Surgical site infections are among the most prevalent and costly healthcare-associated infections, resulting in poor patient outcomes and even death. Cefazolin is a first-generation cephalosporin antibiotic that is widely used for surgical prophylaxis in a variety of surgical disciplines. Although previous studies showed that cefazolin is effective in preventing surgical site infections, other agents, such as cefuroxime and ceftriaxone, were used excessively for surgical patients. The present analysis included only clinical trials comparing the efficacy of cefazolin to cefuroxime, ceftriaxone, and cefamandole in lowering SSIs using PubMed, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Review Manager software (RevMan version 5.4) was used to conduct the meta-analyses. A total of 12,446 patients were included in the study. Among these patients, 6327 patients received cefazolin and 6119 patients received cefamandole, cefuroxime, or ceftriaxone. Our analysis showed that cefazolin is as effective as cefuroxime, cefamandole, and ceftriaxone in preventing surgical site infections. Hence, our findings have provided evidence for the use of cefazolin before surgeries because of its efficacy, as previous studies showed that it is inexpensive and safer than other agents.

The world is facing a continuous increase in medical costs. Due to the surge in disease prevalence, medical science is becoming more sensitive to the economic impact of medications and drug therapies. This brings about the importance of pharmacoeconomics, which is concerned with the effective use of health resources to optimize the efficiency and costs of medications of treatment for the best outcomes. This review was conducted to find out the potential barriers and facilitators to implementing pharmacoeconomic studies in the Middle Eastern region having both high- and low-income countries. The varying economies in the region depict diverse healthcare systems where implementation of pharmacoeconomics faces a large number of challenges and is also aided by numerous facilitators that contribute to the growth of its implementation. In this context, we have reviewed the status of pharmacoeconomics in Middle Eastern countries in research databases (Google Scholar, MEDLINE, Science Direct and Scopus) using keywords (“pharmacoeconomics”, “barriers”, “facilitators”, “Middle East”). The study reported that Yemen, Syria, Palestine, Iran, Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon are the lowest-income countries in the Middle East and the implementation of pharmacoeconomics is the poorest in these states. The UAE, Saudi Arabia and Israel are high-income rich states where economic aspects were comparatively better but still a large number of barriers hinder the way to its effective implementation. These include the absence of national governing bodies, the lack of data on the effectiveness of medications, the absence of sufficient pharmacoeconomic experts and the lack of awareness of the importance of pharmacoeconomics. The main facilitators were the availability of pharmacoeconomic guidelines, the encouragement of pharmacoeconomic experts and the promotion of group discussions and collaborations between researchers and policymakers. Cost-benefit analysis is still evolving in Middle Eastern countries, and there is a great need for improvement so that states can effectively benefit from cost analysis tools and utilize their health resources. In this regard, governments should develop national governing bodies to evaluate, implement pharmacoeconomics at the local and state levels and bring about innovation in the field through further research and development incorporating all sectors of pharmacy and pharmaceutics. The data presented in this research can further be extended in future studies to cover the various domains of pharmacoeconomics including cost-minimization analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis and cost-benefit analysis and their applications within the healthcare sectors of Middle Eastern countries.

Vaccines are considered to be the most beneficial means for combating the COVID-19 pandemic. Although vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 have demonstrated excellent safety profiles in clinical trials, real-world surveillance of post-vaccination side effects is an impetus. The study investigates the short-term side effects following the administration of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines in Saudi Arabia. A cross-sectional quantitative study was conducted among the general population with age ≥ 18 years, from five regions (Central, Northern, Eastern, Southern, and Western Regions) of Saudi Arabia for a period of 6 months (July to December 2021). A self-administered study instrument was used to record the side effects among the COVID-19 vaccine recipients. Of the total 398 participants (males: 59%), 56.3% received Pfizer and 43.7% were vaccinated with AstraZeneca. Only 22.6% of respondents received the second dose of the COVID-19 vaccines. The most commonly reported side effects were pain at the injection site (85.2%), fatigue (61.8%), bone or joint pain (54.0%), and fever (42.5%). The average side effects score was 3.4 ± 2.2. Females, young people, and Oxford-AstraZeneca recipients had a higher proportion of side effects. The Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine recipients complained more about fever (p < 0.001), bone and joint pain (p < 0.001), fatigue (p < 0.001), loss of appetite (p = 0.001), headache (p = 0.008), and drowsiness (p = 0.003). The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccinees had more pain and swelling at the injection site (p = 0.001), and sexual disturbance (p = 0.019). The study participants also reported some rare symptoms (<10%) including heaviness, sleep disturbance, fainting, blurred vision, palpitations, osteomalacia, and inability to concentrate. This study revealed that both Pfizer-BioNTech and Oxford-AstraZeneca administration was associated with mild to moderate, transient, short-lived side effects. These symptoms corroborate the results of phase 3 clinical trials of these vaccines. The results could be used to inform people about the likelihood of side effects based on their demographics and the type of vaccine administered. The study reported some rare symptoms that require further validation through more pharmacovigilance or qualitative studies.

Households’ economic burden associated with chronic non-communicable diseases (NCDs) is a deterrent to healthcare access, adversely impacting patients’ health. Therefore, we investigated the extent of out-of-pocket (OOP) spending among individuals diagnosed with chronic NCDs among household members in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Face-to-face interviews were conducted among households in Riyadh Province from the beginning of January 2021 to the end of June 2021. The respondents were asked to record OOP spending throughout the past three months in their health. A generalized linear regression model was used to determine the effects of several factors on the level of OOP spending. A total of 39.6% of the households studied had at least one member with a chronic NCD. Diabetes patients spent an average of SAR 932 (USD 248), hypertension patients SAR 606 (USD 162), and hypothyroid patients SAR 402 (USD 107). It was shown that households with older and more educated members had greater OOP spending. Households with an employed head of household, more family members, higher SES status, health insurance coverage, and urban residency had significantly higher OOP expenditure. The burden of OOP spending for chronic NCD households remains high, with some disparities. The research offers important information for decision making to lower OOP cost among NCD households.

Telepharmacy is a technology-based service that provides promoted services such as counseling, medication administration and compounding, drug therapy monitoring, and prescription review. It is unclear whether hospital pharmacists possess the necessary knowledge, attitudes, and willingness to practice telepharmacy. The current study sought to investigate Saudi Arabian hospital pharmacists’ understanding, attitudes, and level of preparedness for telepharmacy services. A total of 411 pharmacists responded to the survey. Only 43.33% of the respondents agreed that telepharmacy is available in Saudi Arabia and 36.67% of the respondents agreed that patients in rural areas can have more medication access and information via telepharmacy. Only 29.33% of pharmacists agreed that telepharmacy improves patient medication adherence, and about 34.00% of the pharmacists agreed that telepharmacy saves patients money and time by eliminating the need for them to travel to healthcare facilities. This research found that hospital pharmacists were unsure of their level of knowledge, their attitude toward telepharmacy, and their willingness to incorporate it into their future pharmacy practices. To ensure that tomorrow’s pharmacists have the skills they need to provide telepharmacy services, telepharmacy practice models must be incorporated into the educational programs that prepare them.