Clinical pharmacy definition, required education, training and practice in Saudi Arabia: A position statement by the Saudi society of clinical pharmacy.

The Saudi Society of Clinical Pharmacy (SSCP) is a scientific and professional society in the field of clinical pharmacy that operates under the Saudi Commission for Health Specialties governance. The SSCP believes that there is a need to define and describe many aspects related to the clinical pharmacy profession in Saudi Arabia. Moreover, there is an increasing demand for promoting the concept of clinical pharmacy and developing a consensus regarding the scope of practice and clinical pharmacist's required postgraduate education and training in Saudi Arabia. This paper is intended to present several position statements by the SSCP that define the concept of clinical pharmacy, describe the required education and training, and highlight clinical pharmacists' scope of practice in Saudi Arabia. This paper calls for further investigations that examine the impact of clinical pharmacists on individual and population health levels.

Pharmacists roles and responsibilities during epidemics and pandemics in Saudi Arabia: An opinion paper from the Saudi Society of clinical pharmacy.

On the 2nd of March 2020, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia confirmed its first case of the coronavirus's newly emerging strain, causing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Soon after, the number of confirmed cases started to increase nationally. In light of the emerging outbreak, all healthcare professionals, including pharmacists, began to function with maximum capacity and efforts. The Saudi Society of Clinical Pharmacy (SSCP) acknowledges the substantial impact pharmacists can play during outbreaks. Based on the existing scientific knowledge during this outbreak, the SSCP established an expert writing task force to conceptualize and draft the proposed recommendations that highlights the roles and responsibilities of pharmacists during epidemics and pandemics. The SSCP writing task force issued 28 recommendations. In addition to the national and institutional guidelines, these recommendations could serve as guidance for the impacted entities.

Evaluation of the Safety and Effectiveness of Topical Intrapleural Application of Tranexamic Acid in Thoracic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

OBJECTIVES: Bleeding remains a common complication post-thoracic surgery. Although intravenous tranexamic acid (TXA) has been shown to decrease blood loss, its use has been associated with adverse effects. Accordingly, topical TXA has been proposed as an alternative to reduce bleeding with fewer systemic complications. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing topical TXA versus control (i.e., placebo) in patients undergoing thoracic procedures. The primary outcome was total postoperative blood loss at 24 hours. Secondary outcomes included were the number of red blood cell (RBC) transfusions, and hospital length of stay (LOS). Meta-analyses were pooled using mean difference with inverse-variance weighting and random-effects. RESULTS: Out of the 575 unique studies that were screened, we identified three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 399 patients. Out of the three RCTs analyzed, two studies, accounting for 67% of the total, were found to have a low risk of bias. The primary outcome of 24-h post-operative blood loss was significantly lower in patients who received TXA (mean difference [MD] -93.6 ml, 95% CI -121.8 to -65.4 ml, I2 = 45%). In addition, the need for RBC transfusion was significantly lower in the topical TXA group compared to control (MD -0.5 units, 95% CI -0.8 to -0.3 units, I2 = 60%). However, there was no significant difference in the hospital length of stay (LOS) (MD -0.3 days, 95% CI -0.9 to 0.4 days, I2 = 0%). These results remained consistent after several sensitivity analyses. The use of topical intrapleural tranexamic acid has also been found to be safe without any significant safety concerns. CONCLUSION: Topical intrapleural TXA reduces blood loss and the need for blood transfusions during thoracic surgery. In addition, there is no evidence of the increased safety concerns associated with its use. Larger trials are necessary to validate these findings and evaluate the safety and efficacy of different dosages.

Thromboprophylaxis in Hospitalized Non-Critically Ill Patients With Mild-to-Moderate COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

The prevalence of venous thromboembolism is high in patients with COVID-19, despite prophylactic anticoagulation. The evidence that supports the preferred thromboprophylaxis regimen in non-critically ill patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 is still limited. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of hospitalized patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 who received standard thromboprophylaxis anticoagulation with intermediate to high prophylaxis regimens. We systematically searched MEDLINE and Embase databases for published studies until August 17th, 2022. We included studies on patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 who received thromboprophylaxis during their hospital stay. Patients who received standard prophylaxis dose "control group" were compared to patients who received intermediate to high prophylaxis "intervention group". Random effect models were used when pooling crude numbers and adjusted effect estimates of study outcomes. A comprehensive analysis was conducted, encompassing seven studies involving a total of 1931 patients. The risk of all-cause thrombosis was not statistically different between the two groups (risk ratio [RR] 1.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.11, 20.21]). The risk of minor bleeding was reported to be lower in patients who received intermediate to high prophylaxis (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.21, 1.97), while had a higher risk of major bleeding compared with the standard prophylaxis (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.43, 4.61); however, did not reach the statistical significance. The overall risk for all hospital mortality favored the utilization of intermediate to high doses over the standard thromboprophylaxis dosing (RR 0.47, 95%CI 0.29, 0.75). In medically ill patients with COVID-19, there is no difference between standard and intermediate to high prophylaxis dosing regarding thrombosis and bleeding. However, it appears that intermediate to high prophylaxis regimens are linked to additional survival benefits.

Efficacy of generic sofosbuvir with daclatasvir compared to sofosbuvir/ledipasvir in genotype 4 hepatitis C virus: A prospective comparison with historical control.

Background and Aim: Management of genotype 4 hepatitis C virus (HCV) has shifted to interferon-free regimens with a high sustained virological response (SVR-12), especially with NS5B/NS5A inhibitor combinations such as sofosbuvir and ledipasvir (Sof-Led). The guidelines have recommended the combination of sofosbuvir and another NS5A inhibitor, daclatasvir, to manage HCV genotypes 1-3. However, its use was extended to genotype 4 HCV based on extrapolating evidence. Our aim is to assess the efficacy of generic sofosbuvir + branded daclatasvir (Sof-Dac) compared to the Sof-Led combination in treating genotype 4 HCV. Methods: This study is an open-label, 2-period, noninferiority study that compared patients receiving a combination of generic sofosbuvir 400 mg and daclatasvir 60 mg orally daily (Group 2) prospectively to a historical control (Group 1) that included patients who received a combination of sofosbuvir/ledipasvir 400/90 mg orally daily. The primary endpoint is the proportion of patients who achieved SVR-12. Results: The study included 111 patients in the (Sof-Led) Group 1 and 109 patients (Sof-Dac) Group 2. For the primary outcome, SVR-12 was achieved in 106 (95.5%) of the patients in Group 1 versus 108 (99.1%) in Group 2 (p = 0.2). In addition, all patients who achieved SVR-12 also achieved SVR-24. Conclusion: Generic sofosbuvir combined with branded daclatasvir was safe and effective for treating genotype 4 HCV compared to Sof-Led. This combination may significantly reduce the cost burden, enabling a larger pool of treated patients. Office of research affairs at KFSHRC RAC# 2171 036.

A Case Report of Successful Use of Twice-Daily Letermovir in the Treatment of Resistant Cytomegalovirus in a Small Bowel Transplant Recipient.

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is considered one of the most notable pathogens that affect patients after solid organ transplantation (SOT), especially small bowel transplant patients with a risk of high mortality rate. Its management relies historically on the use of CMV DNA polymerase inhibitors (namely, ganciclovir and valganciclovir). Second-line options include foscarnet and cidofovir, which are highly nephrotoxic and thus less preferred and only used in ganciclovir intolerance or resistance cases. Letermovir is a novel antiviral agent approved for CMV prophylaxis in hematopoietic stem cell transplant, but not for SOT (neither for prophylaxis nor for treatment). We report the first case on the successful use of letermovir in treating CMV disease in a small bowel transplant patient who failed to achieve viral clearance due to ganciclovir resistance and severe intolerance to foscarnet.

Standard induction with basiliximab versus no induction in low immunological risk kidney transplant recipients: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Induction therapy with IL-2 receptor antagonist (IL2-RA) is recommended as a first-line agent in low immunological risk kidney transplant recipients. However, the role of IL2-RA in the setting of tacrolimus-based immunosuppression has not been fully investigated. AIMS: To compare different induction therapeutic strategies with 2 doses of basiliximab vs. no induction in low immunologic risk kidney transplant recipients as per KFSHRC protocol. METHODS: Prospective, randomized, double blind, non-inferiority, controlled clinical trial EXPECTED OUTCOMES: 1. Primary outcomes: Biopsy-proven acute rejection within first year following transplant 2. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: a. Patient and graft survival at 1 year b. eGFR at 6 months and at 12 months c. Emergence of de novo donor-specific antibodies (DSAs) TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study has been prospectively registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NTC: 04404127). Registered on 27 May 2020.