MATERIALS AND METHODS: An online, anonymous, voluntary survey was conducted to assess the level of knowledge and understanding about EAPs among Malaysian oncologists using SurveyMonkey® between April 2020 and June 2020. Oncologists who had enquired about EAP in the past, were invited at random to participate in the survey. Participants who did not provide consent or failed to complete the survey were excluded.

RESULTS: A total of 15 oncologists participated in the survey, from both public (46.6%) and private (46.6%) practices. Most respondents (80%) had filed between 1 to 10 EAP applications in the past 12 months. For 73.3% respondents, resources or training were not provided for EAPs from institutions. Around 53% of the respondents reported that their knowledge of EAPs and application processes including country regulations is 'good'. The majority of respondents (73.3%) reported that the educational modules on an overview of EAPs, country regulations and the EAP application process will be beneficial. Most participants received information about the existing EAPs either by reaching out to a pharmaceutical sponsor or through another health care provider and some received information about the existing EAPs through their institutions or patients/caregivers. Most of the respondents recommended that pharmaceutical companies should have readily available information related to the availability and application of EAPs for all pipeline products on their websites.

DISCUSSION: EAPs are crucial treatment access pathways to provide investigational drugs to patients who have exhausted their treatment options and are not eligible for participation in clinical trials. Malaysian oncologists have a fair understanding about the EAPs and the application processes.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of any type of endoscopic sphincterotomy compared with a placebo drug, sham operation, or any pharmaceutical treatment, administered orally or endoscopically, alone or in combination, or a different type of endoscopic sphincterotomy in adults with biliary sphincter of Oddi dysfunction.

SEARCH METHODS: We used extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 16 May 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised clinical trials assessing any type of endoscopic sphincterotomy versus placebo drug, sham operation, or any pharmaceutical treatment, alone or in combination, or a different type of endoscopic sphincterotomy in adults diagnosed with sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, irrespective of year, language of publication, format, or outcomes reported.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods and Review Manager to prepare the review. Our primary outcomes were: proportion of participants without successful treatment; proportion of participants with one or more serious adverse events; and health-related quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were: all-cause mortality; proportion of participants with one or more non-serious adverse events; length of hospital stay; and proportion of participants without improvement in liver function tests. We used the outcome data at the longest follow-up and the random-effects model for our primary analyses. We assessed the risk of bias of the included trials using RoB 2 and the certainty of evidence using GRADE. We planned to present the results of time-to-event outcomes as hazard ratios (HR). We presented dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RR) and continuous outcomes as mean difference (MD) with their 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS: We included four randomised clinical trials, including 433 participants. Trials were published between 1989 and 2015. The trial participants had sphincter of Oddi dysfunction. Two trials were conducted in the USA, one in Australia, and one in Japan. One was a multicentre trial conducted in seven US centres, and the remaining three were single-centre trials. One trial used a two-stage randomisation, resulting in two comparisons. The number of participants in the four trials ranged from 47 to 214 (median 86), with a median age of 45 years, and the mean proportion of males was 49%. The follow-up duration ranged from one year to four years after the end of treatment. All trials assessed one or more outcomes of interest to our review. The trials provided data for the comparisons and outcomes below, in conformity with our review protocol. The certainty of evidence for all the outcomes was very low. Endoscopic sphincterotomy versus sham Endoscopic sphincterotomy versus sham may have little to no effect on treatment success (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.66; 3 trials, 340 participants; follow-up range 1 to 4 years); serious adverse events (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.46; 1 trial, 214 participants; follow-up 1 year), health-related quality of life (Physical scale) (MD -1.00, 95% CI -3.84 to 1.84; 1 trial, 214 participants; follow-up 1 year), health-related quality of life (Mental scale) (MD -1.00, 95% CI -4.16 to 2.16; 1 trial, 214 participants; follow-up 1 year), and no improvement in liver function test (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.26; 1 trial, 47 participants; follow-up 1 year), but the evidence is very uncertain. Endoscopic sphincterotomy versus endoscopic papillary balloon dilation Endoscopic sphincterotomy versus endoscopic papillary balloon dilationmay have little to no effect on serious adverse events (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.15; 1 trial, 91 participants; follow-up 1 year), but the evidence is very uncertain. Endoscopic sphincterotomy versus dual endoscopic sphincterotomy Endoscopic sphincterotomy versus dual endoscopic sphincterotomy may have little to no effect on treatment success (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.31; 1 trial, 99 participants; follow-up 1 year), but the evidence is very uncertain. Funding One trial did not provide any information on sponsorship; one trial was funded by a foundation (the National Institutes of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, NIDDK), and two trials seemed to be funded by the local health institutes or universities where the investigators worked. We did not identify any ongoing randomised clinical trials.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This study aimed to determine the most efficient and effective management of stagnant and shortage drugs by comparing three pharmacy logistic methods; the economic order quantity (EOQ), minimum-maximum stock level (MMSL), and the traditional consumption of drug inventory, at RA Basoeni Hospital, Mojokerto. Drug inventory was analyzed to calculate the opportunity loss, opportunity cost, and proportions of both stagnant and shortage drugs.

RESULTS: We found that EOQ and MMSL performed best for control of stagnant drugs and shortage drugs, respectively. Both methods had proved as effective pharmacy logistic planning. In addition, EOQ produced the lowest opportunity cost for stagnant drugs besides the lowest opportunity loss for shortage drugs.