Relationship between the use of drugs and changes in body weight among patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose: To investigate the impact of drugs on the body weight of patients.Methods: All the randomized controlled trials that evaluated the impact of medications on the body weight of patients were searched in various databases. Studies quantifying the impact of drugs on body weight when compared to placebo or any other treatment were considered for this review. Moreover, the quantitative synthesis of evidence was also performed by generating the forest plot.Results: A total of 20 studies involving 18,547 participants were included in the current review. Weight gains ranging from 0.5 to 2.6 kg were associated with the use of pioglitazone, espindolol, brexpiprazole, glimepiride and ezogabine while weight loss ranging from 1.1 to 12 kg was linked with the use of betahistine, naltrexone, bupropion, liraglutide, phentermine, topiramate, orlistat, zonisamide, duloxetine, semaglutide, metformin and linagliptin. The quantitative synthesis suggested that drugs can significantly reduce body weight by -0.53 kg (CI 95 % -1.01, -0.04, p < 0.04) when compared to standard treatment.Conclusion: The findings of this review suggest substantial association of drugs and weight change during pharmacotherapy. Pioglitzone, brexpiprazole, espindolol, ezogabine and glimepiride cause weight gain while naltrexone, bupropion, betahistine, topiramate, phentermine, zonisamide, semaglutide, linagliptin, liraglutide, orlistat, duloxetine and metformin were associated with weight loss. Drug-induced changes in body weight might cause serious consequences and should be addressed before initiating treatment

Evaluation of time to sputum smear conversion and its association with treatment outcomes among drug-resistant tuberculosis patients: a retrospective record-reviewing study

Background: This study examined the time to sputum smear and culture conversion and determinants of conversion, as well as variables associated with treatment outcomes among drug-resistant pulmonary tuberculosis (DR-PTB) cases.Methods: The electronic database and written medical records of patients were utilized to assess the sociodemographic, clinical, microbiological, and treatment characteristics and outcomes of study participants.Results: Among 736 patients with pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB), the mean age was 36.5 ± 16.5 years, with males comprising 53.4% and a mean weight of 47.76 ± 11.97 kg. The median time period for sputum smear conversion and sputum culture conversion was a month. The first-month culture conversion (p < 0.001, aOR = 5.817, and 95% CI = 3.703–9.138) was the determinant of sputum smear conversion and receiver operating curve analysis with AUC = 0.881, 95% CI = 0.855–0.907, and p < 0.001, which showed a high level of predictive ability for the regression model for the initial sputum smear conversion. However, the first-month sputum conversion (p < 0.001, aOR = 7.446, and 95% CI = 4.869–11.388) was attributed to sputum culture conversion, and the model has shown excellent predictive ability for regression with ROC curve analysis demonstrating AUC = 0.862, 95% CI = 0.835–0.889, and p < 0.001. A total of 63.2% of patients showed favorable treatment outcomes, with 63.1% of cases achieving treatment-cured status. The previous use of SLD, history of smoking, duration of illness ≤ 1 year, extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis, and first-month sputum conversion were the variables attributed to favorable treatment outcomes observed in drug-resistant pulmonary tuberculosis cases. ROC curve analysis with AUC = 0.902, 95% CI = 0.877–0.927, and p < 0.001) has shown outstanding ability for regression model prediction for the variables influencing treatment outcomes.Conclusions: Within 2 months of treatment, most patients had converted their sputum cultures and sputum smears. The determinants of early sputum smear and sputum culture conversion, as well as favorable treatment outcomes, were identified. These factors should be considered during the design and implementation of effective strategies for drug-resistant tuberculosis control programs

Barriers and Facilitators of Pharmacoeconomic Studies: A Review of Evidence from the Middle Eastern Countries

The world is facing a continuous increase in medical costs. Due to the surge in disease prevalence, medical science is becoming more sensitive to the economic impact of medications and drug therapies. This brings about the importance of pharmacoeconomics, which is concerned with the effective use of health resources to optimize the efficiency and costs of medications of treatment for the best outcomes. This review was conducted to find out the potential barriers and facilitators to implementing pharmacoeconomic studies in the Middle Eastern region having both high- and low-income countries. The varying economies in the region depict diverse healthcare systems where implementation of pharmacoeconomics faces a large number of challenges and is also aided by numerous facilitators that contribute to the growth of its implementation. In this context, we have reviewed the status of pharmacoeconomics in Middle Eastern countries in research databases (Google Scholar, MEDLINE, Science Direct and Scopus) using keywords (“pharmacoeconomics”, “barriers”, “facilitators”, “Middle East”). The study reported that Yemen, Syria, Palestine, Iran, Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon are the lowest-income countries in the Middle East and the implementation of pharmacoeconomics is the poorest in these states. The UAE, Saudi Arabia and Israel are high-income rich states where economic aspects were comparatively better but still a large number of barriers hinder the way to its effective implementation. These include the absence of national governing bodies, the lack of data on the effectiveness of medications, the absence of sufficient pharmacoeconomic experts and the lack of awareness of the importance of pharmacoeconomics. The main facilitators were the availability of pharmacoeconomic guidelines, the encouragement of pharmacoeconomic experts and the promotion of group discussions and collaborations between researchers and policymakers. Cost-benefit analysis is still evolving in Middle Eastern countries, and there is a great need for improvement so that states can effectively benefit from cost analysis tools and utilize their health resources. In this regard, governments should develop national governing bodies to evaluate, implement pharmacoeconomics at the local and state levels and bring about innovation in the field through further research and development incorporating all sectors of pharmacy and pharmaceutics. The data presented in this research can further be extended in future studies to cover the various domains of pharmacoeconomics including cost-minimization analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis and cost-benefit analysis and their applications within the healthcare sectors of Middle Eastern countries

Evaluation of Outreach of Community Pharmacists in Public Health Services in Al-Jouf Region of Saudi Arabia: Findings and Implications

Background: Diversifying the conventional role of community pharmacists from dispensing to involvement in public health services could help in optimized patient care and ultimately good health practices. The current study aimed to ascertain the involvement of community pharmacists, barriers to involvement, their preparedness towards the provision of public health services in the future, and effective strategies to improve their existing role, especially in remote areas of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted in the Al-Jouf region of Saudi Arabia (KSA), between January to April 2023. A convenient sampling technique was used to recruit community pharmacists (CPs). A self-designed and validated questionnaire was used for data collection. The relative importance index (RII) was utilized to rank the barriers to participation in public health services. Data were subjected to statistical analysis using SPSS. Results: This study recruited 119 participants (mean age: 32.2 ± 7.9; male gender: 67.2%). Of these, 91.6% were involved in the provision of public health services at community pharmacies. Majority of CPs (n = 114/119, 95.8%) provided drug use-related written information to the patients, and the least practiced service was screening of dyslipidemia (n = 81; 68.1%). According to RII, the major barrier was the lack of time given by patients (RII: 0.812). Overall, the majority of the pharmacists (n = 94/119; 79%) were willing to provide public health services. Most of the CPs reported that empowerment through education and awareness (n = 100/119; 84%) is most effective strategy to enhance the involvement of pharmacists in public health services. Conclusions: Findings of the present study underscored the adequate participation of community pharmacists in public health activities. Further studies are required in other remote regions of KSA to get a clear insight into the overall participation of community pharmacists in public health services and generalize the findings

Surveillance of Post-Vaccination Side Effects of COVID-19 Vaccines among Saudi Population: A Real-World Estimation of Safety Profile

Vaccines are considered to be the most beneficial means for combating the COVID-19 pandemic. Although vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 have demonstrated excellent safety profiles in clinical trials, real-world surveillance of post-vaccination side effects is an impetus. The study investigates the short-term side effects following the administration of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines in Saudi Arabia. A cross-sectional quantitative study was conducted among the general population with age ≥ 18 years, from five regions (Central, Northern, Eastern, Southern, and Western Regions) of Saudi Arabia for a period of 6 months (July to December 2021). A self-administered study instrument was used to record the side effects among the COVID-19 vaccine recipients. Of the total 398 participants (males: 59%), 56.3% received Pfizer and 43.7% were vaccinated with AstraZeneca. Only 22.6% of respondents received the second dose of the COVID-19 vaccines. The most commonly reported side effects were pain at the injection site (85.2%), fatigue (61.8%), bone or joint pain (54.0%), and fever (42.5%). The average side effects score was 3.4 ± 2.2. Females, young people, and Oxford-AstraZeneca recipients had a higher proportion of side effects. The Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine recipients complained more about fever (p p p p = 0.001), headache (p = 0.008), and drowsiness (p = 0.003). The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccinees had more pain and swelling at the injection site (p = 0.001), and sexual disturbance (p = 0.019). The study participants also reported some rare symptoms (<10%) including heaviness, sleep disturbance, fainting, blurred vision, palpitations, osteomalacia, and inability to concentrate. This study revealed that both Pfizer-BioNTech and Oxford-AstraZeneca administration was associated with mild to moderate, transient, short-lived side effects. These symptoms corroborate the results of phase 3 clinical trials of these vaccines. The results could be used to inform people about the likelihood of side effects based on their demographics and the type of vaccine administered. The study reported some rare symptoms that require further validation through more pharmacovigilance or qualitative studies

Knowledge, Attitude, and Acceptance of Sinopharm and AstraZeneca&rsquo;s COVID-19 Vaccines among Egyptian Population: A Cross-Sectional Study

Background: This study aimed to evaluate the Egyptian population&rsquo;s preference and awareness related to available COVID-19 vaccines and to determine different factors that can affect beliefs concerning these vaccines. Methods: A cross-sectional web-based study was carried out among the general population in Egypt. Data collection was conducted via an online questionnaire. Results: About 426 subjects participated in the survey. Vaccine preference is nearly equally even (50%) among all respondents. There was no significant difference in vaccine preference according to age, gender, residence, educational level, or social status. About 50% of public respondents mentioned that both AstraZeneca and Sinopharm vaccines do not offer protection against new variant COVID-19 strains. Healthcare workers are the lowest respondents to agree that vaccines offer protection against new COVID-19 variants (10.9%) compared to unemployed respondents (20.3%) and other professions (68.8%) with a statistically significant difference (p &lt; 0.005). Safety of vaccine administration among children below 18 showed statistical differences for gender and educational level predictors. Conclusions: Most of the study population has satisfying knowledge about the COVID-19 vaccine. Continuous awareness campaigns must be carried out so that the people&rsquo;s background is updated with any new information that would help in raising the trust in vaccination

Surveillance of Side Effects after Two Doses of COVID-19 Vaccines among Patients with Comorbid Conditions : A Sub-Cohort Analysis from Saudi Arabia

Background: Individuals with underlying chronic illnesses have demonstrated considerable hesitancy towards COVID-19 vaccines. These concerns are primarily attributed to their concerns over the safety profile. Real-world data on the safety profile among COVID-19 vaccinees with comorbid conditions are scarce. This study aimed to ascertain the side-effects profile after two doses of COVID-19 vaccines among chronic-disease patients. Methodology: A cross-sectional questionnaire-based study was conducted among faculty members with comorbid conditions at a public educational institute in Saudi Arabia. A 20-item questionnaire recorded the demographics and side effects after the two doses of COVID-19 vaccines. The frequency of side effects was recorded following each dose of vaccine, and the association of the side-effects score with the demographics was ascertained through appropriate statistics. Results: A total of 204 patients with at least one comorbid condition were included in this study. A total of 24 side effects were reported after the first dose and 22 after second dose of the COVID-19 vaccine. The incidence of at least one side effect was 88.7% and 95.1% after the first and second doses of the vaccine, respectively. The frequent side effects after the first dose were pain at the injection site (63.2%), fatigue (58.8%), fever (47.5%), muscle and joint pain (38.7%), and headache (36.3%). However, pain at the injection site (71.1%), muscle and joint pain (62.7%), headache (49.5%), fever (45.6%), and stress (33.3%) were frequent after the second dose. The average side-effects score was 4.41 +/- 4.18 (median: 3, IQR: 1, 6) and 4.79 +/- 3.54 (median 4, IQR: 2, 6) after the first and second dose, respectively. Female gender, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, comorbidity &gt; 2, family history of COVID-19, and the AstraZeneca vaccine were significantly associated with higher side-effect scores. Only 35.8% of study participants were satisfied with the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. Conclusions: Our analysis showed a high proportion of transient and short-lived side effects of Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines among individuals with chronic illnesses. However, the side-effects profile was comparable with the safety reports of phase 3 clinical trials of these vaccines. The frequency of side effects was found to be associated with certain demographics, necessitating the need for further investigations to establish a causal relationship. The current study's findings will help instill confidence in the COVID-19 vaccines among people living with chronic conditions, overcome vaccine hesitancy, and increase vaccine coverage in this population

Resistance Patterns of Gram-Negative Bacteria Recovered from Clinical Specimens of Intensive Care Patients

Intensive care units are complex environments favoring high resistance in microorganisms. This study evaluated the resistance and the distribution dynamics of resistant Gram-negative bacteria (GNB) in patients admitted to intensive care units. This retrospective, record-based, cross-sectional study analyzed all of the antibiograms of patients admitted to the ICUs. The BD Phoenix system (BD Diagnostics, Sparks, MD, USA) was used for bacterial identification and antimicrobial testing. Clinical and Laboratory Standard Institute recommendations were used for antimicrobial testing. Frequencies and percentages of multidrug and pan-drug resistance were calculated. A total of 570 bacterial growths were observed, out of which 437 (76.7%) were of GNB. K. pneumoniae (21.0%), P. aeruginosa (11.8%), and Staphylococcus aureus (13.2%) were the most frequent disease-causing bacteria in intensive care patients. Resistance rates of 73.2% and 70.1% were observed for third- and fourth-generation cephalosporins, respectively, while 48.2% carbapenem and > 65% fluoroquinolones resistance rates were observed. Amikacin was the most effective antibiotic, with a sensitivity rate of 69.5%. A total of 372 (85.1%) of GNB were multidrug resistant. The majority of infections in intensive care patients are caused by multidrug-resistant (MDR) Gram-negative bacteria. Female gender and advancing age are factors favoring MDR. Enhanced surveillance and strengthening of the antimicrobial stewardship program are warranted

Daily versus stat vitamin D supplementation during pregnancy; A prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND:Despite favorable climatic conditions, vitamin D deficiency (VDD) is widespread in Pakistan. Current study was aimed to evaluate the prevalence of VDD in Pakistani pregnant women and effectiveness of various regimen of Vitamin D supplementation. METHODOLOGY:This hospital-based prospective cohort study included pregnant women at 12th to 24th weeks of gestation attending Gynae clinic from October 2018 to April 2019. Patients were classified into control and treatment groups (Groups: G1, G2 and G3) according to the dose of vitamin D supplementation. Patients received various regimens of vitamin D including 2000 IU/day (G1), 5000 IU/day (G2) and stat 200000 IU (G3). The levels of vitamin D were measured before and after supplementation. The effectiveness of dosages were compared between and within the groups. Moreover, factors associated with vitamin D sufficiency and insufficiency were ascertained using appropriate statistical methods. RESULTS:Among 281 pregnant women (mean age: 28.22 ± 4.61 years), VDD was prevalent in 47.3% cases. Vitamin D supplementation caused significant rise in the levels 25(OH)D in treatment groups, while there was no significant difference in control group. The highest mean increment in vitamin D (23.14 ± 11.18 ng/ml) was observed with dose 5000 IU/day followed by doses 200000 IU stat (21.06 ± 13.73 ng/ml) and 2000 IU/day (10.24 ± 5.65 ng/ml). Vitamin D toxicity was observed in one patient who received 200000 IU stat of vitamin D. The frequency of VDD following the supplementation was 5.7%. Education status, duration of sun exposure and use of sunblock was substantially associated with vitamin D sufficiency in the current study. CONCLUSION:Our findings underscore the high proportion of VDD among pregnant women in Pakistan. Maternal vitamin D supplementation substantially improved the levels of 25(OH)D. Of three used regimens, the dose of 5000 IU/day is considered safe and equally effective as of 200000 IU stat. Since pregnancy is a time of tremendous growth and physiological changes for mother and her developing fetus with lifelong implications for the child, gestational vitamin D supplementation should be considered to ensure the optimal vitamin D accrual in pregnant women. This study generates the hypothesis that vitamin D supplementation at a dose of 5000 IU/day during pregnancy is superior to the other regimens. However, well-controlled randomized trials are needed to confirm these findings