METHODS: A cross-sectional study involving members of the Malaysian public was carried out using the convenience sampling method. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise the socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents. Associations between knowledge items/scores and other items were assessed using Spearman's rank correlations and Cramer's V. Regression analyses were carried out to determine whether the socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents influenced knowledge and practice relating to unregistered medications.
KEY FINDINGS: A total of 649 respondents completed the questionnaire with the majority being female (66.1%), unmarried (66.5%), Malay (52.5%) and possessing a bachelor's degree (53.5%). The knowledge of the public surveyed regarding unregistered (unlicensed) medications was lacking, especially in being able to identify a registered health product in Malaysia and formally complaining if necessary. The respondents agreed that currently, there are insufficient laws and educational programmes to tackle the issue. The respondents exhibited good practice habits by purchasing their medications from healthcare professionals. Mean knowledge score was positively correlated to practice scores at rs = 0.423 (P-value
METHODS: A questionnaire-based study was conducted among 188 randomly selected community pharmacists in the state of Johor, Malaysia. The questionnaire included four main TPB constructs (intention, attitude, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control) and related measures, including perceived moral obligation, past reporting behaviour and sociodemographic variables. Descriptive and hierarchical regression analyses were conducted.
KEY FINDINGS: A total of 164 questionnaires were collected. The mean score of intention to report ADRs was 15.43 (SD = 2.99). The final model of the hierarchical regression analysis showed that attitude towards ADR reporting (P = 0.004), subjective norm (P = 0.010) and perceived moral obligation (P = 0.014) were significant predictors of intention to report ADRs. Attitude was the most significant predictor, followed by subjective norm and perceived moral obligation.
CONCLUSIONS: Interventions targeting community pharmacists' attitude, subjective norms and perceived moral obligations towards ADR reporting, with a specific focus on attitude would likely have a positive impact on improving ADR reporting in Malaysia.
METHODS: Literature search using electronic databases including PubMed, Google Scholar and National Medical Research Register was conducted. Additional articles were identified by reviewing the bibliography of the retrieved articles. The articles were searched with any of the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms in the title: adverse drug reaction, attitude, awareness, behaviour, experience, knowledge, Malaysia, perspectives, pharmacovigilance, practice and view. Studies were selected based on fulfilment of inclusion and exclusion criteria. The articles were scrutinised using thematic analysis.
KEY FINDINGS: Nine studies conducted among doctors, pharmacists and nurses met the inclusion criteria. Five themes emerged which included knowledge, attitude, practice, barriers and facilitators of adverse drug reaction reporting among healthcare professionals.
CONCLUSION: In general, healthcare professionals in Malaysia have good knowledge on and positive attitudes towards adverse drug reaction reporting. However, the practice of adverse drug reaction reporting was found to be unsatisfactory among healthcare professional in Malaysia. The approaches taken to enhance ADR reporting among Malaysian healthcare professionals should focus on alleviating lethargy and ignorance associated with ADR reporting.
OBJECTIVES: 1. To assess the effects of CPAP on AoP in preterm infants (this may be compared to supportive care or mechanical ventilation). 2. To assess the effects of different CPAP delivery systems on AoP in preterm infants.
SEARCH METHODS: Searches were conducted in September 2022 in the following databases: Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL. We also searched clinical trial registries and the reference lists of studies selected for inclusion.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which researchers determined that CPAP was necessary for AoP in preterm infants (born before 37 weeks). Cross-over studies were also included, provided sufficient data were available for analysis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methods of Cochrane and Cochrane Neonatal, including independent assessment of risk of bias and extraction of data by at least two review authors. Discrepancies were resolved by involvement of a third author. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence for the following outcomes: 1) failed CPAP; 2) apnoea; 3) adverse effects of CPAP.
MAIN RESULTS: We included four single-centre trials conducted in Malaysia, Spain, Germany, and North America, involving 138 infants with a mean/median gestation of 26 to 28 weeks. Two studies were parallel-group RCTs and two were cross-over trials. None of the studies compared CPAP with supportive care. All trials compared one form of CPAP with another. Two compared a variable flow device with ventilator CPAP, one compared two different variable flow devices, and one compared a variable flow device with bubble CPAP. Interventions were administered for periods ranging between six and 48 hours, with pressures between 4 and 6 cm H2O. We assessed all trials as having a high risk of bias for blinding of participants and personnel, and two studies for blinding of outcome assessors. We found a high risk of a carry-over effect in two studies where the washout period was not adequately described, and a high risk of bias in a study that appeared to use an analysis method not generally accepted for cross-over studies. Comparison 1. CPAP and supportive care compared to supportive care alone We did not identify any study for inclusion in this comparison. Comparison 2. CPAP delivered by different types of devices 2a. Variable flow compared to ventilator CPAP Two studies were included in this comparison. We are very uncertain whether there is any difference in the incidence of failed CPAP, defined as the need for mechanical ventilation (risk ratio (RR) 0.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 2.90; 1 study, 26 participants; very low-certainty). We are very uncertain whether there is any difference in the frequency of apnoea events (mean difference (MD) per four-hour interval -0.10, 95% CI -1.30 to 1.10; 1 study, 26 participants; very low-certainty). We are uncertain whether there is any difference in adverse events. Neurodevelopmental outcomes were not reported. 2b. Variable flow compared to bubble CPAP We included one study in this comparison, but it did not report our pre-specified outcomes. 2c. Infant Flow variable flow CPAP compared to Medijet variable flow CPAP We are very uncertain whether there is any difference in the incidence of failed CPAP (RR 2.62, 95% CI 0.91 to 7.53; 1 study, 80 participants; very low-certainty). The frequency of apnoea was not reported, and we do not know whether there is any difference in adverse events. Neurodevelopmental outcomes were not reported. Comparison 3. CPAP compared to mechanical ventilation We did not identify any studies for inclusion in this comparison.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Due to the limited available evidence, we are very uncertain whether any CPAP device is more effective than other forms of supportive care, other CPAP devices, or mechanical ventilation for the prevention and treatment of AoP. The devices used in these studies included two types of variable flow CPAP device: bubble CPAP and ventilator CPAP. For each comparison, data were only available from a single study. There are theoretical reasons why these devices might have different effects on AoP, therefore further trials are indicated.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted using a validated self-administered questionnaire. A convenience sample of 147 community pharmacists working in community pharmacies in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
RESULTS: The questionnaire was distributed to 147 pharmacists, of whom 104 responded to the survey, a 70.7% response rate. The mean age of participants was 29 years. The majority (n = 101, 98.1%) had graduated with a bachelorette degree and worked in chain pharmacies (n = 68, 66.7%). Only 23 (22.1%) said they were familiar with the ADR reporting process, and only 21 (20.2%) knew that pharmacists can submit ADR reports online. The majority of the participants (n = 90, 86.5%) had never reported ADRs. Reasons for not reporting ADRs most importantly included lack of awareness about the method of reporting (n = 22, 45.9%), misconception that reporting ADRs is the duty of physician and hospital pharmacist (n = 8, 16.6%) and ADRs in community pharmacies are simple and should not be reported (n = 8, 16.6%). The most common approach perceived by community pharmacists for managing patients suffering from ADRs was to refer him/her to a physician (n = 80, 76.9%).
CONCLUSION: The majority of community pharmacists in Riyadh have poor knowledge of the ADR reporting process. Pharmacovigilance authorities should take necessary steps to urgently design interventional programs in order to increase the knowledge and awareness of pharmacists regarding the ADR reporting process.
Methods: We conducted a three-day course in February 2011 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. It was developed to provide attendees with the essential knowledge and skills to become a medication safety officer. Teaching methodologies included didactic teaching, group discussions, case presentations, and an independent study of medication safety materials. The content of the course focused on the various roles of a medication safety officer, the importance of medication safety in a health care setting, the incidence of adverse drug events in a hospital setting, strategies to identify and prevent adverse events, the use of root cause analysis and failure mode and effect analysis, the role of an officer in hospital accreditation, and ways for promoting safety culture. Assessment of the course outcome was accomplished by comparing scores of knowledge level before and after the course. The knowledge level was assessed by a 20-item exam which was developed and validated by course instructors.
Results: Twenty-one participants attended the course and completed both the baseline and after-course assessment questionnaires. The majority was male (N = 14, % = 66.7) with a job experience of 1-5 five years (N = 10, % = 47.6). The knowledge score increased from 14.3 ± 1.90 (mean ± standard deviation) at baseline to 18.5 ± 1.43 after successfully completing the course (P
METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted in five districts of the Punjab province of Pakistan between January and March 2022. The participants were recruited using convenience sampling. All data were analyzed using SPSS 22.
RESULTS: We recruited 1622 people with the majority aged between 25-45 years. Of these, 51% were female, including 27 pregnant women and 42 lactating mothers. Most participants had received the Sinopharm (62.6%) or Sinovac (17.8%) vaccines. The incidences of at least one side effect after the first (N = 1622), second (N = 1484), and booster doses (N = 219) of the COVID-19 vaccine were 16.5%, 20.1%, and 32%, respectively. Inflammation/erythema at the injection site, pain at the injection site, fever, and bone/muscle pain were common side effects of vaccination. No significant differences were observed in the adverse effect scores between all demographic variables except for pregnancy (P = 0.012) after the initial dose. No significant association was observed between any variable and the side effect scores of the second and booster doses of the vaccine.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed a 16-32% prevalence of self-reported side effects after the first, second, and booster COVID-19 vaccinations. Most adverse effects were mild and transient, indicating the safety of different COVID-19 vaccines.
METHODS: Extensive information related to nanosuspensions and its associated patents were collected using Pub Med and Google Scholar.
RESULTS: Over the last decade nanosuspensions have attracted tremendous interest in pharmaceutical research. It provides unique features including, improved solubility, high drug loading capacity, and passive targeting. These particles are cost-effective, simple, and have lesser side effects with minimal dose requirements. However, the stability of nanosuspensions still warrants attention.
CONCLUSION: Nanosuspensions play a vital role in handling the numerous drug entities with difficult physico-chemical characteristics such as solubility and can further aid with a range of routes that include nasal, transdermal, ocular, parenteral, pulmonary etc. This review highlights the relevance of nanosuspensions in achieving safe, effective and targeted drug delivery.
METHODS: We prospectively studied older patients (n = 301) admitted to three urban, public-funded hospitals. We scrutinized their medical records and used STOPP-START (Screening Tool to Alert Prescribers to Right Treatment) criteria to determine PIM and potential prescribing omissions (PPO) respectively- together these constitute IP. Prescriptions with PIM(s) were subjected to a pharmacist medication review, aimed at detecting cases of ADE(s). The vetted cases were further assessed by an expert consensus panel to ascertain: i) causality between the ADE and hospitalization, using, the World Health Organization Uppsala Monitoring Centre criteria, and, ii) whether the ADEs were avoidable (using Hallas criteria). Finally, percentages of PIM-associated ADEs that were both preventable and linked to hospitalization were calculated.
RESULTS: IP prevalence was 58.5% (n = 176). A majority (49.5%, n = 150) had moderate to severe degree of comorbidities (Charlson Comorbidity Index score ≥ 3). Median age was 72 years. Median number of medications was 6 and 30.9% (n = 93) had ≥8 medications. PIM prevalence was 34.9% (117 PIMs, n = 105) and PPO 37.9% (191 PPOs, n = 114). Most PIMs and PPOs involved overuse of aspirin and underuse of both antiplatelets and statins respectively. With every increase in the number of medications prescribed, the likelihood of PIM occurrence increased by 20%, i.e.1.2 fold (OR 1.20, 95% CI: 1.1-1.3). Among the 105 patients with PIMs, 33 ADEs (n = 33); 31 ADEs (n = 31) considered "causal" or "contributory" to hospitalization; 27 ADEs (n = 27) deemed "avoidable" or "potentially avoidable"; and 25 PIM-associated ADEs, preventable, and that induced hospitalization (n = 25), were identified: these equated to prevalence of 31.4%, 29.5%, 25.7%, and 23.8% respectively. The most common ADEs were masked hypoglycemia and gastrointestinal bleed. With every additional PIM prescribed, the odds for ADE occurrence increased by 12 folds (OR 11.8, 95% CI 5.20-25.3).
CONCLUSION: The majority of the older patients who were admitted to secondary care for acute illnesses were potentially exposed to IP. Approximately a quarter of the patients were prescribed with PIMs, which were plausibly linked with preventable ADEs that directly caused or contributed to hospitalization.
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.