OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess the extent of treatment interruption caused by efavirenz-associated ADEs.
METHODS: A case-control study of efavirenz recipients who did, versus did not (control) develop adverse drug events (ADE), and who were matched for baseline CD4 + at a ratio of 1:1.3 was conducted. Antiretroviral -naïve patients who were started on efavirenz were followed up retrospectively, and their records scrutinized every month for 2 years. Demographic and clinical predictors of treatment interruption were computed using Cox proportional hazard models. Kaplan- Meier curves were plotted to assess time to treatment interruption for the two groups. Clinical endpoints were: i) efficacy -improved CD4 + counts and/or viral load (VL) suppression, ii) safety -absence of treatment-limiting toxicities, and iii) durability - no interruption until follow-up ended.
RESULTS: Both groups had comparable CD4 + counts at baseline (p = 0.15). At t = 24-months, VL in both groups were suppressed to undetectable levels (<20 copies/mL) while median CD4 + was 353 cells/µL (IQR: 249-460). The mean time on treatment was 23 months (95% CI, 22.3 -23.4) in the control group without ADE and 20 months (95% CI, 18.9 - 21.6) in the ADE group (p = 0.001). Kaplan-Meier plots demonstrated that 59.5% of patients who experienced ≥ 1 ADE versus 81% of those who did not experience any ADE were estimated to continue treatment for up to 24 months with no interruption (p = 0.001). Most interruptions to EFV treatment occurred in the presence of opportunistic infections and these were detected within the first 5 months of treatment initiation. Independent predictors which negatively impacted the dependent variable i.e., treatment durability, were intravenous drug use (adjusted hazard ratio, aHR 2.17, 95% CI, 1.03-4.61, p = 0.043), presence of ≥ 1 opportunistic infection(s) (aHR 2.2, 95% CI, 1.13-4.21, p = 0.021), and presence of ≥ 1 serious ADE(s) (aHR 4.18, 95% CI, 1.98-8.85, p = 0.00).
CONCLUSION: Efavirenz' role as the preferred first-line regimen for South-East Asia's resource-limited regions will need to be carefully tailored to suit the regional population. Findings have implications to policy-makers and clinicians, particularly for the treatment of patients who develop ADEs and opportunistic infections, and for intravenous drug user subgroups.
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.
METHOD: Structured interviews with community pharmacists. Informed consent was obtained and interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Content analysis of themes on awareness of ADR reporting, reporting activities, attitudes and views on patient reporting.
RESULTS: All pharmacists claimed to have some knowledge of a reporting system but only one had submitted a report directly to the regulatory authority. Despite the low level of reporting activities, all participants agreed that it was part of their professional obligation to report an ADR. Most participants were not aware of the direct patient reporting scheme and were skeptical about its success. Lack of awareness and patients' limited knowledge about their medications were viewed as barriers to patient reporting. Local attitudinal issues including pharmacists' attitude towards ADR reporting were described as possible contributing factors.
CONCLUSION: Community pharmacists have an important role in reporting ADRs. Many Malaysian patients are still perceived to be ill-informed of their medications, an important determinant to the success of patient reporting. There is a need for further training about ADRs and ADR reporting for health professionals and further education for patients.
METHODS: All ADR associated with the use of CAM products (including health supplements) submitted to the Malaysian Centre for ADR Monitoring, National Pharmaceutical Regulatory Agency over a 15-year period were reviewed and analysed. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify predictors of serious ADR.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: From a total of 74 997 reports in the database, 930 (1.2%) involved CAM products, and 242 (26%) were serious with 36 deaths. About a third of the reports involved used CAM products for health maintenance. Most (78.1%) of the ADR reports implicated unregistered products with 16.7% confirmed to contain adulterants which were mainly dexamethasone. Of the 930 reports, the ADR involved skin and appendages disorders (18.4%) followed by liver and biliary system disorders (13.7%). The odds of someone experiencing serious ADR increased if the CAM products were used for chronic illnesses (odds ratio [OR] 1.99, confidence interval [CI] 1.46-2.71), having concurrent diseases (OR 1.51, CI 1.04-2.19) and taking concurrent drugs (OR 1.44, CI 1.03-2.02).
WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of serious ADR associated with CAM products is high. Factors identified with serious ADR included ethnicity, CAM users with pre-existing diseases, use of CAM for chronic illnesses and concomitant use of CAM products with other drugs. The findings could be useful for planning strategies to institute measures to ensure safe use of CAM products.
METHODS: Four attributes (ie, the scientific proof of effectiveness, the scientific proof of safety, the source of recommendation, and cost) were identified from a systematic review and focus group interviews. They were used to develop a DCE questionnaire. Consumers at community pharmacies in Malaysia were asked to respond to 8 DCE choice sets. A conditional logit model was employed to obtain the relative importance of each attribute and to estimate respondents' WTP for nutraceuticals.
RESULTS: A total of 111 valid responses were analyzed. A negative constant term in the developed model indicated that generally the respondents preferred not to use nutraceuticals before they considered the study attributes. The respondents preferred nutraceuticals with no side effect, clear evidence of effectiveness, and recommendation of a healthcare professional. The respondents were willing to pay $252/month more for nutraceuticals proven with no side effect than for those without proof of safety, and $102/month more for nutraceuticals proven with clear effectiveness than for those without proof of effectiveness.
CONCLUSIONS: Consumers weighed relatively high on the availability of safety and effectiveness proofs when they chose nutraceuticals. The study highlights on the crucial need to inform consumers using clinical evidences of nutraceuticals as the information is highly preferred by consumers.
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.
SETTING: The study was conducted at a tertiary hospital in the northern region of Peninsular Malaysia. Methods Action research methodology was used.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Pharmaceutical care issues.
RESULTS: The prevalence of diabetes mellitus among newly diagnosed tuberculosis patients was 15% (53/352). Out of 53 patients identified, 35 participated in the study. Patients' ages ranged between 29 and 73 years (mean of 52 ± 10 years). The male: female ratio was 1.7:1. Pharmaceutical care issues identified by pharmacists were nonadherence, uncontrolled diabetes mellitus, adverse drug reactions and individual patient's medication related problems. Pharmacists were able to intervene and resolve some of the pharmaceutical care issues.
CONCLUSION: Pharmacists played an important role in integrating the provision of care for tuberculosis and diabetes mellitus by providing individualised pharmaceutical care management. There still remains a need to address logistic barriers that impinged on the ability to conduct the pharmaceutical care service to its full potential.
SUMMARY: Cockroach allergy is an important risk factor for allergic rhinitis in the tropics, that disproportionately affects children and young adults and those living in poor socio-economic environments. Immunotherapy would provide long-lasting improvement in quality of life, with reduced medication intake. However, the present treatment regime is long and has a risk of adverse effects. In addition, cockroach does not seem to have an immuno-dominant allergen, that has been traditionally used to treat allergies from other sources. Future trends of cockroach immunotherapy involve precision diagnosis, to correctly identify the offending allergen. Next, precision immunotherapy with standardized allergens, which have been processed in a way that maintains an immunological response without allergic reactions. This approach can be coupled with modern adjuvants and delivery systems that promote a Th1/Treg environment, thereby modulating the immune response away from the allergenic response.
METHODS: A modified questionnaire was sent to the PV team heads of 21 PV agencies based in the APEC countries, between June 28 and September 12, 2017, to gather information on the structure, process, and outcome of PV status in these countries.
RESULTS: Of the 21 APEC countries, 15 responded. We found harmonized laws and regulations for general PV and risk management systems. However, variations were found in PV structure: for example, 11 out of 15 countries had national regulatory representatives responsible for PV in pharmaceutical companies, while four did not. For PV process, discrepancies were also found in the source type of adverse drug reaction (ADR) reports and reporting of medication errors and therapeutic ineffectiveness in cumulative ADR reports. With respect to PV outcomes, among countries that performed active surveillance, the United States of America was more active, with hundreds of projects including additional pharmacoepidemiological studies etc. Among the nine countries that responded, Japan had the greatest number of product label changes followed by Taiwan, Malaysia, and Korea.
CONCLUSION: We have identified substantial variations in the structures, processes, and outcomes of PV status among the countries of the APEC region. Therefore, efforts to reduce variations in the PV administration and regulation are warranted for harmonization of PV within the APEC region.
METHODS: Patients data with CKD stages 3-5 admitted at various wards were included in the model development. The data collected included demographic characteristics, comorbid conditions, laboratory tests and types of medicines taken. Sequential series of logistic regression models using mortality as the dependent variable were developed. Bootstrapping method was used to evaluate the model's internal validation. Variables odd ratio (OR) of the best model were used to calculate the predictive capacity of the risk scores using the area under the curve (AUC).
RESULTS: The best prediction model included comorbidities heart disease, dyslipidaemia and electrolyte imbalance; psychotic agents; creatinine kinase; number of total medication use; and conservative management (Hosmer and Lemeshow test =0.643). Model performance was relatively modest (R square = 0.399) and AUC which determines the risk score's ability to predict mortality associated with ADRs was 0.789 (95% CI, 0.700-0.878). Creatinine kinase, followed by psychotic agents and electrolyte disorder, was most strongly associated with mortality after ADRs during hospitalization. This model correctly predicts 71.4% of all mortality pertaining to ADRs (sensitivity) and with specificity of 77.3%.
CONCLUSION: Mortality prediction model among hospitalized stages 3 to 5 CKD patients experienced ADR was developed in this study. This prediction model adds new knowledge to the healthcare system despite its modest performance coupled with its high sensitivity and specificity. This tool is clinically useful and effective in identifying potential CKD patients at high risk of ADR-related mortality during hospitalization using routinely performed clinical data.