Methods: A systematic search using predefined search terms in three scholarly databases, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, and PubMed, was conducted. Original research articles published in the English language between 2012 and 2020 that reported renal outcomes associated with the use of non-insulin AD pharmacotherapy were eligible for inclusion. Review articles, meta-analysis studies, and conference proceedings were excluded. A study-specific data extraction form was designed to extract the author's name, country, publication year, study design, study population, objectives, key findings, and conclusions. A narrative review of the key findings that focused on renal outcomes and renal safety issues was conducted.
Results: Of the 18,872 results identified through the initial search, a total of 32 articles were included in this review. Of these, 18 of the included articles reported the renal outcomes of newer antidiabetic medications, eg, SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists. Eight studies focussed on the well-established antidiabetic medications, eg, metformin and sulphonylureas. The review reported three main types of the clinical impact of the prescribed AD on the renal outcomes: "renoprotective effects", "no additional risk" and "associated with a decline in renal parameters". Seventeen studies reported the renoprotective effects of AD, including SGLT2i studies (n=8), GLP1 studies (n=6), and DPP4i studies (n=3). The reported renoprotective effects included slowing down the GFR decline, improving albuminuria, and reducing renal adverse events. The "no additional risk" impact was reported in eight studies, including DPP4i studies (n=3), two SGLT2i studies (n=2), metformin studies (n=2), and one study involving pioglitazone. Furthermore, seven studies highlighted the "associated with a decline in renal parameters" effect. Of these, three involved SGLT2i, two with metformin, and one for each DPP4i and sulphonylurea.
Conclusion: More than half of the studies included in this review supported the renoprotective effects associated with the use of AD medications, particularly GLP-1A, SGLT2i, and some of the DPP4i. Further studies involving patients with various stages of chronic kidney disease (CKD) are required to compare AD medications' renal effects, particularly the newer agents.
AIMS: To investigate the effect of intraperitoneal administration of ondansetron for postoperative pain management as an adjuvant to intravenous acetaminophen in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
METHODS: Patients scheduled for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomized into two groups (n = 25 each) to receive either intraperitoneal ondansetron or saline injected in the gall bladder bed at the end of the procedure. The primary outcome was the difference in pain from baseline to 24-h post-operative assessed by comparing the area under the curve of visual analog score between the two groups.
RESULTS: The derived area under response curve of visual analog scores in the ondansetron group (735.8 ± 418.3) was 33.97% lower than (p = 0.005) that calculated for the control group (1114.4 ± 423.9). The need for rescue analgesia was significantly lower in the ondansetron (16%) versus in the control group (54.17%) (p = 0.005), indicating better pain control. The correlation between the time for unassisted mobilization and the area under response curve of visual analog scores signified the positive analgesic influence of ondansetron (rs =0.315, p = 0.028). The frequency of nausea and vomiting was significantly lower in patients who received ondansetron than that reported in the control group (p = 0.023 (8 h), and 0.016 (24 h) respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: The added positive impact of ondansetron on postoperative pain control alongside its anti-emetic effect made it a unique novel option for patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
OBJECTIVE: The present study aimed to assess grit level and its related factors among undergraduate pharmacy students from 14 countries amid the COVID-19 pandemic.
METHODS: A cross-sectional survey-based study was conducted among pharmacy students from 14 countries in Asia and the Middle East. A 31-item questionnaire was developed, validated, and pilot-tested, including the validated short scale for grit assessment. The data was collected between 1 February and 15 April 2022. Descriptive and inferential statistics were employed as appropriate.
RESULTS: A total of 2665 responses were received, mainly from females (68.7 %), living in urban areas (69.2 %) and studying at private universities (59.1 %). The average grit score on a scale of 5 was 3.15 ± 0.54. The responses revealed higher favourable responses to items on the perseverance of efforts (34.9 % to 54 %) compared to items on the consistency of interests (26.5 % to 31.1 %). Students who did not exercise (AOR: 0.47, 95 %CI: 0.33-0.67) or exercised irregularly (AOR: 0.64, 95 %CI: 0.45-0.90) were less likely to have higher grit scores than those who exercised regularly. Additionally, students who did not receive COVID-19 vaccination (AOR: 0.50, 95 %CI: 0.36-0.71) or received only one dose (AOR: 0.67, 95 %CI: 0.46-0.99) were less likely to have higher grit scores than those who received their booster vaccination. Interestingly, students who chose the pharmacy program as their only available or reasonable choice (AOR: 0.33, 95 %CI: 0.17-0.62) and students from public universities (AOR: 0.82, 95 %CI: 0.68-0.98) were less likely to have higher grit scores. On the other hand, students who did not face educational challenges with online learning (AOR: 1.19, 95 %CI: 1.003-1.416) and students with excellent (AOR: 2.28, 95 %CI: 1.57-3.31) and very good (AOR: 2.16, 95 %CI: 1.53-3.04) academic performance were more likely to have higher grit scores.
CONCLUSION: The findings revealed moderate grit levels. Higher grit levels were thought to be associated with several personal, lifestyle and academic factors. Further interventions to support students' grit attributes are required, particularly concerning the consistency of interests.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted among undergraduate pharmacy students in 14 countries in Asia and the Middle East. The validated Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (the 14-item WEMWBS) was adopted to assess mental wellbeing. Data collection was performed online between February and April 2022. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used as appropriate.
RESULTS: A total of 2,665 responses were received, mainly from females (68.7%) with a higher presence of private universities (59.1%). About 34.9% had low mental wellbeing levels, while 57 and 8.1% had medium, and high levels, respectively. Binary logistic regression showed that males (AOR: 1.34; CI 95%: 1.11-1.61; p < 0.01) and students with no chronic illnesses (AOR: 2.01; CI 95%: 1.45-2.80; p < 0.001) were more likely to have higher mental wellbeing. Also, participants who did not engage in any exercise (AOR: 0.71; CI 95%: 0.52-0.98; p = 0.04) and those in public universities (AOR: 0.82; CI 95%: 0.69-0.97; p = 0.02) were less likely to have higher mental wellbeing. Additionally, students who had interest/passion for pharmacy (AOR: 1.69; CI 95%: 1.07-2.68; p = 0.02), and those who known pharmacists inspired (AOR: 1.81; CI 95%: 1.06-3.12; p = 0.03), were more likely to have higher mental wellbeing compared with those who had no specific reason for their choice to study pharmacy. The participants with excellent (AOR: 1.87; CI 95%: 1.29-2.70; p = 0.001) or very good self-reported academic performance (AOR: 1.57; CI 95%: 1.12-2.22; p = 0.01) were more likely to have higher mental wellbeing compared to those with fair academic performance.
CONCLUSION: More than a third of the participants had low mental wellbeing. Various demographic, lifestyle, medical and academic factors appeared to affect students' mental wellbeing. Careful consideration of these factors and their integration into the pharmacy schools' plans for student support services and academic advising would be essential to improve students' mental wellbeing.
METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey-based study was conducted among randomly selected pharmacy students in 12 countries: Egypt, Türkiye, Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iraq, Jordan, Nigeria, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and the United Arab Emirates. After pilot testing, the validated 30-item academic resilience scale (ARS) was used for the assessment. The data were collected between November 1, 2022 and April 15, 2023. Descriptive and inferential statistics were performed, as appropriate.
RESULTS: A total of 3950 were received from the 12 participating countries. The mean age was 21.68 ± 2.62 years. About two-thirds of the responses were from female participants and those studying for Bachelor of Pharmacy degrees. Overall, the findings show moderate academic resilience, which varied across countries. The median (IQR) of the total ARS-30 was 114 (103-124). Females exhibited lower negative affective and emotional response subscale levels than males. There were significant cross-country variations in the ARS-30 and all subscales. The highest overall levels were reported for Sudan, Pakistan, and Nigeria and the lowest were reported for Indonesia and Türkiye. Students in private universities tended to have higher overall ARS levels than public university students. Higher academic performance was significantly associated with ARS levels, whereas those with excellent performance exhibited the highest ARS levels. Students with exercise routines had higher ARS levels than those without exercise routines. Finally, students who were engaged in extracurricular activities had higher ARS levels than those who did not participate in these activities.
CONCLUSION: The study offers insights into the factors affecting academic resilience in pharmacy students across several countries. The findings could guide interventions and support activities to improve resilience and academic outcomes.