Objective: This systematic review aims to investigate the role and responsibilities of pharmacists in prevention of medication errors. Also to evaluate pharmacist-centered strategies that has an impact in medication error reduction and prevention. Method: A search was conducted through the following databases PubMed Central, Scopus, Trip, Prospero, Medline and Google Scholar using terms related to “medication errors prevention” or “pharmacist-related errors”. Other search terms included “pharmacis t(s)”, “prevention”, “medication error (s)”, “dispensing error (s)”, “drug incidence (s)”, “medication malpractice (s)”. Included studies were prospective and retrospective cohort, case-control and cross-sectional full-text studies published in the last 10 years (2010-2020). The review team screened the articles for inclusion criteria and evaluated the quality of the articles. The PRISMA Guidelines were used to report the selected articles and screening process. Then, the articles was sent to a third independent reviewer for quality assessment using the STROBE Checklist. Results: A clinical pharmacist’s duties are to supervise the medication treatment of admitted patients and to notify the healthcare team when a discrepancy is found. A total of seven reviewed studies highlighted the importance and positive impact of increasing the number of the clinical pharmacist’s interventions. Literature showed that average of 64.9% of medication discrepancies happen during patient discharge, highlighting the necessity of a clinical pharmacist intervention at that stage. The systematic review focused on the significant impact of clinical pharmacist role in preventing errors (studies reported=5); encouraging pharmacist-led education to increase medication error awareness (studies reported =5), incorporating better and innovative pharmacy-related work approaches (studies reported =4); and implementing appropriate and secured policies for medication error reporting (studies reported =1). The screened literature highlighted the significant reduction in the number of medication errors and an increase in medication error identification and awareness. These findings suggest the crucial role of pharmacist in healthcare policies for the prevention of medication errors and patient safety. Conclusion: This systematic review suggests multiple pharmacist-centered strategies that have been implemented in several studies showing the positive impact in the reduction and prevention of medication errors commenced by not only the pharmacist but the rest of the healthcare team.

Objective The objective was to compare the efficacy of azithromycin and clarithromycin in combination with beta-lactams to treat community-acquired pneumonia among hospitalized adults. Methods Five databases (PubMed, Google Scholar, Trip, Medline, and Clinical Key) were searched to identify randomized clinical trials with patients exposed to azithromycin or clarithromycin in combination with a beta-lactam. All articles were critically reviewed for inclusion in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Results Seven clinical trials were included. The treatment success rate for azithromycin–beta-lactam after 10 to 14 days was 87.55% and that for clarithromycin–beta-lactam after 5 to 7 days of therapy was 75.42%. Streptococcus pneumoniae was commonly found in macrolide groups, with 130 and 80 isolates in the clarithromycin-based and azithromycin-based groups, respectively. The length of hospital stay was an average of 8.45 days for patients receiving a beta-lactam–azithromycin combination and 7.25 days with a beta-lactam–clarithromycin combination. Conclusion Macrolide inter-class differences were noted, with a higher clinical success rate for azithromycin-based combinations. However, a shorter length of hospital stay was achieved with a clarithromycin–beta-lactam regimen. Thus, a macrolide combined with a beta-lactam should be chosen using susceptibility data from the treating facility.

Background: Pneumonia is an acute infection of the lung parenchyma that is differentiated among three main diagnoses: community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP), and healthcare-associated pneumonia (HCAP). Though CAP is initially presented as a mild infection, it contributes to childhood mortality rates globally. A vast number of pathogens are the cause of CAP, but the two main causative organisms include Streptococcus pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenzae, with the former causing up to 50% of all childhood cases. Current treatment guidelines from the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), amoxicillin is the recommended treatment choice for mild-to-moderate CAP while ampicillin is recommended for cases of severe CAP. Previous studies compared treatment between macrolides and beta-lactams to provide more information on the effectiveness in the pediatric population. Objective: The objective of this article is to systematically review literature on comparative efficacy of beta-lactams and macrolides in the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia among children and to evaluate the outcomes that are used to determine drug efficacy in order to provide medication recommendations. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, TRIP, Cochrane and SCOPUS. Cohort studies and randomized controlled trials between the years 2000 and 2020 that compared the efficacy of amoxicillin and macrolides in treating pediatric pneumonia are included in the systematic review Eligible patients included patients who were 17 years and younger, diagnosed with community-acquired pneumonia, and were given beta-lactams or macrolides, either as monotherapy or combination. Two reviewers were involved in the appraisal process to assess the quality of the methods used in the selected studies. Results: A total of six articles were eligible according to the inclusion criteria and quality assessment. Four articles compared beta-lactam monotherapy with beta-lactam and macrolide combination therapy, while Kogan R, et al. compared macrolide therapy monotherapy with beta-lactam and macrolide combination therapy and Leyenaar JK et al. compared ceftriaxone monotherapy to ceftriaxone plus macrolide combination therapy. The studies defined treatment failure as either a change in antibiotic therapy or hospital admission within 14 days of CAP diagnosis. Three studies used length of hospital stay as their primary outcome for comparison of treatment efficacy. Four studies showed that the use of macrolides provided better treatment outcomes by reducing hospital stay and treatment failure rates. Beta-lactam and macrolide combination therapy did not show a significant effect on treatment failure compared to beta-lactam monotherapy regimens and it did not affect mortality compared to placebo or diet alone. Within the macrolide class, azithromycin was more clinically significant compared to erythromycin. Conclusion: The use of macrolidesas monotherapy or add-on therapy to beta-lactams is more effective in the treatment of community acquired pneumonia in the pediatric population.

Purpose This meta-analysis aims to evaluate inappropriate antibiotic prescribing in the Gulf region and determine the effect of pharmacist-led antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programmes on reducing inappropriateness. Method Articles were searched, analysed, and quality assessed through the risk of bias (ROB) quality assessment tool to select articles with a low level of bias. In step 1, 515 articles were searched, in step 2, 2360 articles were searched, and ultimately 32 articles were included by critical analysis. Statistical analysis used to determine risk ratio and standard mean differences were calculated using Review manager 5.4; 95% confidence intervals were calculated using the fixed-effect model. The I 2 statistic assessed heterogeneity. In statistical heterogeneity, subgroup and sensitivity analyses, a random effect model was performed. The α threshold was 0.05. The primary outcome was inappropriateness in antibiotic prescribing in the Gulf region and reduction of inappropriateness through AMS. Result Detailed review and analysis of 18 studies of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing in the Gulf region showed the risk of inappropriateness was 43 669/100 846=43.3% (pooled RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.30 to 1.32). Test with overall effect was 58.87; in the second step 28 AMS programmes led by pharmacists showed reduced inappropriateness in AMS with pharmacist versus pre-AMS without pharmacist (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.39). Conclusion Inappropriate antibiotic prescribing in the Gulf region is alarming and needs to be addressed through pharmacist-led AMS programmes.