Search

IntroductionSpecific evidence regarding the pharmacist’s role in antifungal stewardship (AFS) is emerging. This review aims to identify pharmacist-driven AFS interventions to optimize antifungal therapy.MethodsA systematic review was conducted using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Data (2018–2023) were collected through Google Scholar and PubMed. The collected data were presented descriptively due to variations in interventions and outcome metrics. Conclusions were derived through a qualitative synthesis of the identified findings.ResultsA total of 232 articles were retrieved, and after applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 27 were included in the review. Among the eight studies evaluating the impact of pharmacist interventions on antifungal consumption, 6 studies reported a significant decline in defined daily dose (DDD)/1,000 patient days and days of therapy (DOT)/1,000 patient days, one reported a non-significant decrease, and one reported an increase in the utilization of echinocandins. Educational intervention was the most commonly used stewardship approach. Nineteen studies reported data on various clinical outcomes. Mortality and length of hospital stay remain non-significant, but the occurrence of ADR decreased significantly, and the quality of antifungal use improved significantly.ConclusionPharmacist-led AFS has the potential to enhance the effectiveness of antifungal treatments by improving their overall quality, reduction in consumption, and adverse events. The healthcare system should encourage multidisciplinary collaboration where pharmacists play a central role in decision-making processes regarding antifungal use.

BackgroundNumerous reviews of the epidemiology and risk factors for breast cancer have been published previously which heighted different directions of breast cancer.AimThe present review examined the likelihood that incidence, prevalence, and particular risk factors might vary by geographic region and possibly by food and cultural practices as well.MethodsA systematic review (2017-2022) was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, reporting on epidemiological and risk factor reports from different world regions. Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms: “Breast neoplasm” “AND” country terms such as “Pakistan/epidemiology”, “India/epidemiology”, “North America/epidemiology”, “South Africa/epidemiology” were used to retrieve 2068 articles from PubMed. After applying inclusion and exclusion terms, 49 papers were selected for systematic review.ResultsResults of selected articles were summarized based on risk factors, world regions and study type. Risk factors were classified into five categories: demographic, genetic and lifestyle risk factors varied among countries. This review article covers a variety of topics, including regions, main findings, and associated risk factors such as genetic factors, and lifestyle. Several studies revealed that lifestyle choices including diet and exercise could affect a person’s chance of developing breast cancer. Breast cancer risk has also been linked to genetic variables, including DNA repair gene polymorphisms and mutations in the breast cancer gene (BRCA). It has been found that most of the genetic variability links to the population of Asia while the cause of breast cancer due to lifestyle modifications has been found in American and British people, indicating that demographic, genetic, and, lifestyle risk factors varied among countries.ConclusionThere are many risk factors for breast cancer, which vary in their importance depending on the world region. However, further investigation is required to better comprehend the particular causes of breast cancer in these areas as well as to create efficient prevention and treatment plans that cater to the local population.

BackgroundAntimicrobial resistance (AMR) has provoked a global health issue. Antimicrobial stewardship programs should be implemented to overcome this issue. The aim of this study was to determine the sensitivity patterns of the WHO Access, Watch, Reserve (AWaRe) group of antibiotics that assists in the selection of appropriate empiric antibiotic therapies.MethodA descriptive, cross-sectional study was conducted for 6 months, in which 422 culture sensitivity sample reports from the Ghurki Trust Teaching Hospital’s laboratory were obtained through a convenience sampling technique, and the sensitivity patterns of nine offending bacteria to the WHO AWaRe group antibiotics were determined. Descriptive statistics and differences in frequency distribution among the categorical variables were obtained using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software, version 21.ResultsAmong 422 culture sensitivity sample reports, Escherichia coli (16.1%) was the most common Gram-negative pathogen. Acinetobacter, E. coli, Klebsiella, and Pseudomonas showed 100% sensitivity to polymyxin-b and colistin. Proteus showed the highest sensitivity to meropenem (90%), Staphylococcus aureus showed a 98% sensitivity to linezolid, Staphylococcus epidermidis was 100% sensitive to vancomycin and linezolid, and Streptococcus showed the highest sensitivity to penicillin (100%) and vancomycin (94.7%). Polymyxin b and colistin were found to be the most effective antibiotics against Gram-negative bacteria (100%). Gram-positive bacteria were highly sensitive to linezolid (99.4%), vancomycin (98.2%), chloramphenicol (89.5%), and tigecycline (82.6%).ConclusionCulture sensitivity reports help to rationalize the empirical use of antibiotics in clinical practice in addressing the challenge of antimicrobial resistance. This study showed that polymyxin-b and colistin were the most effective antibiotics against Gram-negative isolates and that Gram-positive bacteria were highly susceptible to linezolid. Updated antibiograms should be used by clinicians to evaluate bacterial susceptibility patterns and rationalize antibiotic empiric therapy.

ABSTRACT: Objectives: Antimicrobial resistance is a major health concern worldwide. Community pharmacists can play an important role in rational antibiotic use. This study aimed to evaluate the perception and practices of community pharmacists regarding antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) in Lahore, Pakistan. Methods: A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted among community pharmacists in Lahore from 1 November 2017 to 31 December 2017. A self-administered questionnaire was used for data collection. Non-probability convenience sampling was performed to select community pharmacists. Descriptive statistics were applied and Mann–Whitney U-tests and Kruskal–Wallis tests were performed to compare independent groups using SPSS v.20.0. A P-value of

Abstract Background Poor availability and unaffordability of key access antibiotics may increase antimicrobial resistance in the community by promoting inappropriate antibiotic selection and abridged therapy compliance. Objective To check the prices, availability, and affordability of the World Health Organization (WHO) key access antibiotics in private sector pharmacies of Lahore, Pakistan. Methodology A survey of WHO key access antibiotics from WHO essential medicine list 2017 was conducted in private sector pharmacies of 4 different regions of Lahore employing adapted WHO/HAI methodology. The comparison of prices and availability between originator brands (OB) and lowest price generics (LPG) were conducted followed by the effect of medicine price differences on patient’s affordability. The data were analyzed using a preprogrammed WHO Microsoft excel workbook. Results The mean availability of OB products was 45.20% and the availability of LPGs was 40.40%. The OBs of co-amoxiclav, clarithromycin and metronidazole and LPGs of azithromycin and ciprofloxacin were easily available (100%) in all private sector pharmacies. Whereas, antibiotics like chloramphenicol, cloxacillin, nitrofurantoin, spectinomycin, and cefazolin were totally unavailable in all the surveyed pharmacies. The OBs and LPGs with high MPRs were ceftriaxone (OB; 15.31, LPG; 6.38) and ciprofloxacin (OB; 12.42, LPG; 5.77). The median of brand premium obtained was 38.7%, which varied between the lowest brand premium of 3.97% for metronidazole and highest for ceftriaxone i.e. 140%. The cost of standard treatment was 0.5 day’s wage (median) if using OB and 0.4 day’s wage (median) for LPG, for a lowest paid unskilled government worker. Treatment with OB and LPG was unaffordable for ciprofloxacin (OB; 2.4, LPG; 1.1) & cefotaxime (OB; 12.7, LPG; 8.1). Conclusion There is dire need to properly implement price control policies to better regulate fragile antibiotic supply system so that the availability of both OB and LPG of key access antibiotics should be increased. The prices could be reduced by improving purchasing efficiency, excluding taxes and regulating mark-ups. This could increase the affordability of patients to complete their antibiotic therapy with subsequent reduction in antimicrobial resistance.