AIM: This study aimed to compare the incidence and associated risk factors of pDDIs among a public and private sector hospital in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan.
METHOD: A retrospective cross-sectional study design was conducted to compare pDDIs among public and private sector hospitals from January 2023 to February 2023. Patients profile data for the full year starting from January 1 2022 to December 302022, was accessed All adult patients aged 18 years and above, of both genders, who currently have or have previously been diagnosed with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) were included. For assessing pDDIs, patient data was retrieved and checked using Lexicomp UpToDate® for severity and documentation of potential drug-drug interactions.
RESULTS: A total of 358 patients' data was retrieved (with n = 179 in each hospital); however, due to incomplete data, n = 4 patients were excluded from the final analysis. The prevalence of pDDIs was found to be significantly higher in private hospitals (84.7%) than in public hospitals (26.6%), with a p-value <0.001. Patients in the age category of 41-60 years (AOR = 6.2; p = 0.008) and those prescribed a higher number of drugs (AOR = 1.2; p = 0.027) were independently associated with pDDIs in private hospitals, while the higher number of prescribed drugs (AOR = 2.9; p = <0.001) was an independent risk factor for pDDIs in public hospitals. The majority of pDDIs (79.0%) were of moderate severity, and a significant number of patients (15.1%) also experienced major pDDIs, with a p-value <0.001. The majority of pDDIs had fair documentation for reliability rating in both public and private hospitals.
CONCLUSION: The prevalence of pDDIs was higher among CKD patients at private hospitals, and most of the pDDIs were of moderate severity. A considerable number of patients also experienced major pDDIs. The risk of experiencing pDDIs was found to be higher in older patients and among those prescribed a higher number of drugs.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted between 1st March 2023 and 20th April 2023 among healthcare professionals. A newly designed and validated questionnaire was used. Its face and content validity, along with internal consistency, was adequately established. Convenient sampling was employed to recruit participants for the study. Statistical analysis using one-way ANOVA was performed, considering a p-value
AIMS: We aimed to perform a meta-analysis of randomized trials investigating the effect of colchicine in patients with COVID-19.
MATERIALS & METHODS: We systematically searched electronic databases and clinical trial registries (up to October 17, 2021) for eligible studies. The outcomes of interest were all-cause mortality and duration of hospital stay. Meta-analysis with the random-effects model was used to estimate the pooled odds ratio (OR) of mortality and 95% confidence interval (CI). The pooled standardized mean difference of duration of hospital stay with 95% CI between colchicine users and non-colchicine users was estimated using Cohen's d index.
RESULTS: The meta-analyses revealed no significant difference in the odds of mortality (pooled OR = 0.76; 95% CI: 0.53-1.07), but a significant reduction in the duration of hospital stay with the use of colchicine (pooled standardized mean difference = -0.59; 95% CI: -1.06 to -0.13).
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The ability of colchicine to reduce the length of stay in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 is consistent with its potential to prevent clinical deterioration via inhibition of NLRP3 inflammasome. Nevertheless, such beneficial effects of colchicine did not translate into mortality benefits in patients with COVID-19.
METHODS: An online cross-sectional study was conducted, in which questionnaires were distributed among the general public. A novel questionnaire was designed and validated specifically for this study. It was composed of six sections: demographics, pharmacy usage and service preferences, understanding and satisfaction with pharmacists, views on dispensing separation, private community pharmacies, and knowledge of P medicines. Statistical analyses such as one-way ANOVA, independent t test, and binary logistic regression were employed, with a p value of
METHODS: A prospective cross-sectional observational study was conducted among the patients admitted to the medical and surgical wards in a public hospital located in Brunei Darussalam between February 2022 and April 2022. Hospitalized adults above 18 years old with regular medications with a minimum length of stay of 48 h and a maximum length of stay of 21 days were included in the study. These eligible patients were divided into a POM group and a non-POM group. The economic analysis of using POM was performed by calculating the direct cost per unit of medication used during admission (from unit-use, ward stock and POM) and comparing the cost spent for both groups. Expired ward stock deemed as medication wastage was determined. Medical research ethics were approved, and all participating patients had given their written informed consent before enrolling in this study.
RESULTS: A total of 112 patients aged 63.2 ± 15.8 years participated in this study. The average cost of medication supplied by the inpatient pharmacy for the non-POM group was USD 21.60 ± 34.20 per patient, whereas, for the POM group, it was approximately USD 13.00 ± 18.30 per patient, with a mean difference of USD 8.60 ± 5.17 per patient (95% CI: -3.95, 27.47, p ≥ 0.05). The use of POM minimized 54.03% (USD 625.04) of the total cost spent by the hospital for the POM group within the period of the study.
CONCLUSION: The pilot study showed that the supplied medication cost per patient was not significantly different between the POM and non-POM groups. Nevertheless, the utilization of POM during hospitalization is capable of reducing at least 50% of the total cost spent on inpatient medications by the hospital. The use of POM during hospitalization also helped in reducing the total time spent on the medication process per patient.
METHODS: An online survey was conducted using a non-probabilistic snowball sampling approach via the social media channels WhatsApp and Instagram. The inclusion criteria were female Bruneian citizens or permanent residents, aged between 18 and 65 years old, who can understand English or Malay, and use cosmetic products at least once a day.
RESULTS: A total of 445 participants responded to the online survey. Most of the participants agreed that the use of cosmetic products improves one's physical appearance to the public (391, 87.8%) and also improves self-confidence (405, 91.1%). There were significant differences in monthly cosmetic product expenses and participants' attitudes about safe cosmetic use (p = 0.001). No significant changes in the individuals' attitudes based on their age or educational level were observed. Overall, the participants had a good level of cosmetic safety practice. Almost half of the participants use social media to obtain information regarding what cosmetics to use or purchase.
CONCLUSION: There is a medium to high level of attitude and a high level of practice regarding the safe use of cosmetics among Bruneian female adults. Social media was the main source of information for the respondents, followed by friend circle and family members.
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to analyze and evaluate the contents as well as features of COVID-19 mobile apps. The findings are instrumental in helping health care professionals to identify suitable mobile apps for COVID-19 self-monitoring and education. The results of the mobile apps' assessment could potentially help mobile app developers improve or modify their existing mobile app designs to achieve optimal outcomes.
METHODS: The search for the mHealth apps available in the android-based Play Store and the iOS-based App Store was conducted between April 18 and May 5, 2020. The region of the App Store where we performed the search was the United States, and a virtual private network app was used to locate and access COVID-19 mobile apps from all countries on the Google Play Store. The inclusion criteria were apps that are related to COVID-19 with no restriction in language type. The basic features assessment criteria used for comparison were the requirement for free subscription, internet connection, education or advisory content, size of the app, ability to export data, and automated data entry. The functionality of the apps was assessed according to knowledge (information on COVID-19), tracing or mapping of COVID-19 cases, home monitoring surveillance, online consultation with a health authority, and official apps run by health authorities.
RESULTS: Of the 223 COVID-19-related mobile apps, only 30 (19.9%) found in the App Store and 28 (44.4%) in the Play Store matched the inclusion criteria. In the basic features assessment, most App Store (10/30, 33.3%) and Play Store (10/28, 35.7%) apps scored 4 out of 7 points. Meanwhile, the outcome of the functionality assessment for most App Store apps (13/30, 43.3%) was a score of 3 compared to android-based apps (10/28, 35.7%), which scored 2 (out of the maximum 5 points). Evaluation of the basic functions showed that 75.0% (n=36) of the 48 included mobile apps do not require a subscription, 56.3% (n=27) provide symptom advice, and 41.7% (n=20) have educational content. In terms of the specific functions, more than half of the included mobile apps are official mobile apps maintained by a health authority for COVID-19 information provision. Around 37.5% (n=18) and 31.3% (n=15) of the mobile apps have tracing or mapping and home monitoring surveillance functions, respectively, with only 17% (n=8) of the mobile apps equipped with an online consultation function.
CONCLUSIONS: Most iOS-based apps incorporate infographic mapping of COVID-19 cases, while most android-based apps incorporate home monitoring surveillance features instead of providing focused educational content on COVID-19. It is important to evaluate the contents and features of COVID-19 mobile apps to guide users in choosing a suitable mobile app based on their requirements.
Methods: An online questionnaire survey method was used. Based on sample size calculation, a total of 1,508 UiTM staff and students from ten selected campuses of Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) were invited to participate in this survey. An up-to-date e-mail list of staff in the selected campuses was used as the sampling frame for the study, whereas the students were recruited from the official university student Facebook portal.
Results: A total of 788 respondents participated in this survey, 72.2% of them knew about facial candling, though only 35.4% had tried the treatment. Approximately one-fifth of respondents agreed that facial candling might treat AR. It was found that a higher number of users than nonusers agreed that facial candling was a traditional medicine (78.9% vs 55.0%); could be used on the face and ears (83.5% vs 45.4%); and could be self-administered at home (83.5 vs 45.4%). Interestingly, more than half of them were uncertain about its long-term effects and adverse reactions.
Conclusion: This study confirms the facial candling use among patients with AR although the percentage is low. The patients and general public need to be better informed about the use of facial candling in AR and its associated risks.