METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was conducted in 3 district hospitals in Sabah, Malaysia to compare the efficacy of AL against chloroquine (CQ) for uncomplicated knowlesi malaria. Participants were included if they weighed >10 kg, had a parasitemia count <20000/μL, and had a negative rapid diagnostic test result for Plasmodium falciparum histidine-rich protein 2. Diagnosis was confirmed by means of polymerase chain reaction. Patients were block randomized to AL (total target dose, 12 mg/kg for artemether and 60 mg/kg for lumefantrine) or CQ (25 mg/kg). The primary outcome was parasite clearance at 24 hours in a modified intention-to-treat analysis.
RESULTS: From November 2014 to January 2016, a total of 123 patients (including 18 children) were enrolled. At 24 hours after treatment 76% of patients administered AL (95% confidence interval [CI], 63%-86%; 44 of 58) were aparasitemic, compared with 60% administered CQ (47%-72%; 39 of 65; risk ratio, 1.3 [95% CI, 1.0-1.6]; P = .06). Overall parasite clearance was shorter after AL than after CQ (median, 18 vs 24 hours, respectively; P = .02), with all patients aparasitemic by 48 hours. By day 42 there were no treatment failures. The risk of anemia during follow-up was similar between arms. Patients treated with AL would require lower bed occupancy than those treated with CQ (2414 vs 2800 days per 1000 patients; incidence rate ratio, 0.86 [95% CI, .82-.91]; P < .001). There were no serious adverse events.
CONCLUSIONS: AL is highly efficacious for treating uncomplicated knowlesi malaria; its excellent tolerability and rapid therapeutic response allow earlier hospital discharge, and support its use as a first-line artemisinin-combination treatment policy for all Plasmodium species in Malaysia.
CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT02001012.
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.
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: 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: This cross-sectional study was conducted via retrospective review of outpatients' medical records. Details regarding ADRs were identified by a pharmacist and verified by a consultant respiratory physician.
Results: A total of 91 cases, out of 210 patients enrolled in this study, were detected with 75 patients (35.7%) experienced at least one ADR. The three most common ADRs detected were cutaneous adverse drug reactions (CADRs) (21.0%), drug-induced hepatitis (DIH) (7.1%) and gastrointestinal disturbance (4.8%). Pyrazinamide was the most common causative agent and 15.7% of all TB patients required treatment modification due to ADRs. Females were shown to have a higher tendency to develop ADRs than the males in this study (P = 0.009). The development of ADRs was shown not to affect the TB treatment outcomes (P = 0.955).
Conclusion: The incidence of ADRs in this study was high so it is important to identify the risk factors for ADRs and the individuals who have those risk factors when initiating anti-TB drugs. These individuals require special attention when anti-TB drugs are initiated.
Methods: A cross-sectional, questionnaire-based study was conducted among 103 pharmacists from 74 different community pharmacies to assess their knowledge about the use of herbal medicines and its adverse drug reaction reporting by using a pre-validate knowledge questionnaire consisting of 12 questions related to it. The pharmacists' responses were measured at a 3-point Likert scale (Poor=1, Moderate=2, and Good=3) and data was entered in SPSS version 22. The minimum and maximum possible scores for knowledge questionnaires were 12 and 36 respectively. Quantitative data was analyzed by using One Way ANOVA and Paired t-test whereas Chi-square and Fisher exact test were used for qualitative data analysis. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all the analyses.
Results: About 92% of the pharmacist had good knowledge regarding the use of herbal medicines and its adverse drug reaction reporting with a mean knowledge score of 32.88±3.16. One-way ANOVA determined a significant difference of employment setting (p<0.043) and years of experience (<0.008) with mean knowledge scores of Pharmacists. Pharmacists' knowledge was significantly associated with their years of experience with the Chi-square test.
Conclusion: Pharmacists exhibit good knowledge regarding the use of herbal medicines and its adverse drug reaction reporting. However, with an increasing trend of herbal medicine use and its adverse drug reaction reporting it recalls the empowerment of experienced pharmacists with training programs in this area for better clinical outcomes.
METHODS: A cross-sectional questionnaire-based survey was employed, and a convenience sampling was opted to collect the data among physicians, pharmacists and nurses working in tertiary care public hospitals of Lahore, Pakistan from September 2018 to January 2019.
RESULTS: Of the 384 questionnaires distributed, 346 health care professionals responded to the questionnaire (90.10% response rate). Most participants had good knowledge about ADR reporting, but pharmacist had comparatively better knowledge than other HCPs regarding ADR (89.18%) pharmacovigilance system (81.08%), its centres (72.97%) and function (91.89%). Most of the participants exhibited positive attitude regarding ADR reporting, such as 49.1% of physicians (P
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