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.
SETTING: Five medical and cardiology wards of a tertiary care center in Malaysia.
SUBJECTS: Five hundred cardiac inpatients, who received ACEIs concomitantly with other interacting drugs.
METHOD: This was a prospective cohort study of 500 patients with cardiovascular diseases admitted to Penang Hospital between January to August 2006, who received ACEIs concomitantly with other interacting drugs. ACEI-drug interactions of clinical significance were identified using available drug information resources. Drug Interaction Probability Scale (DIPS) was used to assess the causality of association between ACEI-drug interactions and the adverse outcome (hyperkalemia).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Hyperkalemia as an adverse clinical outcome of the interaction was identified from laboratory investigations.
RESULTS: Of the 489 patients included in the analysis, 48 (9.8%) had hyperkalemia thought to be associated with ACEI-drug interactions. Univariate analysis using binary logistic regression revealed that advanced age (60 years or more), and taking more than 15 medications were independent risk factors significantly associated with hyperkalemia. However, current and previous smoking history appeared to be a protective factor. Risk factors identified as predictors of hyperkalemia secondary to ACEI-drug interactions by multi-logistic regression were: advanced age (adjusted OR 2.3, CI 1.07-5.01); renal disease (adjusted OR 4.7, CI 2.37-9.39); hepatic disease (adjusted OR 5.2, CI 1.08-25.03); taking 15-20 medications (adjusted OR 4.4, CI 2.08-9.19); and taking 21-26 medications (adjusted OR 9.0, CI 1.64-49.74).
CONCLUSION: Cardiac patients receiving ACEIs concomitantly with potentially interacting drugs are at high risk of experiencing hyperkalemia. Old age, renal disease, hepatic disease, and receiving large number of medications are factors that may significantly increase their vulnerability towards this adverse outcome; thus, frequent monitoring is advocated.
METHOD: Four hundred and twenty-three subjects were recruited from center records using a systematic random sampling technique. Subjects who consented were interviewed by telephone using a specially designed semi-structured questionnaire. Descriptive as well as comparative analyses were carried out. Differences between groups were tested using the Chi-square test when applicable.
RESULTS: The majority of users surveyed (89.6%) had called the center from within Khartoum State and 10.4% of users had called from other states. Of the enquiries, 36.1% were from pharmacists, 29.5% from physicians, and 22.3% from laypersons. The vast majority (93.1%) of respondents were educated to degree level or higher. Approximately one fifth, one half, and one third of the users surveyed had consulted the center >5 times, 2-5 times, and once, respectively. More than 90% of users rated the services provided as good to excellent and 94.7% declared their probable intention to continue utilizing the center in the future.
CONCLUSION: The center succeeded in satisfying and retaining its users by providing an acceptable quality of service.
METHOD: Retrospective data were collected from medical records and the patients were observed until the completion of their medication. A pharmacoeconomic evaluation was applied to calculate direct and indirect costs.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Direct and indirect costs of tuberculosis treatment in a government health institution.
RESULTS: Two hundred and one tuberculosis patients were included in the study. Different regimens with various durations of treatments were used. The direct medical and non-medical costs as well as indirect costs were calculated and were found to be as follows: US$61.44 for anti-tuberculosis drugs and supplies, US$28.63 for X-ray examinations, US$28.53 for laboratory tests, US$20.03 for healthcare staff time, US$4.28 for hospitalisation, US$43.20 for overhead costs, US$608.11 for transportation and meals and US$118.78 for time away from work. The cost to the patients constitutes approximately 80% of the total cost of the treatment.
CONCLUSION: The cost of treating the illness of tuberculosis per patient was US$916.4. The cost of anti-tuberculosis drugs constituted the highest proportion of the cost to the public health services (31.7%) while the cost to the patient constituted the major proportion of the total cost of the illness (79.4%).
OBJECTIVES: On this basis, a study was conducted in a district hospital to study the therapy outcomes of antibiotic regimens used in pediatric community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) management and to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis (CE) between IV ampicillin versus combination therapy of IV ampicillin and IV gentamicin.
METHOD: A prospective, randomized, controlled, single blind study was conducted in a pediatric ward in a 80-bed district hospital. Pediatric patients diagnosed with CAP aged 2 months to 5 years old were randomly and equally divided into two treatment arms: ampicillin versus ampicillin plus gentamicin. The dose of IV ampicillin used in this study was 100 mg/kg/day divided every 6 h and 5 mg/kg of IV gentamicin as a single daily dose. Both clinical and economic evaluations were carried out to compare both treatment arms.
RESULTS: With the inclusion and exclusion criteria, only 40 patients diagnosed with CAP were included in the study. The results showed that the two treatment arms were significantly different (P < 0.05) in terms of duration of patients on ampicillin, number of days of hospitalization and time to switch to oral therapy. A significant difference was noted between the two treatment modalities in terms of effectiveness and cost (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Overall, the endpoint of this study showed that the total cost per patient of ampicillin-treated group is cheaper than the total cost with the combination therapy (ampicillin plus gentamicin) and reduced unnecessary exposure to adverse effects or toxicities. Besides that, addition of gentamicin in the treatment modalities will only increase the cost of treatment without introducing any changes in the treatment outcome.