Panacea Journal of Medical Sciences 2022;12(1):172–176 Content available at: https://www.ipinnovative.com/open-access-journals Panacea Journal of Medical Sciences Journal homepage: http://www.pjms.in/ Original Research Article Evaluation of suspected adverse drug reactions of oral anti-diabetic drugs in a tertiary care hospital of Bihar, India: An observational study Saajid Hameed1, Pankaj Kumar1,*, Manish Kumar1, Lalit Mohan1, Harihar Dikshit1 1Dept. of Pharmacolgy, Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Shiekhpura, Patna, Bihar, India A R T I C L E I N F O Article history: Received 10-04-2021 Accepted 28-07-2021 Available online 30-04-2022 Keywords: Adverse Drug Reaction Diabetes Mellitus Oral AntiDiabetic Drugs A B S T R A C T Background: Diabetic patients generally require life-long treatment and continuous follow up. In spite of their benefit of achieving glycemic control, there are many safety concerns with antidiabetic drugs such as gastrointestinal side effects, metabolic complications, central nervous system (CNS) symptoms, musculo- skeletal problems, genito-urinary disorders like UTI, development of peripheral oedema, weight gain etc. Aim: To highlight pattern of Adverse Drug Reactions with use of oral anti-diabetic drugs. Materials and Methods : All suspected Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Form having any anti-diabetic drug as suspected cause of ADR were collected. The reported ADRs on the notification forms, after being confirmed by the physician-in-charge, were assessed for causality using WHO-UMC Causality Categories14, preventability using Modified-Schumock and Thornton scale15 and severity using Modified Hartwig and Siegel scale. Statistical analysis: The data from the forms was presented in tabular form and data will be interpreted by using Microsoft Excel 365 software. Results: Adverse drug reaction related to gastrointestinal system were most reported ADRs (41.31%). Among GI adverse events, nausea was mostly reported ADR and it was mostly associated with DPP- 4 inhibitors. Hypoglycemia was most frequently observed in patients taking sulfonylureas. Causality assessment according to WHO-UMC criteria showed 61.68% ADRs had probable causality while 37.43% had possible causality and only 0.90% had certain causality. Most of the ADRs in our study were non- preventable (57.78%) & were of mild to moderate grade. Conclusion: Hypoglycemia continues to be major concern in patients taking anti-diabetic medications and sulfonylureas were commonest drugs responsible for it. As anti-diabetic medication is generally taken for lifetime, the risk of development of adverse effects related to concurrent related co-morbidities of patients shouldn’t be ignored while prescribing. The physician should report these adverse effects to ADR monitoring centre, so that proper signal could be generated for the welfare of the society. This is an Open Access (OA) journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms. For reprints contact: reprint@ipinnovative.com 1. Introduction Diabetes is a metabolic disorder characterized by hyperglycemia due to defects in either insulin secretion, insulin action or both of them. The chronic complications of diabetes are associated with long-term end organ damage, organ dysfunction, and multi- organ failure cause due to * Corresponding author. E-mail address: pankajjlnmch@gmail.com (P. Kumar). microvascular and macrovascular pathophysiology. 1 The management principles of diabetes comprise of prevention of risk factors, screening of high-risk population and proper life-style modification for individuals in the pre-diabetic state. Pharmacological treatment is the most important option for these patients. 2 The conventional options for type 2 diabetes mellitus include drugs that have been commonly prescribed for long time such as https://doi.org/10.18231/j.pjms.2022.032 2249-8176/© 2022 Innovative Publication, All rights reserved. 172 Hameed et al. / Panacea Journal of Medical Sciences 2022;12(1):172–176 173 Biguanides, Sulfonylureas, α-glucosidase inhibitors, Meglitinides, Thiazolidinedione (TZD), Dipeptidyl Peptidase 4 (DPP-4) Inhibitors and Sodium Glucose Co-transport 2 (SGLT-2) Inhibitors. Drugs continue to be the most common interventions used to achieve glycemic control but drugs themselves have their adverse effect and can adversely have impact on mental and social health. In spite of their benefit of achieving glycemic control, there are many safety concerns with antidiabetic drugs such as gastrointestinal side effects, metabolic complications, central nervous system (CNS) symptoms, musculo-skeletal problems, genito-urinary disorders like UTI, development of peripheral oedema, weight gain etc. 3,4 Adverse Drug Reactions (ADRs) has been defined by World Health Organization (WHO) as any response to a drug which is noxious and unintended and occurs at doses normally used in man for prophylaxis, diagnosis, or therapy of disease or for the modification of physiologic function. But this definition has excluded overdose (from either accidental or intentional), drug abuse, treatment failure and errors in drug administration. 5–7 Diabetic patients generally require life-long treatment and continuous follow up but due to lack of knowledge and awareness many of them continue or discontinue their medications without regular monitoring of blood sugar level. 8–10 So, they are prone to develop adverse drug reactions and detection of ADR in these patients becomes nearly impossible. Therefore, the medications should be individualized for each patient according to HbA1c level and expected long-term benefit with specific safety concerns, as well as by considering fixed dose combinations including side effects, compliance, expense, concurrent co-morbidities etc. 11,12 The detection of Adverse Drug Reactions (ADRs) has become important due to introduction of large number of drugs in the last two decades. Adverse drug reactions generally occur daily in hospitals adversely affecting patient’s life but are often unreported causing considerable morbidity and mortality. Attention must be given in identifying the development of spurious sign and symptoms in patient with higher risk and concurrent co- morbidities. Drugs most commonly responsible the ADR should be suspected first. Increased supply of drugs in the market, promotion by pharmaceutical representatives and an upward trend in polypharmacy are contributing factors for increases evidence and complexities of ADRs worldwide. Adverse drug reactions can lead to loss of patient’s confidence on treatment leading to negative emotions toward their physician and discontinuation on treatment and engagement in self-treatment options, which may consequently precipitate additional ADRs and increase mortality and morbidity in population. 12,13 This study was planned to highlight pattern of Adverse Drug Reactions with use of oral anti-diabetic drugs. 2. Materials and Methods This study will be conducted at Department of Pharmacology, IGIMS Patna, after approval by institutional ethics committee of IGIMS, Patna (Bihar). 2.1. Study design Observational study. 2.2. Study duration 6 Months. 2.3. Source of data Adverse Drug Reaction Monitoring Centers (AMC), Department of Pharmacology, IGIMS Patna, (Bihar). 2.4. Materials All suspected Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Form having any anti-diabetic drug as suspected cause of ADR. 2.5. Inclusion criteria Suspected Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Form having any anti-diabetic drug as suspected cause of ADR. 2.6. Exclusion criteria Adverse drug reaction due to overdosing, CKD patients, intensive care patients and gestational diabetic patients were excluded. 2.7. Study design All suspected Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Form having any anti-diabetic drug as suspected cause of ADR were collected. The reported ADRs on the notification forms, after being confirmed by the physician-in-charge, were assessed for causality using WHO-UMC Causality Categories, 14 preventability using Modified-Schumock and Thornton scale 15 and severity using Modified Hartwig and Siegel scale. 16 The data from the forms was presented in tabular form and data will be interpreted by using Microsoft Excel 365 software. 3. Results and Discussion Adverse drug reaction related to gastrointestinal system were most reported ADRs (41.31%). Among GI adverse events, nausea was mostly reported ADR and it was mostly associated with DPP-4 inhibitors. Singh et al. found that most commonly prescribed observed ADRs in their study were related to endocrine and gastrointestinal system. 17 There is much controversy regarding mechanisms responsible for gastrointestinal adverse effects in patients 174 Hameed et al. / Panacea Journal of Medical Sciences 2022;12(1):172–176 Table 1: Frequency of Different Adverse Drug Reactions (ADRs) among Different Anti-Diabetic Drugs. Type of ADR No of ADRs % of ADRs Associated Drugs (no of ADRs) Nausea 99 29.64 Sitagliptin (53), Linagliptin (19), Metformin (11), Glimepiride (4), Canagliflozin (7), Voglibose (5) Hypoglycemia 51 29.64 Glimepiride (27), Sitagliptin (9), Metformin (6), Canagliflozin (3), Voglibose (2), Linagliptin (4) Urinary Tract Infection 18 5.39 Canagliflozin (11), Metformin (3), Voglibose (1), Glimepiride (2), Sitagliptin (1) Fever 21 6.29 Canagliflozin (13), Metformin (4), Linagliptin (2), Voglibose (2) Respiratory Tract Infection 15 4.49 Sitagliptin (9), Linagliptin (3), Canagliflozin (3) Weight Gain 33 9.88 Glimepiride (22), Pioglitazone (6), Metformin (5) Constipation 12 3.59 Metformin (4), Pioglitazone (3), Glimepiride (3), Sitagliptin (2) Diarrhea 18 5.39 Metformin (5), Voglibose (11), Sitagliptin (2) Hyperglycemia 9 2.69 Metformin (4), Glimepiride (2), Sitagliptin (2), Linagliptin (1) Abdominal Pain 9 2.69 Sitagliptin (3), Voglibose (3), Metformin (2), Glimepiride (1) Cough 6 1.80 Sitagliptin (3), Linagliptin (2), Canagliflozin (1) Edema 7 2.10 Pioglitazone (4), Metformin (2), Sitagliptin (1) Dizziness 6 1.80 Glimepiride (3), Sitagliptin (2), Metformin (1) Insomnia 6 1.80 Metformin (2), Glimepiride (2), Sitagliptin (1), Voglibose (1) Pruritus 9 2.69 Glimepiride (4), Metformin (3), Voglibose (2) Arthralgia 9 2.69 Sitagliptin (7), Linagliptin (2) Back pain 6 1.80 Sitagliptin (5) Linagliptin (1) Total 334 100 Table 2: Distribution of Suspected ADRs according to WHO-UMC Causality Categories Type of ADR Number of ADR Certain (%) Probable/Likely (%) Possible (%) Nausea 99 0 (0.00) 62 (62.63) 37 (37.37) Hypoglycemia 51 2 (3.92) 31 (60.78) 18 (35.29) Urinary Tract Infection 18 0 (0.00) 12 (66.67) 6 (33.33) Fever 21 0 (0.00) 13 (61.90) 8 (38.10) Respiratory Tract Infection 15 0 (0.00) 10 (66.67) 5 (33.33) Weight Gain 33 1 (3.03) 17 (51.52) 15 (45.45) Constipation 12 0 (0.00) 7 (58.33) 5 (41.67) Diarrhea 18 0 (0.00) 13 (72.22) 5 (27.78) Hyperglycemia 9 0 (0.00) 6 (66.67) 3 (33.33) Abdominal Pain 9 0 (0.00) 5 (55.56) 4 (44.44) Cough 6 0 (0.00) 4 (66.67) 2 (33.33) Edema 7 0 (0.00) 4 (57.14) 3 (42.86) Dizziness 6 0 (0.00) 3 (50.00) 3 (50.00) Insomnia 6 0 (0.00) 2 (33.33) 4 (66.67) Pruritus 9 0 (0.00) 7 (77.78) 2 (22.22) Arthralgia 9 0 (0.00) 6 (66.67) 3 (33.33) Back pain 6 0 (0.00) 4 (66.67) 2 (33.33) Total 334 3 (0.90) 206 (61.68) 125 (37.43) Table 3: Distribution of ADRs based on Preventability using Modified-Schumock and Thornton scale Categories Number of ADRs (n=334) % of ADRs Definitely preventable ADRs 103 30.84 Probably preventable ADRs 38 11.38 Non-preventable ADRs 193 57.78 Hameed et al. / Panacea Journal of Medical Sciences 2022;12(1):172–176 175 Table 4: Distribution of ADRs based on Severity using Modified Hartwig and Siegel scale Categories Number of ADRs (n=334) % of ADRs Mild 132 39.52 Moderate 197 58.98 Severe 5 1.50 of diabetes mellitus taking oral anti-diabetic drugs. Gastrointestinal symptoms are commonly reported adverse events in patients taking oral hypoglycemic drugs. 18 However, gastrointestinal symptoms are also very common in the world and many persons who are not taking medication also suffer from these, so a causal relationship is very difficult to prove in these ADRs. Furthermore, there is conflicting observations among previous studies done regarding possible risk factors for gastrointestinal side effects in diabetes patients; 19–21 and the most of the studies were lacking proper methodology. In our study, metformin was frequently associated with diarrhoea. This association between use of metformin and diarrhoea is not a new finding. A questionnaire- based survey was done on 285 diabetic patients in which it was found that metformin was the most common cause of chronic diarrhoea and faecal incontinence, 20% of the patients taking metformin reported these adverse effects. 22 Recently, Lysy et al. 23 also found that the commonest cause of severe diarrhoea in their survey of 861 patients taking anti-diabetic medications. However, these studies haven’t investigated on other possible risk factors, like complications related to diabetes mellitus, adequate glycaemic control, sex, age distribution, or use of other concurrent medications, so authenticity of the findings can’t be confirmed. The mechanisms of pathogenesis of diarrhoea by taking metformin is not clear. Dandona et al. has hypothesized that increase in intestinal motility caused by metformin can be the reason. 22 Hypoglycaemia was most frequently observed in patients taking sulfonylureas. Hypoglycaemia is a major limiting factor for use of sulfonylureas. In various studies, there is significant variations in prevalence and severity of hypoglycaemia caused by sulfonylureas. 24–26 In a recently conducted observational study, 27 the yearly risk for development of hypoglycaemia caused by use of sulfonylurea was 1.8% (180 per 10,000 person-years). higher hypoglycaemia risk was associated with long-acting formulations of the drug, chronic kidney disease, old age group and infrequent use of sulfonylureas. In a recent systematic review, 25 the risks of development of hypoglycaemia with the use metformin was reported to be between 0 and 21%. Since metformin has no direct action on insulin release, risk of hypoglycaemia is generally low. Arthralgia and back pain were reported from the patients taking DPP-4 inhibitors. Studies conducted among patients with inflammatory disorders have found that decrease in DPP-4 levels are was related with more severity. 28 Furthermore, Busso et al. found in their study that increased level of technetium was found the synovial exudative fluid of mice who were genetically deficient with DPP-4 enzyme. 29 In some other studies, it has been found that levels several inflammatory mediators (including SDF-1 a\b) are decreased by DPP-4. SDF-1 a\b plays a vital role in the pathogenesis of inflammatory disorders and SDF-1 is also confirmed as a pro-inflammatory marker. 30 Causality assessment according to WHO-UMC criteria showed 61.68% ADRs had probable causality while 37.43% had possible causality and only 0.90% had certain causality. Shanthi et al. found that 64% of the ADRs caused by anti- diabetic drugs in their study were probable. 31 In another study conducted in a tertiary care hospital it was found that 73.33% of ADR were possible. 32 Most of the ADRs in our study were non-preventable (57.78%) & were of mild to moderate grade. Shanthi et al. found that most of the ADRs in their study were not preventable (63%) as per modified Schumock and Thornton preventability scale and no severe ADR was reported in their study. 31 4. Conclusion Gastrointestinal adverse effects were mostly related to DPP- 4 inhibitors whereas diarrhoea was frequently reported by patients taking metformin. Hypoglycaemia continues to be major concern in patients taking anti-diabetic medications and sulfonylureas were commonest drugs responsible for it. There were some reports of back pain and arthralgia with the use of DPP-4 inhibitors and some other studies also reports evidences of hyperalgesia caused by DPP-4 inhibitors. The adverse effects should be taken into account while prescribing to patients with related co-morbid conditions. As anti-diabetic medication is generally taken for lifetime, the risk of development of adverse effects related to concurrent related co-morbidities of patients shouldn’t be ignored while prescribing. The physician should report these adverse effects to ADR monitoring centre, so that proper signal could be generated for the welfare of the society. 5. Acknowledgement We are thankful to the healthcare workers (faculty members) of IGIMS, Patna for their support. 176 Hameed et al. / Panacea Journal of Medical Sciences 2022;12(1):172–176 6. Conflict of Interest No conflict of interest. 7. Source of Funding None. References 1. Harrison T, Kasper D. Harrison’s principles of internal medicine. 18th edn. New York: McGraw-Hill Medical Publ. Division; 2012. p. 2968– 3002. 2. Brian RW, Nicki RC, Stuart HR, Ian DP. Davidsons principle and practice of medicine. 22nd edn. New York: Churchil Livingstone Elsevier Publication; 2014. p. 797–830. 3. Parthasarathi G, Nyfort-Hansen K, Milap CN. A text book of clinical pharmacy practice.2nd edn. Universities Press Private Limited; 2012. p. 104–10. 4. Revikumar KG, Miglani BD. A text book of pharmacy practice. 1st edn. Maharashtra: Career Publications; 2009. p. 233–57. 5. Raschetti R, Morgutti M, Menniti-Ippolito F, Belisari A, Rossignoli A, Longhini P, et al. Suspected adverse drug events requiring emergency department visits or hospital admissions. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1999;54(12):959–63. 6. Soumya MA, Sreelekshmi BS, Smitha S, Jiji KN, Arun S, Uma D, et al. Drug utilization pattern of anti-diabetic drugs among diabetic outpatients in a tertiary care hospital. Asian J Pharm Clin Res. 2015;8(2):144–6. 7. Sivasankari V, Manivannan E, Priyadarsini SP. Drug utilization pattern of anti-diabetic drugs in a rural area of Tamil Nadu, South India-A prospective, observational study. Int J Pharm Bio Sci. 2013;4(1):514– 9. 8. Alam M, Aqil M, Shah QS, Kapur P, Pillai K. Utilization Pattern of Oral Hypoglycemic Agents for Diabetes Mellitus Type 2 Patients Attending Out-patient Department at a University Hospital in New Delhi. Pharmacol Pharm. 2014;5(7):636–45. 9. Bhattacharjee A, Gupta MC, Agrawal S. Adverse drug reaction monitoring of newer oral anti diabetic drugs-a pharmacovigilance perspective. Int J Pharmacol Res. 2016;6(4):142–51. 10. American Diabetes Association. Diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care. 2012;35(1):64–71. doi:10.2337/dc12-s064. 11. IDF Diabetes Atlas. Idf.org. 2013. [cited 31 January]. . Available from: https://idf.org/e-library/epidemiology-research/diabetes-atlas/ atlas-6thedition.html. 12. Ramachandran A, Snehalatha C. Current scenario of diabetes in India. J Diabetes. 2009;1(1):18–28. 13. Patidar D, Rajput M, Nirmal N, Savitri W. Implementation and evaluation of adverse drug reaction monitoring system in a tertiary care teaching hospital in Mumbai, India. Interdiscip Toxicol. 2013;6(1):41–6. doi:10.2478/intox-2013-0008. 14. The use of the WHO-UMC system for standardised case causality assessment. Available from: https://www.who.int/medicines/areas/ quality_safety/safety_efficacy/WHOcausality_assessment.pdf?ua=1. 15. Schumock GT, Thornton JP. Focusing on the preventability of adverse drug reactions. Hosp Pharm. 1992;27(6):538. 16. Hartwig SC, Siegel J, Schneider P. Preventability and severity assessment in reporting adverse drug reactions. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1992;49(9):2229–32. 17. Singh A, Dwivedi S. Study of adverse drug reactions in patients with diabetes attending a tertiary care hospital. J Med Res. 2017;145(2):247–9. doi:10.4103/ijmr.IJMR_109_16. 18. Davidson MB, Peters AL. An overview of metformin in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Am J Med. 1997;102(1):99. doi:110. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9343(96)00353-1. 19. Feldman M, Schiller LR. Disorders of gastrointestinal motility associated with diabetes mellitus. Ann Intern Med. 1983;98(3):378– 84. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-98-3-378. 20. Spångéus A, El-Salhy M, Suhr O, Eriksson J, Lithner F. Prevalence of gastrointestinal symptoms in young and middle-aged diabetic patients. Scand J Gastroenterol. 1999;34(12):1196–202. doi:10.1080/003655299750024706. 21. Clouse RE, Lustman PJ. Gastrointestinal symptoms in diabetic patients: lack of association with neuropathy. Am J Gastroenterol. 1989;84:868–72. 22. Dandona P, Fonseca V, Mier A, Beckett AG. Diarrhea and metformin in a diabetic clinic. Diabetes Care. 1983;6(5):472–4. doi:10.2337/diacare.6.5.472. 23. Lysy J, Israeli E, Goldin E. The prevalence of chronic diarrhea among diabetic patients. Am J Gastroenterol. 1999;94(8):2165–70. doi:10.1111/j.1572-0241.1999.01289.x. 24. UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS); Group: Effect of intensive blood-glucose control with metformin on complications in overweight patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 34). Lancet . 1998;352(9131):854–65. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(98)07037-8. 25. Bolen S, Feldman L, Vassy J, Wilson L, Yeh HC, Marinopoulos S, et al. Systematic review: comparative effectiveness and safety of oral medications for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147(6):386–99. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-147-6- 200709180-00178. 26. UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group: Intensive blood- glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). Lancet . 1998;352(9131):837–53. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(98)07019-6. 27. Van Staa T, Abenhaim L, Monette J. Rates of hypoglycemia in users of sulfonylureas. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50(6):735–41. doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(97)00024-3. 28. Saito T, Ohnuma K, Suzuki H, Dang NH, Hatano R, Ninomiya H, et al. Polyarthropathy in type 2 diabetes patients treated with DPP4 inhibitors. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2013;102(1):e8–12. 29. Busso N, Wagtmann N, Herling C, Chobaz-Peclat V, Bischof-Delaloye A, So A, et al. Circulating CD26 is negatively associated with inflammation in human and experimental arthritis. Am J Pathol. 2005;166(2):433–42. 30. Takashi S, Yoshito H, Sae N, Rina I, Haruka K, Kenji Y, et al. Acute onset of rheumatoid arthritis associated with administration of a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP- 4) inhibitor to patients with diabetes mellitus. Diabetol Int. 2010;1(2):90–2. 31. Shanthi M, Madhavrao C. Study of adverse drug reaction and causality assessment of antidiabetic drugs. Int J Basic Clin Pharmacol. 2019;8(1):56–60. doi:10.18203/2319-2003.ijbcp20185158. 32. Palanisamy S, Kumaran K, Rajasekaran A. A study on assessment, monitoring and reporting of adverse drug reactions in Indian hospital. Asian J Pharm Clin Res. 2011;4(3):112–6. Author biography Saajid Hameed, Junior Resident Pankaj Kumar, Junior Resident Manish Kumar, Associate Professor Lalit Mohan, Additional Professor Harihar Dikshit, Professor and Head Cite this article: Hameed S, Kumar P, Kumar M, Mohan L, Dikshit H. Evaluation of suspected adverse drug reactions of oral anti-diabetic drugs in a tertiary care hospital of Bihar, India: An observational study. Panacea J Med Sci 2022;12(1):172-176. http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/dc12-s064 https://idf.org/e-library/epidemiology-research/diabetes-atlas/atlas-6thedition.html https://idf.org/e-library/epidemiology-research/diabetes-atlas/atlas-6thedition.html http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/intox-2013-0008 https://www.who.int/medicines/areas/quality_safety/safety_efficacy/WHOcausality_assessment.pdf?ua=1 https://www.who.int/medicines/areas/quality_safety/safety_efficacy/WHOcausality_assessment.pdf?ua=1 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ijmr.IJMR_109_16 http://dx.doi.org/110. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9343(96)00353-1 http://dx.doi.org/110. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9343(96)00353-1 http://dx.doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-98-3-378 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/003655299750024706 http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/diacare.6.5.472 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1572-0241.1999.01289.x http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(98)07037-8 http://dx.doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-147-6-200709180-00178 http://dx.doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-147-6-200709180-00178 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(98)07019-6 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0895-4356(97)00024-3 http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2319-2003.ijbcp20185158