ABSTRACT
Background: Data regarding the effectiveness of antibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALBC) in preventing prosthetic joint infections (PJI) after total joint arthroplasty (TJA) is inconsistent. The objective of this study was to evaluate if the routine use of ALBC influenced the risk of revision surgery due to PJI. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study performed between January 2018 and September 2020. Adult patients aged ≥ 18 years who underwent TJA (knee or hip) and received either ALBC or plain cement (PC) were included. The outcome of this study was the rate of revision due to PJI. Multivariate analysis using logistic regression was used to identify factors that may be associated with increased risk of PJI, using STATA 15.1 (StataCorp LP, College Station, Texas, USA). Results: A total of 844 patients were screened and 319 patients were included. There were 247 patients in ALBC group and 72 patients in the PC group. Only vancomycin powder was used in all ALBC cases, with a 2 g dose in 50% of the cases (dose ranged between 1 g and 8 g). The status of the prosthetic joint was assessed and recorded up to 2 years of the TJA. Overall, the difference in the rates of PJI between the two groups after primary arthroplasty was not statistically significant (5.6% vs 1.4%; p = 0.173; OR, 4.2; 95% CI, 0.5-33). Conclusion: ALBC was not associated with a reduction in PJI rates after primary TJA. More research is needed to further evaluate the effectiveness of ALBC in preventing PJI.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore the side effects of COVID-19 vaccines among a mixed gender sample of patients on monoclonal antibody biologics (mAbs) in Saudi Arabia. METHODS: This was a prospective questionnaire-based cross-sectional study in which adult patients (≥18 years) on mAbs who had received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine from three tertiary care centers in Saudi Arabia were included. Descriptive statistics and univariate logistic regressions were conducted to present the vaccine side effects and examine the association between the reported side effects and vaccine type. RESULTS: Four-hundred and seventeen patients, with a mean age of 39 years, consented to participate. Approximately 82% and 18% of the participants received Pfizer-BioNTech and Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines, respectively, and nearly 71% received two doses of the vaccine. Diarrhea (9.59%), fever (51.32%), headache (32.13%), hypotension (13.67%), palpitation (9.11%), and temporary loss of smell (5.28%) were the most commonly reported side effects. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 vaccines are generally safe for patients treated with mAbs. Future studies should examine the rates of side effects across different COVID-19 vaccines among patients on mAbs using more robust study designs and representative samples.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Warfarin is an affordable drug used for numerous indications, and still a favorable choice for patients with a history of bleeding from direct oral anticoagulants or presence of valvular heart diseases. However, warfarin requires regular international normalized ratio (INR) monitoring for safety and efficacy. Warfarin's efficacy and safety is correlated with actual time spent within the therapeutic INR. Time in therapeutic range (TTR) is an estimate that measures the percentage of actual time spent within the therapeutic INR. Our aim was to investigate differences in anticoagulation control of warfarin using TTR between pharmacists and other health-care providers. METHODS: This prospective observational study was conducted in an ambulatory-care setting of a tertiary hospital to compare anticoagulation management using TTR between clinics run by pharmacists versus other health-care providers. RESULTS: A total of 62 patients were enrolled: 33 in the pharmacist-led clinic and 29 in the physician-led clinic. TTR levels were statistically higher among patients in the pharmacist-led clinic than than the physician-led clinic (87.27%±3.82% and 52.48%±5.49%, respectively; p<0.001). For 27 patients followed retrospectively by physicians and prospectively by clinical pharmacists, TTR was statistically higher during clinical pharmacists' care (91.70%±2.93% versus 61.39%±5.11%, respectively; p<0.001). During the study, approximately 82% of patients reached their target INR in the pharmacist-led clinic compared to 24% in the physician-led clinic. CONCLUSION: The findings of our study found that patients followed in the pharmacist-led clinic had higher TTR levels than those followed in the physician-led clinic.
