Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Pharmacy (Basel) ; 10(5)2022 Aug 31.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36136841

RESUMO

(1) Objectives: Clinical pharmacists are now playing a significant role in hospitals aiming to reduce medication errors, adverse drug reactions, and healthcare costs. Therefore, the main objective of this study was to assess the interventions provided by a clinical pharmacist in the intensive care unit at the King Faisal Hospital in Taif city. (2) Methods: For this single-center retrospective study, patients were included from December 2021 to May 2022. In the present study, all the interventions of clinical pharmacists made over six months were included. The Intensive care unit (ICU) ward was covered by three clinical pharmacists, and the interventions made were categorized into four groups: (1) interventions related to indications; (2) interventions regarding safety; (3) interventions regarding dosing, and (4) miscellaneous. Descriptive statistics was applied to evaluate the results in the form of frequencies and percentages. Analysis was performed using the statistical package SPSS 20.0. (3) Results: Overall, a total of 404 interventions were recommended for 165 patients during the six- month period of study. Among them, 370 interventions (91.5%) were accepted by physicians. Among all the interventions, the majority were suggested regarding 'indication' (45.7%), including the addition of drugs, drugs with no indications, and duplication. The acceptance rate of clinical pharmacist intervention was 98.5%. (4) Conclusions: This retrospective study shows that clinical pharmacists played a critical role in optimizing drug therapy which could subsequently help to prevent drug-related issues and lower drug costs. More research is needed to do a thorough cost-benefit analysis.

2.
Infect Drug Resist ; 15: 3213-3223, 2022.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35754783

RESUMO

Background: By December 2021, the COVID-19 pandemic had caused more than 266 million cases and 5 million deaths, especially among geriatric patients. Objective: To identify determinants of COVID-19-related death in geriatric patients. Methods: This is a comparative retrospective study involving 145 COVID-19 hospitalized patients who are more than 60 years old, conducted at King Faisal Medical Complex in Taif, Saudi Arabia, from June 2020 to August 2020. The main outcome studied was COVID-19-related death. Results: Out of 145 elderly COVID-19 patients, 11% have died. There was a significant difference between those who died and the surviving group regarding hospital stay duration, with a higher duration median among those who died (22 days vs 12 day respectively, p=0.002). Transfer to ICU, mechanical ventilation, low oxygen saturation, shortness of breath, respiratory support, x-ray trend, and prolonged QT interval showed significant statistical differences between them (p<0.001, <0.001, 0.017, 0.045, <0.001, <0.001, 0.004, respectively). After doing logistic regression of predictors for progression to death, putting patients on oxygen only vs mechanical ventilation was statistically significant, with an adjusted odds ratio (AOR) of 0.038 (p=0.012). Worse x-rays vs constant also were statistically significant and had AOR of 23.459 (p=0.001). There was a significant moderate positive correlation between duration of hospital stay and duration from admission to medication start (SP=0.336 and p<0.001). Conclusion: We recommend accurately monitoring patients using x-rays to determine which patients have worse x-rays. However, the cost-benefit of using radiation must be well assessed and needs further research to determine if its benefit outweighs its risks, especially in high-risk patients. Furthermore, mechanically ventilated patients must be carefully monitored. Finally, the duration of hospital stay was highly correlated with the duration from admission to medication start. Therefore, proper treatment must be started as early as possible.

3.
Int J Gen Med ; 14: 5597-5606, 2021.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34548811

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: 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 received FPV had higher age and greater comorbidity. Most of the patients were discharged on day 14 (n = 303, 59.6%), 26 (36.6%) in neither med, 154 (63.1%) in FPV and 123 (63.7%) in HCQ groups with significant difference between groups (P < 0.0001). Mortality rate was 8.2% (n = 20) in FPV and 7.3% (n = 14) in HCQ groups with significant difference between groups (P = 0.048). Regarding drug safety, 19.7% of patients treated with FPV vs 7.8% HCQ have adverse effects with significant difference between groups (P < 0.0001). Most of the side effects were increase ALT and AST. Meanwhile, prolonged Q-T interval was reported only in the HCQ group (2.6%). From Cox regression modeling, only mechanical ventilation due to Covid 19 was predictive for mortality (HR: 16.598, 95% CI: 7.095-38.828, P < 0.0001). Meanwhile, there was no significant difference in the prediction of discharge of FPV (vs HCQ) (HR: 0.933, 95% CI: 0.729-1.195, P = 0.5843), predictors of mortality were HCQ (vs FPV) (HR: 2.3, 95% CI: 0.994-5.487, P = 0.0518). Kaplan-Meier survival curves showed improved survival time and discharged time among patients in the HCQ versus FPV group with an insignificant difference between them (P = 0.85, P = 0.06, respectively). CONCLUSION: The present study concluded that FPV and HCQ showed comparable efficacy in decrease mortality and oxygen requirements. FPV likely has a more favorable safety profile regarding cardiac toxicity. A randomized clinical trial with large patient numbers is recommended to confirm the effectiveness of these drugs in COVID-19 patients.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...