Introduction Polypharmacy is prevalent among cancer patients; however, its relationship with comorbidities as well as its other potential factors has not been well studied among this segment of the patient population. Although several studies have described the prevalence of polypharmacy in cancer patients, its prevalence among Middle Eastern cancer patients is largely unknown. Therefore, the aim of this study is to assess the prevalence of polypharmacy among ambulatory cancer patients as well as its association with comorbidities. Methods A cross-sectional study using patients’ electronic health records was conducted among ambulatory cancer patients aged ≥ 18 years in a tertiary care hospital. Polypharmacy was defined as the cumulative use of five or more medications. The main outcome was to assess the factors related to polypharmacy among ambulatory cancer patients which was evaluated using a multivariable binary logistic regression model. Results A total of 383 ambulatory cancer patients were included. Of these, approximately 79% had polypharmacy. Polypharmacy was more likely among patients with hypertension (AOR = 3.24; 95% CI: 1.41–7.42), diabetes (AOR = 3.33; 95% CI: 1.39–7.98), asthma (AOR = 8.64; 95% CI: 1.64–45.54), and anxiety (AOR = 3.61; 95% CI: 1.72–7.57). Conclusions Polypharmacy is highly prevalent in the Saudi Arabian oncology patients, especially in those with comorbidities like hypertension, diabetes, anxiety and asthma. Because polypharmacy mostly goes hand in hand with comorbidities, therefore, a multidisciplinary team approach of oncology pharmacist working with other healthcare providers to manage polypharmacy and simplify drug regimens for cancer patients is warranted to optimize the healthcare quality and improve drug safety.
Background: Saudi Arabia expedited the approval of some COVID-19 vaccines and launched mass vaccination campaigns. The aim of this study was to describe the demographics of vaccinated COVID-19 cases and compare the mortality rates of COVID-19 cases who were infected post-vaccination in Saudi Arabia. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study. We retrieved data for COVID-19 cases who were infected pre- or post-vaccination and had received at least one injection of the Oxford–AstraZeneca or Pfizer–BioNTech vaccine from 4 December 2020 to 15 October 2021. Results: The number of patients who were infected and had received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine was 281,744. Approximately 45% of subjects were infected post-vaccination, and 75% of subjects had received the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccine. Only 0.342% of the patients who were infected post-vaccination died, and 447 patients were admitted to ICUs. Most of the patients who were infected with COVID-19 post-vaccination and were admitted to ICUs (69.84%) had received only one dose of the vaccine (p < 0.0001). The mean time to infection for patients who had received one and two doses of the Oxford–AstraZeneca vaccine were 27 and 8 days longer than their counterparts who had received one and two doses of Pfizer–BioNTech vaccine, respectively. No difference in the odds of mortality between the Pfizer–BioNTech and Oxford–AstraZeneca vaccines was found (OR = 1.121, 95% CI = [0.907–1.386], p-value = 0.291). Patients who had received two doses of the vaccine had significantly lower odds of mortality compared to those who had received one dose (p < 0.0001). Conclusions: Vaccines are vital in combating the COVID-19 pandemic. The results of this study show no difference between the Pfizer–BioNTech and Oxford–AstraZeneca vaccines in the rate of mortality. However, the number of vaccine doses was significantly associated with a lower risk of mortality. Future studies should examine the effectiveness of different COVID-19 vaccines using real-world data and more robust designs.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.