Patients and methods: This was a prospective study conducted in Hospital Pulau Pinang, Malaysia, between March 2015 and June 2015. Educational intervention was provided to 96 patients (11 males, 85 females; mean age 52.4±12.9 years; range, 20 to 83 years) who fulfilled the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Questionnaires to assess knowledge of CVD risk were given to patients to be answered before reading the informative leaflet, after one hour of intervention, and during their next follow-up three months from the intervention. Both the informative leaflet and questionnaires were prepared in English and then translated into Malay and Chinese languages to suit the need of local patients.
Results: Our results showed that RA patients had good knowledge at baseline regarding risk of smoking, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia on increasing CVD risk and that exercise would not damage their joints. However, they had low knowledge at baseline regarding the amount of exercise needed for lower CVD risks and risk of CVD with use of anti-inflammatory drugs in RA. Total knowledge score increased significantly from baseline immediately after educational intervention. However, total knowledge score decreased after three months compared to immediate post- intervention phase while it was still significantly higher compared to baseline. The improvement was most obvious for knowledge regarding anti- inflammatory drugs and CVD risk and knowledge regarding the number of flares and CVD risk. Our study did not find any significant association between demographic characteristics and traditional cardiovascular risk factors with knowledge of CVD risk.
Conclusion: Rheumatoid arthritis patients have low knowledge regarding their CVD risk related to their disease. The intervention of providing an informative leaflet effectively improved the knowledge of this group of patients on CVD risk particularly in the field related to RA-specific risk.
METHODS: The cross-sectional study was conducted at one hospital and 2 community pharmacies in Lahore, Pakistan, from November 2017 to July 2018, and comprised patients using calcium channel blockers. Data was collected using standardised scales to assess lower urinary tract symptoms and quality of life. Data was analysed using SPSS 22.
RESULTS: Of the 410 subjects, 315 (76.8%) were males. The overall median age was 50.84 years, IQR 19 with 126 (30.7%) aged 41-50 years. Of the total, 108 (26.3%) patients were on calcium channel blockers alone, while the rest were taking it in combination with other drugs. Prevalence of lower urinary tract symptoms was 307 (74.9%); mild 103 (25.1%), moderate 201 (49.1%) and severe 106 (25.9%). The symptoms were significantly associated with reduced quality of life (p<0.05).
Conclusion: Majority calcium channel blockers users had clinically significant lower urinary tract symptoms which significantly reduced patients' quality of life.
Objective: To critically examine the literature regarding the involvement of CCB in manifestation of LUTS in humans.
Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted on PubMed, SciELO, Scopus, and OpenGrey databases to find all potentially relevant research studies before August 2016.
Results: Five studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. Three out of five studies stated that CCB were involved in either precipitation or exacerbation of LUTS. As for the remaining two studies, one study found out that only the monotherapy of CCB was associated with increased prevalence of nocturia and voiding symptoms in young females, whereas the other study reported an inverse association of CCB with LUTS. The methodological quality of studies was considered high for four studies and low for one study.
Conclusion: Healthcare providers should make efforts for an earlier identification of the individuals at risk of LUTS prior to the commencement of CCB therapy. Moreover, patients should be counselled to notify their healthcare provider if they notice urinary symptoms after the initiation of CCB.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the rate, factors, and medications associated with ADR-related hospitalisations among HF patients.
SETTING: Two government hospitals in Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
METHODS: This was a prospective, observational study. Consecutive adult HF patients who were admitted between December 2011 and November 2012 to the cardiology units were included in this study. The circumstances of their admission were analysed.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: ADRs-related admissions of HF patients to cardiology units were identified and further assessed for their nature, causality, and preventability.
RESULTS: Of 511 admissions, 34 were due to ADR-related hospitalisation (6.65, 95 % confidence interval 4.8-8.5 %). Number of medications taken by HF patients was the only predictors of ADR-related hospitalisations, where higher number of medications was associated with the odd ratio of 1.11 (95 % CI, 1.03-1.20, P = 0.005). More than one-third of ADR-related hospitalisations (35 %) were preventable The most frequent drugs causing ADR-related hospitalisation were diuretics (32 %), followed by non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (15 %), thiazolidinediones (9 %), anticoagulants (9 %), antiplatelets (6 %), and aldosterone blockers (6 %).
CONCLUSION: ADR-related hospitalisations account for 6.7 % of admissions of HF patients to cardiac units, one-third of which are preventable. Number of medications taken by HF patients is the only predictors of ADR-related hospitalisations. Diuretic induced volume depletion, and sodium and water retention caused by thiazolidinediones and NSAIDs medications are the major causes of ADR-related hospitalisations of HF patients.
METHOD: This is a non-interventional, retrospective analysis of documented CPI in a 100-bed, acute-care private hospital in Amman, Jordan. Study consisted of 542 patients, 574 admissions, and 1694 CPI. Team collected demographic and clinical data using a standardized tool. Input consisted of 54 variables with some taking merely repetitive values for each CPI in each patient whereas others varying with every CPI. Therefore, CPI was consolidated to one rejected and/or one accepted per patient per admission. Groups of accepted and rejected CPI were compared in terms of matched and unmatched variables. ANN were, subsequently, trained and internally as well as cross validated for outcomes of interest. Outcomes were length of hospital and intensive care stay after the index CPI (LOSTA & LOSICUA, respectively), readmissions, mortality, and cost of hospitalization. Best models were finally used to compare the two scenarios of approving 80% versus 100% of CPI. Variable impacts (VI) automatically generated by the ANN were compared to evaluate the effect of rejecting CPI. Main outcome measure was Lengths of hospital stay after the index CPI (LOSTA).
RESULTS: ANN configurations converged within 18 s and 300 trials. All models showed a significant reduction in LOSTA with 100% versus 80% accepted CPI of about 0.4 days (2.6 ± 3.4, median (range) of 2 (0-28) versus 3.0 ± 3.8, 2 (0-30), P-value = 0.022). Average savings with acceptance of those rejected CPI was 55 JD (~ 78 US dollars) and could help hire about 1.3 extra clinical pharmacist full-time equivalents.
CONCLUSIONS: Maximizing acceptance of CPI reduced the length of hospital stay in this model. Practicing Clinical Pharmacists may qualify for further privileges including promotion to a fully independent prescriber status.
Aim: The aim of this study was to identify the correlation between the recommendation which had been followed by two HD centers in different countries and the impact of that on the hepatitis C infection issue.
Methods: A cohort prospective and retrospective study was done in this research. The study included HD patients who were followed up for 9 months and who died in the last 5 years. Universal sampling was used to select the patients based on inclusion criteria.
Results: There was a significant relationship between HCV during the first checkup and HCV during the second checkup during the 9-month follow-up of HD patients in a HD center, Jakarta, Indonesia. The total number of patients who had hepatitis C during the first and second checkups was also different in this HD center.
Conclusion: Besides providing special HD rooms and machines for HD patients with hepatitis C, minimizing blood transfusion to the patients on HD is also important to reduce the chance for the patients to acquire hepatitis C and to increase the percentage of survival.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included only COVID-19 positive patients hospitalized in a Private Hospital in West Jakarta between March and September 2020. All patients were not vaccinated during this period and treatment was based on the guidelines by the Ministry of Health Indonesia. A convenience sampling method was used and all patients who met the inclusion criteria were enrolled.
RESULTS: The clinical outcome of COVID-19 patients following medical therapy was either cured (85.7%) or died (14.3%), with 14.3% patients reported to have cytokine storm, from which 23.1% led to fatalities. A plasma immunoglobulin (Gammaraas®) and/or tocilizumab (interleukin-6 receptor antagonist; Actemra®) injection was utilised to treat the cytokine storm while remdesivir and oseltamivir were administered to ameliorate COVID-19. Most (61.5%) patients who experienced the cytokine storm were male; mean age 60 years. Interestingly, all patients who experienced the cytokine storm had hypertension or/ and diabetes complication (100%). Fever, cough and shortness of breath were also the common symptoms (100.0%). Almost all (92.3%) patients with cytokine storm had to be treated in the intensive care unit (ICU). Most (76.9%) patients who had cytokine storm received hydroxychloroquine and all had antibiotics [1) azithromycin + levofloxacin or 2) meropenam for critically ill patients] and vitamins such as vitamins C and B-complex as well as mineral. Unfortunately, from this group, 23.1% patients died while the remaining 70% of patients recovered. A significant (p<0.05) correlation was established between cytokine storms and age, the presence of comorbidity, diabetes, hypertension, fever, shortness of breath, having oxygen saturation (SPO2) less than 93%, cold, fatigue, ward of admission, the severity of COVID-19 disease, duration of treatment as well as the use of remdesivir, Actemra® and Gammaraas®. Most patients recovered after receiving a combination treatment (oseltamivir + remdesivir + Antibiotics + Vitamin/Mineral) for approximately 11 days with a 90% survival rate. On the contrary, patients who received oseltamivir + hydroxychloroquine + Gammaraas® + antibiotics +Vitamin/Mineral, had a 83% survival rate after being admitted to the hospital for about ten days.
CONCLUSION: Factors influencing the development of a cytokine storm include age, duration of treatment, comorbidity, symptoms, type of admission ward and severity of infection. Most patients (76.92%) with cytokine storm who received Gammaraas®/Actemra®, survived although they were in the severe and critical levels (87.17%). Overall, based on the treatment duration and survival rate, the most effective therapy was a combination of oseltamivir + favipiravir + hydroxychloroquine + antibiotics + vitamins/minerals.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the incidence of side effects following COVID-19 vaccination across different vaccine recipients in Southern Pakistan and identify the potential factors associated with these side effects in the population.
METHODS: The survey was conducted across Pakistan through Google-forms Links from August to October 2021. The questionnaire included demographic information and COVID-19 vaccine information. Chi-square (x2) was performed for comparative analysis to check the significance level with P <0.05. The final analysis included 507 participants who had received COVID-19 vaccines.
RESULTS: Of the total 507 COVID-19 vaccines recipients, 24.9% received CoronaVac, 36.5% received BBIBP-CorV, 14.2% received BNT162b2, 13.8% received AZD1222, and 10.7% received mRNA-1273. The most prominent side effects after the first dose were fever, weakness, lethargy, and pain at the site of injection. Moreover, the most commonly reported side effects after the second dose were pain at the injection site, headache, body ache, lethargy, fever, chills, flu-like symptoms, and diarrhea.
CONCLUSION: Our results suggested that the side effects due to COVID-19 vaccination can vary between the first and second doses and type of COVID-19 vaccine. Our findings suggest continuing monitoring of vaccine safety and the importance of individualized risk-benefit assessment for COVID-19 immunization.