METHOD: This is a 6-month, single-center, prospective, randomized, two-arm, and parallel-group controlled trial. The trial recruits patients attending the otorhinolaryngology clinics of a tertiary referral hospital. Participants are randomized into control or intervention groups in a 1:1 ratio using permuted block randomization. The total number of participants estimated is 154, with each group requiring 77 participants. The control group receives standard pharmaceutical care, while the intervention group receives pharmacist-led education according to the AR-PRISE model. Both groups are assessed for middle turbinate endoscopy findings, disease severity, knowledge level, symptom control, medication adherence, and QoL at baseline and the end-of-study follow-up (day 180 ± 7). Depending on feasibility, intermediate follow-ups are conducted on days 60 ± 7 and 120 ± 7, either virtually or face-to-face. During intermediate follow-ups, participants are assessed for symptom control, medication adherence, and QoL. The intention-to-treat analysis includes all participants assigned to each group. An independent T-test compares the mean difference in knowledge level between the two groups. A two-way repeated measures ANOVA analysis is employed to determine between-group differences for scores of symptom control, adherence rate, and QoL. A P-value
METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study involving the extraction of all Malaysian patients' medical records who were diagnosed with AR and attended the otorhinolaryngology outpatient clinic of a government-funded tertiary hospital in Malaysia between 2017 and 2022.
RESULTS: 3,744 cases out of the 57,968 first-encounter outpatient visits to the otorhinolaryngology clinic were extracted for analysis. Overall, the prevalence of AR cases ranged from 1.83 to 9.23% between 2017 and 2022. There was a significant drop of 21.38 to 70.22% between the pre- and post-COVID-19 pandemic (p
SETTING: A sample of 1419 Malaysian community pharmacies with resident pharmacists.
METHOD: A cross-sectional nationwide survey using a self-completed mailing questionnaire.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Pharmacists' views on generic medicines including issues surrounding efficacy, safety, quality and bioequivalence.
RESULTS: Responses were received from 219 pharmacies (response rate 15.4%). Only 50.2% of the surveyed pharmacists agreed that all products that are approved as generic equivalents can be considered therapeutically equivalent with the innovator medicines. Around 76% of respondents indicated that generic substitution of narrow therapeutic index medicines is inappropriate. The majority of the pharmacists understood that a generic medicine must contain the same amount of active ingredient (84.5%) and must be in the same dosage form as the innovator brand (71.7%). About 21% of respondents though that generic medicines are of inferior quality compared to innovator medicines. Most of the pharmacists (61.6%) disagreed that generic medicines produce more side-effects than innovator brand. Pharmacists graduated from Malaysian universities, twinning program and overseas universities were not differed significantly in their views on generic medicines. Additionally, the respondents appeared to have difficulty in ascertaining the bioequivalent status of the marketed generic products in Malaysia.
CONCLUSION: The Malaysian pharmacists' have lack of information and/or trust in the generic manufacturing and/or approval system in Malaysia. This issue should be addressed by pharmacy educators and relevant government agencies.
METHOD: In phase one, we conducted a literature review using four databases to extract relevant articles and clinical practice guidelines published between 2017 and 2022. The information was structured into a questionnaire consisting of patient education material (10 domains with 130 items) and pharmacist counseling scopes (15 domains with 43 items), with each item having a rating scale ranging from 1 (lowest) to 9 (highest) level of agreement. Fifty-two panellists, including otorhinolaryngologists and pharmacists, were invited to complete the questionnaire. A consensus agreement was considered when at least 70% of panellists scored 7 to 9 (critically important). A two-round survey was conducted, and descriptive analysis, inter-rater reliability (≥ 0.5-1 indicate moderate to excellent reliability), variation in the relative interquartile (VRIR
CONCLUSION: Although cefepime-induced thrombocytopenia is rare, clinicians should be alert to this potential adverse effect among critically ill patients.