Among natural products, essential oils from aromatic plants have been reported to possess potent anticancer properties. In this work, we aimed to perform the cytotoxic concentration range screening and antiproliferative activity screening of chemically characterized Thymus vulgaris L. essential oil. In vivo bioassay was conducted using the brine shrimp lethality test (BSLT). In vitro evaluation of antiproliferative activity was carried out on three human tumor cell lines: breast adenocarcinoma MCF-7, lung carcinoma H460 and acute lymphoblastic leukemia MOLT-4 using MTT assay. Essential oil components thymol (36.7%), p-cymene (30.0%), γ-terpinene (9.0%) and carvacrol (3.6%) were identified by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. Analyzed essential oil should be considered as toxic/highly toxic with LC50 60.38 µg/mL in BSLT and moderate/weakly cytotoxic with IC50 range 52.65–228.78 µg/mL in vitro, according to evaluated cytotoxic criteria. Essential oil induced a dose-dependent inhibition of cell proliferation in all tested tumor cell lines and showed different sensitivity. Dose dependent toxicity observed in bioassay as well as the in vitro assay confirmed that brine shrimp lethality test is an adequate method for preliminary toxicity testing of Thymus vulgaris L. essential oil in tumor cell lines.

Goal:Polypharmacy and drug-related problems (DRPs) have been shown to prevail in hospitalized patients. We evaluated the prevalence of polypharmacy; and investigated relationship between polypharmacy and: symptoms of DRPs, number of drugs and OTC, index of cumulative morbidity, length of exposure to polypharmacy and the number of days of hospital stay among hospitalized patients.Methodology:A study was performed in Pharmacies „Eufarm Edal“ Tuzla from 2010 to 2011. Polypharmacy was defined as using ≥ 3 drugs. The total study sample of 226 examiners were interviewed with special constructed questionnaires about DRPs. Experimental study group consisted of hospital patients with polypharmacy (n=166) and control group hospital patients without polypharmacy (n=60). Mann-Whitney test was used to test for significant self-reported symptom differences between groups and cross sectional subgroups, t- test and χ2- test for age, gender and treatment data in hospital.Results:The prevalence of polypharmacy was 74% among 226 hospitalized patients. The vulnerable age subgroup of hospitalized patients was men and hospitalized patients aged from 46 to 50 years (not geriatric patients). The prevalence of index of cumulative morbidity was 65%. The most common exposures varied by patient age and by hospital type, with various antibiotics, antidepressants, analgesics, sedatives, antihypertensives, flixotide, ranitidine and others. The prevalence of exposure to OTC and self- treatment was 80%. The prevalence of symptoms of drug-related problems were significantly differed among patients of experimental in relationship of control study group patients (P<0.001).Conclusion:In addition to helping to resolve the above mentioned issues, the results from this study could provide baseline information quantifying the problem of drug- related problems among hospitalized patients receiving polypharmacy and contribute to the formulation and implementation of risk management strategies for pharmacists and physicians in primary care health.

Background The world is facing an unprecedented outbreak affecting all aspects of human lives which is caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Due to the virus novelty, healthcare systems are challenged by a high rate of patients and the shortage of medical products. To address an increased need for essential medical products, national authorities, worldwide, made various legislative concessions. This has led to essential medical products being produced by automotive, textile and other companies from various industries and approved under the emergency use authorizations or legal concessions of national regulatory bodies. This paper presents a narrative commentary of the available documentation on emergency use authorizations and legal concessions for medical products during COVID-19 pandemic. Methodology The basis for narrative commentary includes scientific articles published in Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed and Embase databases, official publications of international organizations: Food and Drug Agency (FDA), World Health Organisation (WHO), World Bank and United Nations (UN), and national regulatory agency reports in native languages (English, German, Bosnian, and Croatian) published from November 1, 2019 to May 1, 2020. This paper focuses on three types of essential medical products: mechanical ventilators, personal protective equipment (PPE) and diagnostic tests. Evidence-informed commentary of available data and potential identified risks of emergency use authorizations and legal concessions is presented. Discussion It is recognized that now more than ever, raising global awareness and knowledge about the importance of respecting the essential requirements is needed to guarantee the appropriate quality, performance and safety of medical products, especially during outbreak situation, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Emergency use authorizations for production, import and approval of medical products should be strictly specified and clearly targeted from case to case and should not be general or universal for all medical products, because all of them are associated with different risk level. Conclusion Presented considerations and experiences should be taken as a guide for all possible future outbreak situations to prevent improvised reactions of national regulatory bodies.

Introduction: Pharmacovigilance is an arm of patient care. No one wants to harm patients, but unfortunately any medicine will sometimes do just this. Underreporting of adverse drug reactions by healthcare professionals is a major problem in many countries. In order to determine whether our pharmacovigilance system could be improved, and identify reasons for under-reporting, a study to investigate the role of health care professionals in adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting was performed.Methods: A pretested questionnaire comprising of 20 questions was designed for assessment of knowledge, perceptions, practice and barriers toward ADR reporting on a random sample of 1000 healthcare professionals in Bosnia and Herzegovina.Results: Of the 1000 respondents, 870 (87%) completed the questionnaire. The survey showed that 62.9% health care professionals would report ADR to the Agency for Medicinal Products and Medical Device of Bosnia and Herzegovina (ALMBIH). Most of surveyed respondents has a positive perception towards ADR reporting, and believes that this is part of their professional and legal obligation, and they also recognize the importance of reporting adverse drug reactions. Only small percent (15.4%) of surveyed health care professionals reported adverse drug reaction.Conclusions: The knowledge of ADRs and how to report them is inadequate among health care professionals. Perception toward ADR reporting was positive, but it is not reflected in the actual practice of ADRs, probably because of little experience and knowledge regarding pharmacovigilance. Interventions such as education and training, focusing on the aims of pharmacovigilance, completing the ADR form and clarifying the reporting criteria are strongly recommended.

The toxicity of some drug combinations may sometimes be synergistic and be greater than the sum of the risks of toxicity of either agent used alone. In order to recognize and to prevent ADRs (including drug interactions), good communication between pharmacist and patient and/or physicians and patient is crucial, and prescribers should develop an effective therapeutic partnership with the patient and with fellow health professionals.