:list-item><ns3:p> • To evaluate the incidence, type, and severity of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) as documented in hospital records. </ns3:p></ns3:list-item><ns3:list-item><ns3:p> • To assess the prescription of fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) and combination antimicrobial therapy in relation to standard treatment guidelines (WHO, NLEM 2022). </ns3:p></ns3:list-item></ns3:list> Methods This is a retrospective observational study based on outpatient department (OPD) prescriptions for women aged 15–44 years diagnosed with community-acquired, uncomplicated UTIs at a tertiary care hospital in Central India. Data from 139 prescription records <ns3:bold>will be retrieved from the medical record section and analyzed.</ns3:bold> Prescribing indicators, documented ADRs, and use of FDCs will be assessed against national guidelines using descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, and logistic regression analysis.</ns3:p>
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Patil et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: