Ambulatory Care Pharmacist Perception of Formulary Medication Shortage: Tertiary Center Experience.

Background: Medication shortage is a serious issue affecting public health and patient care. It causes a major burden on the medical team of a healthcare organization in the delivery of quality care. Objectives: This study aims to assess the perception of ambulatory care pharmacist about formulary medication shortage as well as to assess the rate of medication shortage and explore the highest classes of the not-available (NA) medication. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was performed to assess pharmacist perception regarding medication shortage. The data for NA medication was collected from the hospital health information system "HIS" (Best care) to investigate the type and classes of medication shortage. Results: The overall survey response rate was 92.7%. The majority (61%) of participants encountered 5 to 15 labels of NA medication per day, 43% of participants encountered unpleasant behavior from patients usually due to NA medication and the main reason of patient dissatisfaction was the negative effect of NA medication on their course of therapy. Ninety-seven percent of participants agreed that medication shortage adds extra pressure/workload and 66% agreed that medication shortage increases the chance of medication error. A total of 113 medication shortage was recorded between January and March 2020. The 2 drug classes, which showed maximum shortage, were gastrointestinal and cardiovascular medications. The most prevalent type of medication shortage was for drugs administered by oral route (91.2%). Conclusions: The study provides insights into the frequency, management, and problems confronted due to medication shortage from the pharmacist perception. The study findings highlight the classes and type of medication shortage in the hospital which needs intervention to enhance patient care. The findings of the study would help the higher administration to implement an effective strategy to mitigate the shortage of medication, improve patient satisfaction, and to reduce pharmacist workload.

Efficacy of favipiravir in adults with mild COVID-19: a randomized, double-blind, multicentre, placebo-controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether favipiravir reduces the time to viral clearance as documented by negative RT-PCR results for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in mild cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) compared to placebo. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blinded, multicentre, and placebo-controlled trial, adults with PCR-confirmed mild COVID-19 were recruited in an outpatient setting at seven medical facilities across Saudi Arabia. Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either favipiravir 1800 mg by mouth twice daily on day 1 followed by 800 mg twice daily (n = 112) or a matching placebo (n = 119) for a total of 5 to 7 days. The primary outcome was the effect of favipiravir on reducing the time to viral clearance (by PCR test) within 15 days of starting the treatment compared to the placebo group. The trial included the following secondary outcomes: symptom resolution, hospitalization, intensive care unit admissions, adverse events, and 28-day mortality. RESULTS: Two hundred thirty-one patients were randomized and began the study (median age, 37 years; interquartile range (IQR): 32-44 years; 155 [67%] male), and 112 (48.5%) were assigned to the treatment group and 119 (51.5%) into the placebo group. The data and safety monitoring board recommended stopping enrolment because of futility at the interim analysis. The median time to viral clearance was 10 days (IQR: 6-12 days) in the favipiravir group and 8 days (IQR: 6-12 days) in the placebo group, with a hazard ratio of 0.87 for the favipiravir group (95% CI 0.571-1.326; p = 0.51). The median time to clinical recovery was 7 days (IQR: 4-11 days) in the favipiravir group and 7 days (IQR: 5-10 days) in the placebo group. There was no difference between the two groups in the secondary outcome of hospital admission. There were no drug-related severe adverse events. CONCLUSION: In this clinical trial, favipiravir therapy in mild COVID-19 patients did not reduce the time to viral clearance within 15 days of starting the treatment.

Comparison between esomeprazole 20 mg Vs 40 mg as stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) in critically ill patients: A retrospective cohort study.

Critically ill patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) are at high risk of developing upper gastrointestinal bleeding due to GI stress ulceration (SU). The major independent risk factors for the development of GI bleeding in the ICUs include mechanical ventilation (MV) and coagulopathy. There is no enough evidence regarding the most appropriate dosing of esomeprazole as stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) in critically ill patients. This is a retrospective cohort study conducted at King Abdulaziz Medical City-Riyadh between January and December 2018 to determine the efficacy and safety of two different regimens of esomeprazole (20 vs 40 mg) as SUP in critically ill patients with major risk factors of GI stress ulceration. A total of 1864 patients were reviewed, 387 patients meeting inclusion criteria were enrolled. The propensity score was used to adjust for clinically and statistically relevant variables. We considered a P value of <.05 as statistically significant. 49 patients (12.6%) had received Esomeprazole 20 mg during the study period. Compared with Esomeprazole 20 mg, Esomeprazole 40 mg was not superior in GI bleeding prevention (aOR 2.611, 95% CI 0.343-20.247, P = .356). In addition, neither ICU C. difficle, ICU mortality within 30 days, ICU LOS, hospital LOS, ICU re-admission within 6 months, RBCs transfusion, nor platelets transfusion requirements were significant. On the other hand, Esomeprazole 40 mg was statistically associated with Enterobacteriaceae, Pneumonia, and longer MV duration.