Perception and satisfaction of stakeholders regarding the patient care area pharmacist initiative in a military hospital in Saudi Arabia

Purpose: To explore the perceptions and satisfaction of stakeholders (physicians, nurses, and pharmacists) regarding services provided by the patient care area pharmacist (PCAP) initiative. Methods: This was a cross-sectional study conducted at Prince Sultan Military Medical City (PSMMC). The questionnaire was hand-delivered to a random sample of stakeholder groups (including physicians, nurses, and pharmacists) in three different areas of the hospital: the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), high dependency unit (HDU), and pediatric nephrology. The questionnaire consisted of three sections. The first section collected demographic information of the participants, and the other sections collected anonymous opinions regarding services provided by the PCAP. Results: Ninety-nine participants, comprising physicians (n = 27; 27.27 %), nurses (n = 55; 55.55%), inpatient pharmacists (n = 13; 13.13%), and PCAPs (n = 4; 4.04%), participated in the survey. A majority of the respondents (92.3 %) were satisfied with the PCAP services, and all respondents recommended expansion of the PCAP service to cover all wards. Conclusion: The findings show that all participants have a positive perception of the PCAP service; PCAPs were seen by the participants as drug experts, and their recommendations were perceived as clinically relevant. All stakeholders sought to continue working with the PCAP. Keywords: Patient care, PCAP, Attitude, Satisfaction, Pharmac

Effectiveness and safety of edoxaban versus warfarin in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most prevalent cardiac arrhythmia type. Patients with AF are often administered anticoagulants to reduce the risk of ischemic stroke due to an irregular heartbeat. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of edoxaban versus warfarin in patients with nonvalvular AF by conducting an updated meta-analysis of real-world studies.Methods: In this comprehensive meta-analysis, we searched two databases, PubMed and EMBASE, and included retrospective cohort observational studies that compared edoxaban with warfarin in patients with nonvalvular AF from 1 January 2009, to 30 September 2023. The effectiveness and safety outcomes were ischemic stroke and major bleeding, respectively. In the final analysis, six retrospective observational studies involving 87,236 patients treated with warfarin and 40,933 patients treated with edoxaban were included. To analyze the data, we used a random-effects model to calculate the hazard ratio (HR).Results: Patients treated with edoxaban had a significantly lower risk of ischemic stroke [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.66; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.61–0.70; p < 0.0001] and major bleeding (HR = 0.58; 95% CI = 0.49–0.69; p < 0.0001) than those treated with warfarin. The sensitivity analysis results for ischemic stroke and major bleeding were as follows: HR = 0.66; 95% CI = 0.61–0.70; p < 0.0001 and HR = 0.58; 95% CI = 0.49–0.69; p < 0.0001, respectively.Conclusion: Our findings revealed that edoxaban performed better than warfarin against major bleeding and ischemic stroke

The Saudi Critical Care Society practice guidelines on the management of COVID-19 in the ICU: Therapy section

BACKGROUND: The rapid increase in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases during the subsequent waves in Saudi Arabia and other countries prompted the Saudi Critical Care Society (SCCS) to put together a panel of experts to issue evidence-based recommendations for the management of COVID-19 in the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: The SCCS COVID-19 panel included 51 experts with expertise in critical care, respirology, infectious disease, epidemiology, emergency medicine, clinical pharmacy, nursing, respiratory therapy, methodology, and health policy. All members completed an electronic conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel addressed 9 questions that are related to the therapy of COVID-19 in the ICU. We identified relevant systematic reviews and clinical trials, then used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach as well as the evidence-to-decision framework (EtD) to assess the quality of evidence and generate recommendations. RESULTS: The SCCS COVID-19 panel issued 12 recommendations on pharmacotherapeutic interventions (immunomodulators, antiviral agents, and anticoagulants) for severe and critical COVID-19, of which 3 were strong recommendations and 9 were weak recommendations. CONCLUSION: The SCCS COVID-19 panel used the GRADE approach to formulate recommendations on therapy for COVID-19 in the ICU. The EtD framework allows adaptation of these recommendations in different contexts. The SCCS guideline committee will update recommendations as new evidence becomes available

Shortage of psychotropic medications in community pharmacies in Saudi Arabia: Causes and solutions

Background: Patients with mental disorders, such as depression and anxiety, who seek medical care in private psychiatric clinics in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, have recently expressed concerns to doctors about difficulty in filling psychotropic medications, such as Amitriptyline and Aripiprazole, at retail community pharmacies. Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate whether there is a shortage of some commonly prescribed psychotropic medications in retail community pharmacies in Saudi Arabia, and if so, to explore the possible reasons behind the shortage of these medications. Methods: The availability of 28 commonly prescribed psychotropic medications was checked in multiple retail community pharmacies in 4 different regions of Saudi Arabia. Further, potential reasons behind the shortage of some psychotropic medications in retail community pharmacies were also explored. Results: Amitriptyline, Amoxapine, Aripiprazole, Bupropion, Buspirone, Duloxetine, Haloperidol, Hydroxyzine, Lithium, Prochlorperazine, Procyclidine, Promethazine, Thioridazine, Trazodone, and Trifluoperazine were unavailable in over half of the 248 community pharmacies surveyed. Four possible reasons behind the shortage of these medications were reported by 31 pharmacists working in different retail community pharmacies’ purchasing departments, with a majority (58.06%) reporting the primary reason for a shortage of these medications that they are slow-moving items with low profit margins. Conclusions: The findings of this study should expedite the reform process in both the Ministry of Health and the Saudi Food and Drug Authority (SFDA) to publish and enforce an essential list of medications for retail community pharmacies, which should include the most commonly prescribed psychotropic medications

Efficacy and Safety of Tixagevimab/Cilgavimab to Prevent COVID-19 (Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Tixagevimab/cilgavimab (TGM/CGM) are neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) directed against different epitopes of the receptor-binding domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein that have been considered as pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). Objectives: This study seeks to assess the efficacy and safety of TGM/CGM to prevent COVID-19 in patients at high risk for breakthrough and severe SARS-CoV-2 infection who never benefited maximally from SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and for those who have a contraindication to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Design: This study is a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was followed. Methods: Electronic databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, medRxiv, ProQuest, Wiley online library, Medline, and Nature) were searched from 1 December 2021 to 30 November 2022 in the English language using the following keywords alone or in combination: 2019-nCoV, 2019 novel coronavirus, COVID-19, coronavirus disease 2019, SARS-CoV-2, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, tixagevimab, cilgavimab, combination, monoclonal, passive, immunization, antibody, efficacy, clinical trial, cohort, pre-exposure, prophylaxis, and prevention. We included studies in moderate to severe immunocompromised adults (aged ≥18 years) and children (aged ≥12 years) who cannot be vaccinated against COVID-19 or may have an inadequate response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. The effect sizes of the outcome of measures were pooled with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and risk ratios (RRs). Results: Of the 76 papers that were identified, 30 articles were included in the qualitative analysis and 13 articles were included in the quantitative analysis (23 cohorts, 5 case series, 1 care report, and 1 randomized clinical trial). Studies involving 27,932 patients with high risk for breakthrough and severe COVID-19 that reported use of TGM/CGM combination were analyzed (all were adults (100%), 62.8% were men, and patients were mainly immunocompromised (66.6%)). The patients’ ages ranged from 19.7 years to 79.8 years across studies. TGM/CGM use was associated with lower COVID-19-related hospitalization rate (0.54% vs. 1.2%, p = 0.27), lower ICU admission rate (0.6% vs. 5.2%, p = 0.68), lower mortality rate (0.2% vs. 1.2%, p = 0.67), higher neutralization of COVID-19 Omicron variant rate (12.9% vs. 6%, p = 0.60), lower proportion of patients who needed oxygen therapy (8% vs. 41.2%, p = 0.27), lower RT-PCR SARS-CoV-2 positivity rate (2.1% vs. 5.8%, p < 0.01), lower proportion of patients who had severe COVID-19 (0% vs. 0.5%, p = 0.79), lower proportion of patients who had symptomatic COVID-19 (1.8% vs. 6%, p = 0.22), and higher adverse effects rate (11.1% vs. 10.7%, p = 0.0066) than no treatment or other alternative treatment in the prevention of COVID-19. Conclusion: For PrEP, TGM/CGM-based treatment can be associated with a better clinical outcome than no treatment or other alternative treatment. However, more randomized control trials are warranted to confirm our findings and investigate the efficacy and safety of TGM/CGM to prevent COVID-19 in patients at risk for breakthrough or severe SARS-CoV-2 infection

SARS-CoV-2 vaccination modelling for safe surgery to save lives: data from an international prospective cohort study

Background: Preoperative SARS-CoV-2 vaccination could support safer elective surgery. Vaccine numbers are limited so this study aimed to inform their prioritization by modelling. Methods: The primary outcome was the number needed to vaccinate (NNV) to prevent one COVID-19-related death in 1 year. NNVs were based on postoperative SARS-CoV-2 rates and mortality in an international cohort study (surgical patients), and community SARS-CoV-2 incidence and case fatality data (general population). NNV estimates were stratified by age (18-49, 50-69, 70 or more years) and type of surgery. Best- and worst-case scenarios were used to describe uncertainty. Results: NNVs were more favourable in surgical patients than the general population. The most favourable NNVs were in patients aged 70 years or more needing cancer surgery (351; best case 196, worst case 816) or non-cancer surgery (733; best case 407, worst case 1664). Both exceeded the NNV in the general population (1840; best case 1196, worst case 3066). NNVs for surgical patients remained favourable at a range of SARS-CoV-2 incidence rates in sensitivity analysis modelling. Globally, prioritizing preoperative vaccination of patients needing elective surgery ahead of the general population could prevent an additional 58 687 (best case 115 007, worst case 20 177) COVID-19-related deaths in 1 year. Conclusion: As global roll out of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination proceeds, patients needing elective surgery should be prioritized ahead of the general population