COVID-19 has affected all aspects of human life so far. From the outset of the pandemic, preventing the spread of COVID-19 through the observance of health protocols, especially the use of sanitizers and disinfectants was given more attention. Despite the effectiveness of disinfection chemicals in controlling and preventing COVID-19, there are critical concerns about their adverse effects on human health. This study aims to assess the health effects of sanitizers and disinfectants on a global scale. A total of 91,056 participants from 154 countries participated in this cross-sectional study. Information on the use of sanitizers and disinfectants and health was collected using an electronic questionnaire, which was translated into 26 languages via web-based platforms. The findings of this study suggest that detergents, alcohol-based substances, and chlorinated compounds emerged as the most prevalent chemical agents compared to other sanitizers and disinfectants examined. Most frequently reported health issues include skin effects and respiratory effects. The Chi-square test showed a significant association between chlorinated compounds (sodium hypochlorite and per-chlorine) with all possible health effects under investigation (p-value <0.001). Examination of risk factors based on multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that alcohols and alcohols-based materials were associated with skin effects (OR, 1.98; 95%CI, 1.87–2.09), per-chlorine was associated with eye effects (OR, 1.83; 95%CI, 1.74–1.93), and highly likely with itching and throat irritation (OR, 2.00; 95%CI, 1.90–2.11). Furthermore, formaldehyde was associated with a higher prevalence of neurological effects (OR, 2.17; 95%CI, 1.92–2.44). Furthermore, formaldehyde was associated with a higher prevalence of neurological effects (OR, 2.17; 95%CI, 1.92–2.44). The use of sodium hypochlorite and per-chlorine also had a high chance of having respiratory effects. The findings of the current study suggest that health authorities need to implement more awareness programs about the side effects of using sanitizers and disinfectants during viral epidemics especially when they are used or overused.

Objective: According to the World Health Organization (WHO), chest diseases are among the 10 diseases that cause the highest mortality worldwide. Drug-related problems (DRPs), readmission, and antimicrobial resistance are critical problems in chest disease wards. Active involvement of clinical pharmacists (CPs) who are focused on reducing the risks of potential problems is needed. The aim of this study is to investigate the effects of pharmaceutical care (PC) services on the pulmonology service.Method: A randomized controlled trial at a university hospital in Istanbul was conducted between June 2020 and December 2021. The participants were randomized into the control group (CG) and intervention group (IG). In the CG, CPs identified and classified the DRPs according to Pharmaceutical Care Network Europe v9.0 (PCNE) and provided solutions to DRPs for the IG. The effect of PC services was evaluated by the number and classification of DRPs, and readmissions within 30 days were compared between the two groups.Results: Out of 168 patients, 82 were assigned to the IG. The average number of medicines administered per patient in the CG and IG was 14.45 ± 7.59 and 15.5 ± 6.18, respectively. In the CG and IG, the numbers of patients with DRPs were 62 and 46, respectively. The total number of DRPs was 160 for CG and 76 for IG. A statistically significant difference was found in favor of the IG, in terms of the number of patients with DRPs, the total number of DRPs, and readmission within 30 days (p < 0.05).Conclusion: In this study, CP recommendations were highly accepted by the healthcare team. Pharmaceutical care services provided by CPs would decrease possible DRPs and led to positive therapeutic outcomes. Cognitive clinical pharmacy services have beneficial effects on health care, and these services should be expanded in all settings where patients and pharmacists are present.

Introduction: One of the most intriguing situations for healthcare providers is cancer therapy. Drug-drug interactions (DDIs) account for 20–30% of all adverse effects. Cancer patients are more likely to have potential-DDIs since they are taking other drugs with anticancer treatments to prevent the side effects of chemotherapeutic agents. The purpose of this research is to compare various decision support software (CDSS) programs in terms of potential DDIs. Methods: A cross-sectional study was carried out. A clinical pharmacist assessed the treatment regimens of 231 cancer patients. pDDIs were evaluated using three sources: Lexicomp®, Medscape®, and Micromedex®. The ethical approval was given in November 2017 with decision number 21/286. Results: A total of 231 participants who were receiving therapy and had a median age of 61.5 ± 9.18 years were assessed. Almost half of the patients (49%) were female, and 155 had at least one comorbidity in addition to cancer. Medscape had a substantial pDDI ratio of 7.09%, Micromedex had a ratio of 11.15%, and Lexicomp had a ratio of 19.50%. The total number of pDDIs for major/X/contraindicated were 363–2716 (1.56–11.7 pDDI/patient) for Medscape®, 60–1723 (0.26–7.4 pDDI/patient) for Micromedex, and 145–984 (0.62–2.24 pDDI/patient) for Lexicomp®. One of the most common pDDI found was diclofenac and dexamethasone. Interactions between escitalopram and granisetron were also common, and different CDSSs made different recommendations. Conclusions: In this study, significant disparities in the quantity and severity of CDSS across distinct CDSS were discovered. One of the major finding of our study was suboptimal prescribing. To address this issue, regulatory organizations should establish and verify validation and reporting mechanisms.

Diabetes is a chronic disease with increasing prevalence. There is growing evidence pharmacist can contribute to clinical outcomes. This study aims to evaluate contribution of pharmacist to prediabetes and diabetes care. A Prospective cohort study designed to evaluate the effects of pharmacist intervention on prediabetes (pDG) and type II diabetes mellitus (DMG) patients. The pharmacist conducted a detailed medication review and structured patient education during the first visit, followed by an evaluation of the interventions at the second visit (after 90 days). The effects were assessed by comparing fasting plasma glucose, HbA1c, the homeostasis model assessment-estimated insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), lipid profile, BMI, waist circumference, illness perception, and diabetes knowledge. Diabetes and preDiabetes knowledge was measured using the Diabetes and preDiabetes Knowledge Measurement Questionnaire (DKMQ and PKMQ), and illness perception with the Illness Perception Questionnaire-Revised (IPQ-R) The effect of pharmacist on diabetes care was assessed with a pre-post intervention comparison. The statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. A total of 145 (79 diabetes and 66 prediabetes) patients were included. The mean age of pDG and DMG were 45.79 ± 1.40 and 49.24 ± 1.08 years respectively. A statistically significant improvement was observed in weight, waist circumference, blood glucose, cholesterol, HbA1c, and HOMA-IR levels when comparing pre- and post-pharmacist intervention over the 90-day interval (p < 0.05). Statistically difference was observed in DKMQ, PKMQ and IPQ-R scores among the pDG and DMG (p < 0.001). Pharmaceutical care services provided to diabetes patients had positive effects on disease prognosis, knowledge levels and disease perceptions. Patients with HbA1c level higher than 9% had the greatest benefit from pharmacist interventions.