Search

Thamer A Almangour,1 Leen Ghonem,2 Ahmad Aljabri,2 Alya Alruwaili,3 Mohammed Al Musawa,4 Nader Damfu,5 Mesfer S Almalki,6 Majda Alattas,4 Hossam Abed,4 Doaa Naeem,5 Nawaf Almalki,5 Abdullah A Alhifany7 1Department of Clinical Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy, King Saud University, Riyadh, 11451, Saudi Arabia; 2Clinical Pharmacy Services, King Saud University Medical City, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; 3Infectious Diseases Services, King Fahad Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; 4Pharmaceutical Care Division, King Faisal Specialist Hospital & Research Centre, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia; 5Pharmaceutical Care Department, King Abdul Aziz Medical City, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia; 6Pharmaceutical Services, Security Forces Hospital, Makkah, Saudi Arabia; 7Department of Clinical Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy, Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah, Saudi ArabiaCorrespondence: Thamer A Almangour, Email talmangour@ksu.edu.sa.comBackground: The aim of this study was to compare the safety and effectiveness of ceftazidime-avibactam (CAZ-AVI) to colistin-based regimen in the treatment of infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE).Methods: This was a retrospective, multicenter, observational cohort study of inpatients who received either CAZ-AVI or intravenous colistin for treatment of infections due to CRE. The study was conducted in 5 tertiary care hospitals in Saudi Arabia. Main study outcomes included in-hospital mortality, clinical cure at end of treatment, and acute kidney injury (AKI). Univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression model were conducted to assess the independent impact of CAZ-AVI on the clinical outcome.Results: A total of 230 patients were included in this study: 149 patients received CAZ-AVI and 81 patients received colistin-based regimen. Clinical cure (71% vs 52%; P = 0.004; OR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.31– 4.01) was significantly more common in patients who received CAZ-AVI. After adjusting the difference between the two groups, trea

Musim Alotaibi,1,2 Ahmed Ali,1,3 Duaa Bakhshwin,4 Yasser Alatawi,5 Sultan Alotaibi,6 Abdullah Alhifany,7 Badr Alharthi,2 Nasser Alharthi,2 Awatef Alyazidi,2 Yasmeen Alharthi,2 Aziza Alrafiah8 1Department of Pharmacology, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah City, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; 2Department of Pharmacy, King Faisal Medical Complex, Taif City, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; 3Department of Pharmaceutics, Assiut University, Assiut City, Egypt; 4Department of Pharmacotherapy and Outcomes Science, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah City, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; 5Department of Pharmacy Practice, University of Tabuk, Tabuk City, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; 6Department of Pharmacy, King Abdul-Aziz Medical, Jeddah City, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; 7Department of Clinical Pharmacy College of Pharmacy, Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; 8Department of Medical Laboratory Technology, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah City, Kingdom of Saudi ArabiaCorrespondence: Aziza Alrafiah P.O Box 80200, Jeddah, 21589, Kingdom of Saudi ArabiaTel +966 126401000 Ext. 23495Fax +966 126401000 Ext. 21686Email aalrafiah@kau.edu.saBackground: Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is an infectious disease due to SARS-COV-2. Patients with risk factors are vulnerable to severe morbidity and mortality. Favipiravir (FPV) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) are considered possible COVID-19 treatments.Objective: To investigate the effectiveness and safety of FPV compared to HCQ in patients with COVID-19 as the standard of care approved by the national protocol there.Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study on patients with COVID-19 who were administered either FPV or HCQ at King Faisal Medical Complex, Taif, Saudi Arabia, from June 2020 to August 2020.Results: In total, 508 patients were included in the analysis. Patients were categorized into three groups by medication. Patients enrolled in this study were 244 (55.8%) on FPV, 193 (44.2%) on HCQ and 71 (13.81%) on neither medication. Patients who re

Yasser Alatawi,1 Fahad S Alshehri,2 Abdullah A Alhifany,3 Adnan Alharbi,3 Badrah S Alghamdi4 1Department of Pharmacy Practice, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Tabuk, Tabuk, Saudi Arabia; 2Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, College of Pharmacy, Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah, Saudi Arabia; 3Department of Clinical Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy, Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah, Saudi Arabia; 4Department of Physiology, Neuroscience Unit, Faculty of Medicine, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi ArabiaCorrespondence: Fahad S AlshehriDepartment of Pharmacology and Toxicology, College of Pharmacy, Umm Al‑Qura University, Al‑Abidiyya, Makkah 21955, Kingdom of Saudi ArabiaTel +966 542166571Email fsshehri@uqu.edu.saPurpose: This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of and factors associated with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) during the COVID-19 pandemic in Saudi Arabia.Materials and Methods: This was a cross-sectional online survey that targeted adults over the age of 18 residing in Saudi Arabia. The data collection began June 1, 2020 and continued for four weeks. The Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist-Specific, the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire version BIP-Q5, and a 9-item health literacy measure were used.Results: There were 1249 participants, of which 62.21% were under the age of 34. The prevalence of PTSD was 19.5% among all participants. The results showed that both the perception of threat (OR =1.17, 95% CI = 1.13− 1.19) and health literacy (OR =0.97, 95% CI = 0.95− 0.99) were associated with PTSD symptoms.Conclusion: This study highlights important findings that the level of an individual’s perception of threat and health literacy is associated with symptoms of PTSD. Thus, an understanding of these constructs in the target population will enable the development of better measures designed to reduce the psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.Keywords: COVID-19, Saudi Arabia, posttraumatic s

Mohamed Hassan Elnaem,1,2 Nor Fatin Farahin Rosley,1 Abdullah A Alhifany,3 Mahmoud E Elrggal,3 Ejaz Cheema4 1Department of Pharmacy Practice, Faculty of Pharmacy, International Islamic University Malaysia, Kuantan, Malaysia; 2Quality Use of Medicines Research Group, Faculty of Pharmacy, International Islamic University Malaysia, Kuantan, Malaysia; 3Department of Clinical Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy, Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; 4School of Pharmacy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UKCorrespondence: Ejaz CheemaSchool of Pharmacy, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UKTel +44-121-4146805Email E.Cheema@bham.ac.ukBackground: The aim of this study was to provide a scoping review of the impact of pharmacist-led interventions on medication adherence and clinical outcomes in patients with hypertension and hyperlipidemia.Methods: A scoping review was conducted using pre-defined search terms in three scientific databases, including Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, and PubMed. A multi-stage screening process that considered relevancy, publication year (2009– 2019), English language, and article type (original research) was followed. Review articles, meta-analysis studies, and conference proceedings were excluded. Data charting was done in an iterative process using a study-specific extraction form.Results: Of the initially identified 681 studies, 17 studies with 136,026 patients were included in the review. Of these, 16 were randomized controlled trials, while the remaining study was a retrospective cohort study. The majority of pharmacist-led interventions were face-to-face counseling sessions (n=8), followed by remote- or telephone-based interventions (n=5) and multi-faceted interventions (n=4). The majority of the studies (n=7) used self-reported adherence measures and pharmacy refill records (n=8) to measure the rate of adherence to prescribed medications. Eleven of the included studies reported a stat