MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study conducted amongst all government pharmacists in Perak. We excluded those who did not consent or were unreachable electronically. The researchers provided an online link that was forwarded to all heads of departments in Perak via social media. The respondents answered their demographic details, questions assessing their knowledge of NSI transmissible diseases, needle-stick handling practices, detail experiences of them suffering an NSI (all self-developed questionnaires), and their barriers in reporting an NSI (validated questionnaire). All responses were auto-tabulated in an excel sheet. A sample size of 516 pharmacists was needed for this study. A respondent was deemed to have inadequate knowledge when they answered any question wrongly about NSI knowledge-related questions and inappropriate practice in needle handling when respondents answered any questions wrongly for questions assessing practices.
RESULTS: A total of 524 pharmacists participated. The overall prevalence of NSI was 23.1% (n=121), of which, those with contaminated NSI were 10.3% (n=54, 95%CI: 7.9-13.30). Twothirds of the participants (66.6%) had inadequate knowledge and nearly all of them were unable to describe the appropriate needle-handling practices (94.7%). Amongst the reported barriers were "not knowing whose duty it was to report an NSI" (45.5%) and "busy schedules" (44.7%).
CONCLUSION: One in every five pharmacists in the state of Perak had a history of NSI, and 1 in every 10 had sustained a contaminated NSI. The barriers to reporting a NSI were mainly due to uncertainty about whose responsibility to report the incident and being too busy to report it.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study conducted from July 2020 till August 2021 in a regional state hospital, north of Malaysia. All patients requiring hospitalization for COVID-19 were approached within the first 2 weeks after admission to administer the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale - 21 Items (DASS-21) scale. Follow-up phone calls were made within 3 months of discharged to enquire about the DASS-21 items as well as the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R) scale items. Participants above the age of 18 and technology savvy to answer an online questionnaire were recruited for the study. We excluded participants with a known history of psychotic disorder from the study. We utilised the DASS-21 to screen for depression, anxiety, and stress, as well as the IES-R to identify symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. Participants could answer the questionnaires in either English or Bahasa Malaysia. For comparison of two categorical data, a chi-square was applied. A univariate analysis was first conducted and all variables with a p ≤0.3 was then entered into the multivariate analysis for the final output. Other than the univariate analysis, all other p values <0.05 were considered to be statistically significant. All data collected were tabulated and analysed in the SPSS v21.0 system.
RESULTS: A total of 306 out of 696 COVID-19 patients responded. The mean age for the participants was 31.69 (SD:11.19) years old. From the total, 54.2% were ladies, 78.8% were Malay, 50.7% were unmarried, 55.2% had higher education, and 67.6% were employed at the time of the survey. We found 20.5% of the participants were depressed, 38.9% had moderate anxiety, and 17.3% were stressed. From the total, 31.7% of the participants were deemed to have had some symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) ranging from mild to severe. From the final multivariate analysis, it was found that depression (p=0.02) had a 2.78 times likeliness of having PTSD, anxiety (p<0.001) had a 3.35 times likeliness of having PTSD and stressed patients (p=0.02) 2.86 times likeliness of having PTSD when compared to those without PTSD.
CONCLUSION: Patients reported to suffer from symptoms of PTSD and might benefit from psychological interventions to mitigate the impact in the long run.
METHODS: A parallel, open-label, 2-arm prospective, pilot randomised controlled trial was conducted at a long-term stroke service at a university based primary care clinic. All stroke caregivers aged ≥ 18 years, proficient in English or Malay and smartphone operation were invited. From 147 eligible caregivers, 76 participants were randomised to either SRA™ intervention or conventional care group (CCG) after receiving standard health counselling. The intervention group had additional SRA™ installed on their smartphones, which enabled self-monitoring of modifiable and non-modifiable stroke risk factors. The Stroke Riskometer app (SRATM) and Life's Simple 7 (LS7) questionnaires assessed stroke risk and lifestyle practices. Changes in clinical profile, lifestyle practices and calculated stroke risk were analysed at baseline and 3 months. The trial was registered in the Australia-New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry, ACTRN12618002050235.
RESULTS: The demographic and clinical characteristics of the intervention and control group study participants were comparable. Better improvement in LS7 scores were noted in the SRA™ arm compared to CCG at 3 months: Median difference (95% CI) = 0.88 (1.68-0.08), p = 0.03. However, both groups did not show significant changes in median stroke risk and relative risk scores at 5-, 10-years (Stroke risk 5-years: Median difference (95% CI) = 0.53 (0.15-1.21), p = 0.13, 10-years: Median difference (95% CI) = 0.81 (0.53-2.15), p = 0.23; Relative risk 5-years: Median difference (95% CI) = 0.84 (0.29-1.97), p = 0.14, Relative risk 10-years: Median difference (95% CI) = 0.58 (0.36-1.52), p = 0.23).
CONCLUSION: SRA™ is a useful tool for familial stroke caregivers to make lifestyle changes, although it did not reduce personal or relative stroke risk after 3 months usage.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: No: ACTRN12618002050235 (Registration Date: 21st December 2018).
METHODS: This retrospective population-based analysis estimated crude and standardized incidences of VLD and NLD in twelve hospitals in Brazil (n = 3), Mexico (n = 3), and Malaysia (n = 6) over a 1-year period before the introduction of the tetravalent dengue vaccine. Catchment areas were estimated using publicly available population census information and administrative data. The denominator population for incidence rates was calculated, and sensitivity analyses assessed the impact of important assumptions.
RESULTS: Total cases adjudicated as definite VLD were 5, 57, and 56 in Brazil, Mexico, and Malaysia, respectively. Total cases adjudicated as definite NLD were 103, 29, and 26 in Brazil, Mexico, and Malaysia, respectively. Crude incidence rates of cases adjudicated as definite VLD in Brazil, Mexico, and Malaysia were 1.17, 2.60, and 1.48 per 100,000 person-years, respectively. Crude incidence rates of cases adjudicated as definite NLD in Brazil, Mexico, and Malaysia were 4.45, 1.32, and 0.69 per 100,000 person-years, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Background incidence estimates of VLD and NLD obtained in Mexico, Brazil, and Malaysia could provide context for cases occurring after the introduction of the tetravalent dengue vaccine.
METHOD: Variables included in our model are categorized into four pillars: (i) incidence of cases, (ii) reliability of case data, (iii) vaccination, and (iv) variant surveillance. These measures are combined based on weights that reflect their corresponding importance in risk assessment within the context of the pandemic to calculate the risk score for each country. As a validation step, the outcome of the risk stratification from our model is compared against four countries.
RESULTS: Our model is found to have good agreement with these benchmarked risk designations for 27 out of the top 30 countries with the strongest travel ties to Malaysia (90%). Each factor within this model signifies its importance and can be adapted by governing bodies to address the changing needs of border control policies for the recommencement of international travel.
CONCLUSION: In practice, the proposed model provides a turnkey solution for nations to manage transmission risk by enabling stakeholders to make informed, evidence-based decisions to minimize fluctuations of imported cases and serves as a structure to support the improvement, planning, and activation of public health control measures.
AIM: To develop a list of medications to facilitate appropriate prescribing among older adults.
METHODS: A preliminary list of PIM and potential prescribing omission (PPO) were generated from systematic review, supplemented with local pharmacovigilance data of adverse reaction incidents among older people. Twenty-one experts from nine specialties participated in two Delphi to determine the list of PIM and PPO in February and March 2023. Items that did not reach consensus after the second Delphi round were adjudicated by six geriatricians.
RESULTS: The preliminary list included 406 potential candidates, categorised into three sections: PIM independent of diseases, disease dependent PIM and omitted drugs that could be restarted. At the end of Delphi, 92 items were decided as PIM, including medication classes, such as antacids, laxatives, antithrombotics, antihypertensives, hormones, analgesics, antipsychotics, antidepressants, and antihistamines. Forty-two disease-specific PIM criteria were included, covering circulatory system, nervous system, gastrointestinal system, genitourinary system, and respiratory system. Consensus to start potentially omitted treatment was achieved in 35 statements across nine domains.
CONCLUSIONS: The newly developed PIM criteria can serve as a useful tool to guide clinicians and pharmacists in identifying PIMs and PPOs during medication review and facilitating informed decision-making for appropriate prescribing.