Assessment of knowledge, attitude and practice of fixed-dose combinations amongst attending physicians and residents: a cross-sectional evaluation

• Main Authors: Dhyuti Gupta (Author), Prithpal Singh Matreja (Author), Shilpa Patrick (Author), Meenu Thomas (Author), Pooja Agarwal (Author), Preeti Singh (Author)
• Format: Book
• Published: BioExcel Publishing Ltd, 2024-04-01T00:00:00Z.
• Subjects: article
• Online Access: Connect to this object online.
• Notes: 10.7573/dic.2024-2-1; 1740-4398
• Keywords: drug regulatory authorities; fixed-dose combinations; irrational combinations; pharmaceutical market; Therapeutics. Pharmacology; RM1-950
• Source: Drugs in Context, Vol 13, Pp 1-10 (2024)

Background: Fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) were brought into the market with the intent of providing benefits primarily to patients and physicians. Nevertheless, despite their multiple advantages, they have their own set of drawbacks, especially regarding irrational FDCs. If physicians continue to prescribe them, prohibiting their sale would become all the more challenging. This cross-sectional survey study was planned to comprehend the level of knowledge, attitude and practice of physicians regarding such FDCs at a tertiary care teaching institute of western Uttar Pradesh, India. Methodology: A pre-validated questionnaire was communicated electronically to all the attending physicians. For data analysis, descriptive statistics were applied and a χ2 test was performed for inter-group comparison. Results: Amongst the 108 respondents, participation was almost comparable from both medical and surgical branches, with most participants being junior residents (58%). Even with sound knowledge of FDCs, only 46.30% of them were aware of banned FDCs. Similarly, only 6.48% could correctly identify the disadvantages associated with the use of FDCs, and 33.18% could correctly recognize irrational FDCs. This finding was consistently reflected in their attitude and practice and only 15.74% of respondents cross-referenced FDCs with the available literature. Furthermore, despite 88.89% of respondents checking for rationality of FDCs before prescribing them, a compendium of irrational FDCs is routinely prescribed. Conclusion: To amend these shortcomings in prescribing of irrational FDCs, some recommendations are proposed by the authors herein.