The prevalence of Alzheimer's disease (AD) has increased with the fast growing of aging population, thereby posing great challenges to provision of care for AD patients. Pharmacists play a vital role in the management of AD; this includes recognizing early symptoms of AD, providing medication counseling to AD patients and their caretakers, and identifying potential adverse drug reactions. A comprehensive understanding of the disease progression, as well as the pharmacological therapy, is essential to provide effective care to AD patients. The level of knowledge about AD among the pharmacists, however, remains unknown. Hence, this study aimed to assess the knowledge on AD among the pharmacists in public hospitals and health clinics and its correlates. A clear picture of the characteristics associated with different levels of knowledge could facilitate the targeted re-training of pharmacists. The 30-item validated Alzheimer disease knowledge scale (ADKS) tool was pilot-tested and used in this cross-sectional study. All pharmacists, from nine public hospitals and seven public health clinics in the State of Selangor, Malaysia, were invited to participate in this cross-sectional survey. The ADKS score was computed and compared across demographics characteristics. A total of 445 pharmacists responded to the survey. These pharmacists had a moderate overall score in ADKS; nevertheless, high scores were recorded in the domains of treatment management and care giving. No difference in AD knowledge was found among pharmacists worked in public hospitals and health clinics, except for the domain of care giving (p = 0.033). Ethnicity and age group were independent predictors of ADKS score in the current study. The pharmacists in the current study had moderate AD knowledge. On-going education and training programme on AD, in particular the domains other than treatment management and care giving, should be provided to the pharmacists to ensure delivery of quality care to AD patients.

No abstract

Recent clinical trials have shown that while bivalirudin exhibits similar efficacy with heparin, it offers several advantages over heparin, such as a better safety profile. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of bivalirudin use during Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) in the treatment of angina and acute coronary syndrome (ACS). We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, and Science Direct from January 1980 to January 2016. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing bivalirudin to heparin during the course of PCI in patients with angina or ACS were included. Outcome measures included all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, revascularisation, stent thrombosis, stroke, and major bleeding. The selection, quality assessment, and data extraction of the included trials were done independently by four authors, and disagreements were resolved by consensus. Pooled relative risk (RR) estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. A total of 12 RCTs involving 44,088 subjects were included. Bivalirudin appeared to be non-superior compared to heparin in reducing all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, revascularisation, and stroke. Bivalirudin appeared to be related to a higher risk of stent thrombosis when compared to heparin plus provisional use of a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor (GPI) at day 30 (RR 1.94 [1.16, 3.24] p < 0.01). Overall, bivalirudin-based regimens present a lesser risk of major bleeding (RR 0.56 [0.44–0.71] p < 0.001), and Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) major bleeding (RR 0.56 [0.43–0.73]) compared with heparin-based regimens either with provisional or routine use of a GPI. However, the magnitude of TIMI major bleeding effect varied greatly (p < 0.001), depending on whether a GPI was provisionally used (RR 0.42 [0.34–0.52] p < 0.001) or routinely used (RR 0.60 [0.43 –0.83] p < 0.001), in the heparin arm. This meta-analysis demonstrated that bivalirudin is associated with a lower risk of major bleeding, but a higher risk of stent thrombosis compared to heparin.

No abstract